People don't buy planes for a 1-week turnaround; the plane orders being filled now- because obviously planes are being built all the time- came in year(s) ago, and those orders that would be coming in now had this WTC thing not happened will probably still come in- because those needing airplanes in 2 years won't realistically expect air travel will be slumped that long from now! Besides, Boeing has remade itself in the past few decades into as much a defense contractor as a commercial jet airliner manufacturer- they don't just make 7x7s anymore. Cutting 30% of their jet staff is almost like saying they expect NO new jet business.
Yep, it smells like a scam- one that will work, of course. CEOs and Boards of Directors can ALWAYS outlast people on 6 months' of unemployment, after which those people will agitate for the gov't to "do something" to get their jobs back, such as I don't know bail out Boeing et al so they can rehire those positions. No idea about that $12.5B "loan guarantee"- temporary tax payment delays or even cash bailouts for lost business, but "loan guarantee" is the kind of nebulous thing off which fortunes are made. Regardless, the airlines are slashing tens of thousands of jobs as well- after one week!! Bullshit, folks, absolute bullshit. Of course fewer people will fly in the weeks following a WTC- but they won't stay away forever, people still need to get places. Cutting all that staff, though, will do wonders for security and service at the check-in counter, in the departing gates, and on the planes themselves (where it seems we'll now have fewer staff to deal with the same cramped in passengers. Just beautiful).posted by hincandenza at 11:11 PM on September 18, 2001
Um... I'm no economist, but isn't a true capitalist system supposed to enshrine the notion that no individual [monopoly] or small group [cartel, oligopoly] should be able to control the market or dictate market forces? Isn't that part of the 'invisible hand'? So am I just way behind the Economics curve, or has this notion been abandoned not just in practice but in bookish theory as well? Because it would seem to my naive little mind that if there's so many interlocking directorates for so many different companies, then we don't have a free market any more. And you've still sidestepped the Golden- Parachutes- for- CEOs- and- BoDs- that- ran- a- company- into- the- ground- like- any- janitor- could- have- done issue.
But I still remember when Reagan took office and the Dow was under 1000. Corporations are building wealth.
Those two statements are non sequitors, no? Because raising the Dow average doesn't build wealth, it simply raises the Dow average- kinda like an IQ test doesn't test intelligence, it tests your ability to take IQ tests. And when Reagan took office, the Dow was around 800-100; when he left, it was what, 1500-1700? Ah, but how was the economy as a whole doing- because since 1929 and before 1989, there were other times when the economy was quite solid and productive, yet the Dow didn't even near 600! Tulip mania or not, if we're going to play the Dow average game as some kind of direct economic indicator of "building wealth", then it's not Reagan but Clinton you should be praising from the hilltops.posted by hincandenza at 11:29 AM on September 19, 2001
« Older Major League Baseball returned to the field last n... | Come To New York And Learn Abo... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt