What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Ed Anger]

LOCK HER UP

[alfred russel]

Boeing had $4.9B profit on $95B sales in 2016
Airbus had had €2.3B profit on €66B sales in 2016
Which seems likelier to be engaging in a "good approach?" 

Depends on the investments required to make suh profits.

Neither issued stock last year.

So neither one made any investments last year then?

I looked up Boeing. Check out its statement of cash flows on page 52 of the link. They spent $1.7b on non PP&E investments last year, and had proceeds of $1.2b from sales of non PP&E investments.

In total, and including PP&E and M&A activity, Boeing made net investments of $3.4b last year.

They also had $321m of proceeds from the issuance of stock to employees through stock option programs (ignoring the tax impact of the transactions).

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/12927/000001292717000006/a201612dec3110k.htm

[DGuller]

Boeing had $4.9B profit on $95B sales in 2016
Airbus had had €2.3B profit on €66B sales in 2016
Which seems likelier to be engaging in a "good approach?" 

Depends on the investments required to make suh profits.

Neither issued stock last year.

So neither one made any investments last year then?

Feel free to make a point with evidence when you have one.

Feel free to make a point, period.

[derspiess]

LOCK HER UP

You're doing it wrong.  Watch this:


LOCK HER UP

[Admiral Yi]

It's all in the forehead.

[CountDeMoney]

LOCK HER UP

You're doing it wrong.  Watch this:


LOCK HER UP

fucking niggerhating douchefuck
Go die in a tampon fire

[Syt]

Swamp the drain!

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/19/ivanka-trump-brand-china-trademarks-day-us-president-met-xi-jinping

Ivanka Trump brand secures China trademarks on day US president met Xi Jinping

[Ed Anger]

LOCK HER UP

You're doing it wrong.  Watch this:


LOCK HER UP

fucking niggerhating douchefuck
Go die in a tampon fire

What the hell....

SONOFABITCH.

ED SAD.

[Grinning_Colossus]

L'swamp est moi

[crazy canuck]

As for my anecdotal experience, I work in the corporate HQ of a similar multinational myself and mainly look at it from that perspective. The outsourcing we do doesn't actually seem to increase the flexibility of our operations and I wonder if we wouldn't be more flexible if we had internal workforce, but could shift it easier from project to project. It does of course reduce fixed costs, but as it isn't just temporary, it continously generates high variable costs and I wonder if the rise in communication and other transaction costs doesn't eat all of the advantages of using external workforce for stuff that is not just temporary.

In my experience, a number of companies are coming to that realization.  While contracting out makes the balance sheets look good in the short term, the loss of control (including quality control) and the rigidity of the contracts for those services can be more harmful in the long run.

[The Minsky Moment]

So, doing things that surprise you is a bad business approach because.... ?

Boeing had $4.9B profit on $95B sales in 2016
Airbus had had €2.3B profit on €66B sales in 2016
Which seems likelier to be engaging in a "good approach?"  The one with half the profit on two-thirds the sales?

Boeing is a more efficient and profitable company by design.  Airbus isn't structured as a profit maximizing business. It's origin is as a joint venture between European states, and although there is a substantial free float of stock, the governments of France and Germany, along with big national industrial concerns with close state ties dominate the company. Making money is still an objective but so is maintaining industrial facilities and employment in particular places.  Which is the better approach is open for debate.  The Airbus structure isn't great for shareholders looking for a return.  But what the state shareholders lose in dividends they may gain in higher levels of industrial employment.

[Zanza]

Boeing is a more efficient and profitable company by design.  Airbus isn't structured as a profit maximizing business. It's origin is as a joint venture between European states, and although there is a substantial free float of stock, the governments of France and Germany, along with big national industrial concerns with close state ties dominate the company. Making money is still an objective but so is maintaining industrial facilities and employment in particular places.  Which is the better approach is open for debate.  The Airbus structure isn't great for shareholders looking for a return.  But what the state shareholders lose in dividends they may gain in higher levels of industrial employment.

They have disvested a lot in recent years though, so Airbus is almost 75% free-float these days. However, together, Germany, France and Spain still hold a blocking minority in Airbus.

[CountDeMoney]

Fuck employment.  That's communism.

[Valmy]

Fuck employment.  That's communism.

I was reading that thinking that if Boeing tried to do that they would be hauled into court by their shareholders

[derspiess]

OMG SHAREHOLDERS