Serious consideration should be given to breaking a company up, competent people can restore the worthwhile pieces.
But governments prop up incompetence, including by trade barriers - read about the Chicken Tax’ result of US government taxing small trucks, which led to Japanese companies going upmarket.
Look at steel companies in the US - financially struggling, but an upstart showed how to make rebar then moved up to coiled strip and plate and structural steel: Nucor, now largest steelmaker in the US. And Brits and other European steel makers opened plants in the US.
But the US is blocking sale of the remaining old steel company, which had survived by concentrating on specialty steels requiring much expertise, to Japanese interests.
Enron was plain fraud.
Not a logical analogy for your theory.
It was the changing culture that lead to the fraud. The theory works.
Nope.
Quick ‘change of culture’, deliberate development of fraudulent accounting.
Nothing like Boeing.
Did GM get “bailed out”? I guess it depends on what you consider a “bailout”. A new company was formed that was owned by the US Government, the Canadian Government, and the UAW healthcare trust. The new company acquired the desirable assets of GM, including the name. The old GM, then Motors Liquidation Company, went bankrupt and had its shares cancelled. Shareholders lost everything. Bondholder lost up to 90%. A bit like the Smith family buying the Jones farm on the courthouse steps and leaving the “Jones Farm” sign in the yard and calling it a “Jones Farm Bailout”.
Elton, I understand—good point. The U.S. government called its help for GM a “bailout” because it saved thousands of jobs, stabilized the economy, and rescued a major American company during the 2008 financial crisis. Shareholders and bondholders took a hit, but the intervention kept the auto industry alive and allowed the government to recover much of its $50 billion investment. It sent a clear message that the government could act decisively during a crisis, even if it wasn’t a free pass for everyone involved.
What could happen next.
Boeing may face a similar scenario if its problems escalate. Boeing isn’t just about airplanes—it’s a linchpin of national defense and space exploration, making it vital to the economy. If things worsen, the government might be forced to intervene, as it did with GM. However, Boeing would likely face strict conditions—restructuring, leadership changes, and major operational shifts. The goal would be to prevent economic collapse, but shareholders could still suffer heavy losses, just like GM’s investors did.
Raf, A Boeing restructuring could follow a similar pattern, and I think any restructuring is likely to do so. It’s not the same situation though. GM et.al. were part of the much larger financial crisis. Absent that, they may simply let Lockheed, Bell, Textron, RTX, etc pick over the bones. We really need what Boeing does, I’m less sure we need Boeing. Too big to fail is too big. Sad to see how bad it’s gotten though.
Elton, spot on! “We really need what Boeing does…” sums it up perfectly.
The government wouldn’t be saving Boeing “the company” for its name or brand alone, but rather Boeing “the capabilities”—the tech and infrastructure that keep the U.S. dominant in aerospace and defense. That’s the real concern.
I read Wikipedia as saying there was money provided by government, before the bankruptcy.
This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.