@zapjb Not sure you got Kamal’s point. They DIDN’T PAY ANY TAXES, collectively, but got $4B+ in credits/rebates/handouts.

@fmb1 I’m really not sure why they would deserve a bail out? Look at a company like Volkswagen, that was dinged for falsifying emissions reports on their vehicles. They paid the price and they took swift, positive action to reassure the public. Today, a couple of years later, they are still a going concern and are still quite profitable. Maybe not quite the same problem as Boeing, but maybe yes - I believe part of Boeing’s problems were bad software in the airplanes and some sort of maintenance issues, and while Boeing’s leaders may have been conciliatory, they certainly didn’t take swift action to fix the problems because the problems continued until they stopped production the second time.

I think that the question we need to ask is if we understand what the bailout is supposed to accomplish? I’m not sure, quite frankly. I posited earlier that my (arrogant) opinion is that the bailout would be to keep Boeing’s employees off the unemployment line. Others might suggest that the bailout is to keep airplane production going (and I disagree and explained why in my previous post). Seriously - I don’t understand the goal of the bailout. Maybe fear that Boeing’s suppliers will fail if Boeing fails? If so, then shame on the suppliers who pinned the success of their business on a single customer. As a taxpayer, I am VERY reluctant to bail out businesses that make really bad business decisions, and, yes, I know the employees will suffer, but the bailouts have become selective based on random reasoning, and need to end. I don’t see newspapers getting bailed out, and I think the situations are parallel in that newpapers and Boeing both are seeing declining demand.

@yoregano Anyone get their Benjamin yet?

@fmb1 said in Official Political Discussion Thread:

@zerenia said in Official Political Discussion Thread:

@ganda said in Official Political Discussion Thread:

@kamal said in Official Political Discussion Thread:

All those stock buybacks, like Boeing’s 3 billion dollars worth last year, maybe they could try selling that stock they bought back before we give them money.

Over the last 8 years Boeing spent $43,000,000,000 buying back and cancelling its own stock, greatly enriching a few.

$43Bn is lot of lattes and avocado toast. Unlike you or me, if Boeing need to raise cash, they can just issue stock.

Assuming anyone would be interested in buying it. Likely right now that stock is not going to appreciate in value, so it would >have to be people looking long term and willing to risk that the company will continue to be viable for an extended period of time. >The stock might appreciate in the future, might throw off some dividends, but there’s also the chance that the company might >tank and never recover, especially if travelers develop a new habit of not wanting to be crammed into flying cattle cars breathing >each other’s disease-laden exhalations. Buying Boeing stock, to me, is not a good idea unless I’m looking to take a flyer (pun >intended). PLUS, if they do sell, then they have to spread out the profits across more shareholders, furthering the possibility that >the stock has less value than it does today.

At the risk of sounding like a complete numbskull, which I am concerning the stock market, ‘buy low, sell high’ is the only concept not way above my pay grade. But I would think they got some real cut-rate buy backs because of the 737 MAX debacle? And now with the bailout, won’t their stock just shoot up? OK, I can hear y’all snickering over the Internet, at least I didn’t pretend I knew what I was talking about. Oh, is this some more of that “too big to fail” BS?

So…

#1, not everyone knows everything about everything, including me, so you’re not a numbskull about this topic.

#2 - Buy low, sell high is OK, but not the only criteria for making a purchase. If you buy low on a crappy stock, you will lose your investment.

#3 - the point of Boeing issuing stock is so they don’t have to take the bailout, that is, they raise cash by selling stock so they don’t need a government handout. Therefore, if they don’t get bailed out and they sell stock to raise money, you’re betting that they will use the funds wisely and your stock will go up in value and/or you will get dividends. They will, unless something shady is going on, not issue stock and then buy the stock back with the money they got from issuing the stock, unless the stock really tanks after they issue it, and they you’re the loser in the whole set of transactions because now they have your money and they have their stock back as well. The Securities and Exchange Commission might smell a rat and take action.

#4 - If empty, or near empty, airplanes continue for any length of time, airlines are not going to place orders with Boeing (or any other airplane manufacturer for that matter) because they only would need airplanes to replace craft that have to be retired due to government regulations or that have unjustified ongoing maintenance costs, and not because they don’t have enough capacity for existing or growing customer demand. If Boeing’s business is not picking up, profits are not going up and it’s likely that the stock price will not go up as well.

#5 - I’m not sure I’d put Boeing on the “too big to fail” list, but others may disagree. At times, I think the too-big-to-fail moniker is placed on businesses that have a large workforce and we bail out those businesses not because they provide a valuable/indispensable product or service or their failure will cause vast economic dislocation, but because their huge employee base will end up on public assistance while scrounging for jobs with other employers in the same industry experiencing the same economic pressures, injecting fear and uncertainty into the marketplace.

Are you sorry you asked???

Caveat - these are all my own opinions and I’m not an expert. I do hold an MBA, but I am an information technology executive, not a finance professional.

– Z –

The problem with your situation is that you don’t have any assurance that this is the only action your employer will take. You could be asked to make further concessions at a later date. Based on the uncertainty around your situation, I’d consider taking time off using flex/vacation as long as you have a separate bank of time for sick leave. That way, if your employer institutes a mandatory pay cut, you’re not already in a deficit situation pay-wise. Besides, you can always take your vacation time if you get sick, right?

@ganda said in Official Political Discussion Thread:

@kamal said in Official Political Discussion Thread:

All those stock buybacks, like Boeing’s 3 billion dollars worth last year, maybe they could try selling that stock they bought back before we give them money.

Over the last 8 years Boeing spent $43,000,000,000 buying back and cancelling its own stock, greatly enriching a few.

$43Bn is lot of lattes and avocado toast. Unlike you or me, if Boeing need to raise cash, they can just issue stock.

Assuming anyone would be interested in buying it. Likely right now that stock is not going to appreciate in value, so it would have to be people looking long term and willing to risk that the company will continue to be viable for an extended period of time. The stock might appreciate in the future, might throw off some dividends, but there’s also the chance that the company might tank and never recover, especially if travelers develop a new habit of not wanting to be crammed into flying cattle cars breathing each other’s disease-laden exhalations. Buying Boeing stock, to me, is not a good idea unless I’m looking to take a flyer (pun intended). PLUS, if they do sell, then they have to spread out the profits across more shareholders, furthering the possibility that the stock has less value than it does today.

Macy’s closed all their physical locations, so you need at least a $25 order to get free shipping.

@fmb1 said in Official Political Discussion Thread:

@zerenia said in Official Political Discussion Thread:

@fmb1 said in Official Political Discussion Thread:

zapjb about 3 hours ago

Not trying to make anyone angry, just trying to keep the record straight. Whenever I see that quote mis-attributed to Einstein, I make a comment. There’s no evidence that Einstein defined insanity that way.

checkyourfact.com
quoteinvstigator

Sorry to interrupt – go back to your debate.

– Z –

Thank you, I gave you a +1. went back and removed the
accreditation. But I believe the quote has merit on it’s
own. Not really a debate, just standing my ground.

G’day

Agree that the quote does have great merit. People really get the meaning once they see/hear it.

– Z –