That seems clear? Are you perhaps reading that as a literal command 'have faith in this process'? I believe their point is that you should have (or lose) faith in regulations as the constraint on industry, as opposed to companies which are viewed as having no restraint.
I don't entirely agree with that viewpoint, but they aren't saying anything inherently contradictory
I'm reading it as naivity. You trust companies when you see evidence you should, and you stop trusting them when you shouldn't. Trusting a regulatory process leads you to bad decisions.
The good news is that if the regulations haven't been stringent enough to protect people, we can always increase them and also hold regulators that fail to do their jobs accountable.
Nah there needs to be trust in engineering or review principles and leadership to do the right thing under ambiguity within a company above and beyond regulations. Codes and laws don’t move fast enough for innovation and invention. And take building codes for example, they keep homes safe but you can build a lemon of a house that passes inspection. It can also have terrible architectural layout. That doesn’t mean you need more codes or inspectors.
In highly regulated industries there’s a revolving door issue where private employees join government, write the specifications, then return to private industry at a higher level.
But yeah in this case I agree regulators and company controls should have a pause or mitigation plan before running at risk. Guess we’ll see over the next few days.
> You should never have faith in a company. You should have faith in the regulatory process that constrains that company.
I agree, but I think the need for this points to a pretty glaring level of brokenness in capitalism.
(I'm also assuming by your second "should" that there's an implicit "in an ideal world" prefix, since I really do not have much faith in the regulatory process that constrains Boeing.)
i dont think we have any examples of that working out. In a utopian world it would, but then again, in such a world, is it needed?
I think we need some much much stronger basic laws, like anti lying, anti fraud etc (but where crimes does NOT pay), and then POSSIBLY(not sure, havent thought that much about it) some form of mechanism to force companies to answer questions about their products/services/conduct
they have been doing fraud. but why wont you allow it to be done in a more proper way? its like when EU creates a law that specifies how fast you are allowed to vacuum clean your house. it is retarded. They put a cap on the power a vacuum cleaner can draw, in their infinite stupidity. How about instead, if you absolutely must, mandate efficiency? Their rationale is "if they make it efficient, then they dont need the power draw", so how about mandate the efficiency? but no, they dont.
Also, government oversight and involvement has ONLY gone up, and with it, corruption aswell. The more government you have, the more it will be corrupted. It is a natural law that you cannot deviate from. What we need is a very very small but razer sharp and enforced set of rules. If a company knowingly frauds, they must be punished so severely that it will make ALL board members crap their pants at the thought of even an accusation of fraud even being made. EVERYONE that can be proved to have been involved would be punished so severely they never see daylight again, except 10 seconds before the firing squad (which starts by aiming at the feet, and then work their way up).
I consider a company lying to be fraud. Boeing should be publicly stating what their quality controls and engineering standards are, and when someone then is found to act improperly, the punishment should come down with a force currently unthinkable.
what I dont want, is a giant "im here to help" government (that we already have) that will without question be corrupted and uglier than tolkiens orcs
