It feels crazy to me that there's no proper accountability for it.

"Let's make training profitable" + every other decision on the software side = 346 dead people. Those deaths weren't an accident, they were a result of Boeing's desire for perpetual growth at any cost, and to try and beat Airbus at their game. No one except the families of the victims will suffer from that. But go ahead and carry a bag of weed and be prepared to spend your life in the system.

Maybe it's time we rethink how limited liability works; and we get rid of this notion that corporations are beyond reproach (and they are, because the fines cost less than the profits).

Sadly it's not a feature of Boeing, but a feature of unchecked capitalism.

I think all of us here remember the setup for the Wall Street crash in 1929. That was influenced heavily by unchecked capitalism, along with the pressure of WW1 going on in Europe and other world events.

One of the responses was to restrict capitalism (it became fettered vs. unfettered at the point). And it was a good one, one that has seemingly been forgotten or ignored.

Unfettered capitalism, through history, is a net loss for society. But the more we deregulate and seek profit at any cost, the more we re-align with that old view.

In this instance, Boeing seems to be ok with the death of ~350 people.

So I’m a leftist. So I sympathize with what you are saying. But you have to be careful using the term “capitalism”. It’s a highly overloaded term. For example I’ve come to realize that libertarians use the term quite differently from leftists. So if you use the term in mixed company you will find a lot of confusion results. It can be helpful to use other terminology which is less confusing. For example, Marxist economist Richard Wolff describes “capitalism” as the mode of production where a small elite own and control the means of production, inevitably shifting the focus of production to satisfy the needs of that small elite (endless growth being one). But libertarians describe “capitalism” as free economic exchange through markets. Richard Wolff was recently in a debate with a prominent libertarian and the man agreed with Wolff on almost everything. And Wolff is not opposed to markets, he’s opposed to elite control of the means of production.

So it’s best not to use “capitalism” in the leftist sense and expect people to understand you. I also think there is a very serious and legitimate concern over the power of the state. The US state killed the leader of the Black Panthers, for example. We need regulatory control in the hands of the people. You may do well to study leftist critiques of the state. Mikhail Bakunun was active at the same time as Marx and was a critic of Marxism. Bakunin famously said in 1873:

When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called "the People's Stick"

Anarchist here, used to identify as a communist. I'd argue that both of your "capitalism" definitions can be pointed to as potential causes of the 737 fiasco, but that the latter ("free economic exchange through markets") seems more in line with what GP was wanting to, err, correct; I read GP as wanting more regulation for airplanes, which is antithetical to free exchange. I feel like the market itself will correct for these problems on a long enough time scale -- if people value the lives of their families enough they'll stop buying tickets for flights on planes made by this clearly inept entity, and if they don't value the lives of their families that much then that's another tradeoff they're free to make. (Yes, some people are too poor to exercise choice between options of varying cost, but that's a problem with poverty rather than choice -- regulating single engine Cessnas out of existence won't mean that radically impoverished people have access to better planes, it will just take away their freedom to bet their lives on flying in the first place.)

> your "capitalism" definitions can be pointed to as potential causes of the 737 fiasco

For capitalism to work as intended, there has to be "perfect information", i.e., no lying and everyone knows what they're paying for. This is obviously a practical impossibility: companies and people lie, and most consumers buy things without fully researching or knowing what it is that they're getting.

One purpose of regulation is to improve the situation. If the FAA certifies a plane as safe, then consumers can rely on that certification and don't need to do their own safety research. They still don't have "perfect information", but it's a lot better than without it.

Good regulation is not "antithetical" to capitalism, it is often necessary for it.

>For capitalism to work as intended, there has to be "perfect information", i.e., no lying and everyone knows what they're paying for. This is obviously a practical impossibility: companies and people lie, and most consumers buy things without fully researching or knowing what it is that they're getting.

And of course advertising, a nefarious tool to lead people to make decisions which otherwise they would have not.

> For capitalism to work as intended, there has to be "perfect information",

If you assume that capitalism is intended to work not in the way sought by the people who drove the move to capitalism but instead according to idealized economic theories much younger than capitalism, sure.

> If you assume that capitalism is intended to work not in the way sought by the people who drove the move to capitalism but instead according to idealized economic theories much younger than capitalism, sure.

I actually agree with you. Much of the foundation of capitalism was based on flawed assumptions ("perfect information" being a major one). Huge amounts of abuse were allowed to be perpetuated as a result, and it's fair to call into question the legitimacy of the entire enterprise.

That said, there are good ideas in capitalism, and we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

> Much of the foundation of capitalism was based on flawed assumptions ("perfect information" being a major one)

Perfect information isn't part of the foundation of capitalism.

It's part of rational choice theory, which didn't exist until long ashtray capitalism. (There are arguments for capitalism rooted in rational choice theory, but those are retroactive justifications not the foundation of the system.)

> Huge amounts of abuse were allowed to be perpetuated as a resul

The abuse predates the theory “justifying” it, the theory isn't the cause of the abuse. Capitalism historically wasn't grounded in theory, it was grounded in the opportunism of the mercantile class under late feudalism leverage wealth, power, and the opportunities created by new technology to rearrange society so that the mercantile class (the subset that became the capitalist class) could displace the economic (and also political) power for the feudal nobility.

Intended by whom?

I claimed that regulation is antithetical to free exchange -- if you restrict me from trading something then I am not free to trade it, and if you don't restrict me then the thing is unregulated. I consider this statement a tautology. I don't know what you mean by "good regulation" and "capitalism", but I'll stand by my original phrasing.

> I claimed that regulation is antithetical to free exchange -- if you restrict me from trading something then I am not free to trade it

Not quite. If you buy something without knowing what you're getting, that's not free trade. An airline selling a ticket on an unsafe plane but calling it safe is fraud, and fraud is not free trade.

A "perfect" regulation would only limit fraudulent trade, but allow all other types of trade.

However, because we don't live in a perfect world, regulation will inevitably limit some legitimate trade as well as fraudulent trade. A "good" regulation is one that limits enough fraudulent trade to more than compensate for the legitimate trade that it inhibits.

> Not quite. If you buy something without knowing what you're getting, that's not free trade.

As a matter of language, I disagree. If I want to bet that the man offering me a lottery ticket is accurately conveying the odds, and you don't want to let me make that decision because you just overheard him discussing the fraud he was about to commit against me, physically stopping us from making that exchange by use of force is a restriction of my freedom to make that bad decision. We can agree or disagree about the desirability of that, but linguistically it seems pretty clear to me that this is a restriction of free exchange. Even when I supported such a use of government force I could recognise that.

> If I want to bet that the man offering me a lottery ticket is accurately conveying the odds, and you don't want to let me make that decision because you just overheard him discussing the fraud he was about to commit against me, physically stopping us from making that exchange by use of force is a restriction of my freedom to make that bad decision.

If someone wants to sell your friend a lottery ticket, and you know with certainty that the seller has no intention of paying out a winner, this is not free exchange. It's just a lie and simple fraud. Furthermore, as a friend, you should probably at least try to intervene. The same is true of government (or any authority).

Making a fraudulent trade is not "free exchange", legally, morally, or linguistically.

I would try to intervene with language, but not violence. I would appreciate and expect the same from my friends -- there are people in my life I've discussed very similar hypotheticals with. None of that has to do with whether or not physical interference would constitute a cessation of free exchange; forget legality and morality, just think about the definitions of the words we're using.

In any situation where you are using violence to stop two people from exchanging physical objects, you're interfering with free exchange. If you actually disagree with this, I would like a term which refers to the concept I'm trying to discuss. I'd suggest that you're referring to something more specific like "well informed free trade" or "information symmetric free trade".

Who said anything about violence? No one should try to stop fraud with violence, except in extreme circumstances. The answer to fraud is to simply repay the person who was defrauded... someone who bought a fake lottery ticket should just get their money back, there is no need to resort to violence.

You seem be assume that "free exchange" simply means no one is physically stopping you from making a trade. That isn't what free exchange means. Free exchange means that two consenting parties trade known goods without undue influence. If someone puts a gun to your head to buy something, that isn't free exchange. If someone sells you a fake lottery ticket passing it off as real, that isn't free exchange. If someone sells you something they don't actually own, that isn't free exchange.

How do you intended to enforce regulations without violence? Without violence, your regulations are merely suggestions which I am free to ignore. I'm fine with suggestions.

Again, if you can't agree with my use of words then please provide a term you find suitable for the concept I'm trying to convey. I provided two terms I find suitable for the concept you're trying to convey, but you've provided me none despite an explicit request. To me, when somebody refuses to find common language it seems like they're using language as a barrier rather than a bridge. To disagree on a definition can be understandable, but refusing to provide any alternative looks like rhetoric rather than a legitimate attempt at mutual understanding. What do you call unrestricted exchange of items between individuals regardless of differences in knowledge or legal ownership? I want a term that will clearly convey this concept to you, and others who are using language in a similar manner. [Edit: how would you feel about "unrestricted object swapping" or "unrestricted barter"?]

> If someone puts a gun to your head to buy something, that isn't free exchange.

I don't think I've said anything that would suggest this example is a free exchange, but the other two which don't involve coercion through threats of force I will stand behind (as free exchange, not necessarily as nice things to do to people).

You're commenting on a common libertarian rhetorical excess that's ancillary to the point being discussed: If something can be ultimately done by force, it is equivalent to violence.

Meaning, when you get a parking ticket, that's state-sanctioned violence, because ultimately some non-consentual means could be applied to force you to turn over the money. Taxes are violence by the same argument, and, I presume, regulation of a lottery. (Someone might be sent to prison).

Democracy (and variants) is obviously in conflict with "long enough time scale", as in anything highly motivating the electorate will choose to compel a legislative alternative to free market outcomes. The not so subtle difference between a legislated outcome and a free market one, is the former is the sovereign, and near as I can tell not a single country's founding ideas/documents specify an economic system.

Forgive me for not caring what my genocidal people decree about which laws govern this land our "sovereign" (over whom?) ancestors stole, but yes, there is certainly disagreement between democracy and evolution. And with strange aeons, even democracy may evolve.

Unless you live in Mogadishu you are not an anarchist. In any real sense.

  the pressure of WW1 going on in Europe

In 1929?

Because in feudalism and before, or more recently in socialism - where I grew up - nobody ever took shortcuts, for selfish reasons or to please someone or to fulfill some goal (set by some boss or by the "central committee", does not matter) and everybody only thought of the greater good?

Many times when there is discussion about issues like the environment there is such a comment blaming capitalism. I can assure you from my own personal live experience and from having seen huge changes after reunification, in capitalism-free East Germany the environment was orders of magnitude worse off than in capitalist West Germany. Don't blame human behaviors on capitalism/socialism/whatever.

Precisely. People generally do as the system rewards them. If you live in a society of good opportunities and strong law enforcement, people have no incentive to steal, and will probably mostly not do so. If punishment for rape is lax, and/or the culture does not strongly censor it, then sexual crimes will abound. Etc.

And of course, in neoliberal growth capitalism, the pursuit of perpetual growth will mean that some very stupid things are going to be done because they please the system: planned obsolescence, burning unsold clothes to keep the brand valuable, etc. They would mine the earth dry if it would make them a penny in their quarterly reports.

> unchecked capitalism

Airplane manufacturing has lots of problems. But it’s a highly regulated industry. “Unchecked capitalism” is a bad description.

Well, yes the airplane industry is highly regulated. But the endless pursuit of growth is a feature of unchecked capitalism. And my understanding is that there has been more “self regulation” attitudes in the airline industry in recent years. So it makes sense that you would begin to see features typical of unregulated capitalism in an industry that is relaxing regulation.

Regulation doesn’t mean it would be safer, just more bureaucratic. There are plenty of examples in the US of regulators failing to properly regulate like in Flint. Adding these regulations often benefits the capitalists more, as it raises the barrier of entry for smaller competitors and makes the market less competitive in the long run.

I think what they meant was making training less costly for their customers. It's a lost opportunity, when pilots train instead of sitting behind the wheel/stick flying goods or customers around the world.