91–95 of 95 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, obviously, they weren't planning on this outcome.
> they weren't planning on this outcome Unless they didn't plan at all (an answer I would not accept, or would advocate for prison terms if true), then they absolutely did plan for this outcome. Putting safety importance somewhere except the most important factor in manufacturing commercial passenger planes puts this exact outcome in the "planned" category.
Deciding to shift the needle from "safety" toward "economic feasibility" is very often the correct thing to do, and vice versa.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's your complaint? asteroid impacts are natural events too. I would like the government to try to avert those.
Natural monopoly is a technical term, it doesn't mean naturally occurring in the sense you're implying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>pro rata Yes. Yes you do. You set a minimum then fine below that minimum.
At that point you’ll need to go full Soviet. Seize resources and have the state deploy them. Because in no rational world would someone accept criminal liability on behalf of someone they do not control. So to stop a capital exodus, you’d need to seize the means of production (and incur the stasis that comes from centralising economic decision making among the political class). Would be pretty convenient for America…
How is this putting wall st first when they have tanked their rep and stock price
On a short term view. The problem is that keeping investors happy, it is keeping investors with a short term outlook happy. If anything more than two years is too long term to care about, then the best strategy is to take risks and hope it does not catch up with you before then.