Boeing Needs To Repair Its Transparency Problem

Yesterday Boeing’s stock dropped about $25 in price. Over the last few months its stock has dropped from a high of about $444 to about $367 per share. I am looking at a chart which why I am giving general numbers. Investors are not happy with the company’s performance in dealing with the 737 Max fiasco, but they seem to recognize that Boeing will eventually do the right thing.

The May 5th Wall Street Journal reported that Boeing knew about the problem a year before the October 737 crash in Indonesia. Not only did Boeing know about the problem, but it gave “some airlines and pilots partial and inconsistent explanation.” This appears problematic, and it is, resulting in the drop in stock price, but this is part of the mechanism that ensures that big business does the right thing. Management cares about stock value. They will do was is necessary to repair negative events.

I am not worried about collusion between Boeing and the FAA. When I was a manager for the Quality department at Boeing Portland, I worked directly with the FAA. It was a professional relationship, but one needed to ensure we were able demonstrate our ability to do what we had told the FAA we were going to do when manufacturing airplane parts. Let me explain.

When an airplane goes through the design phase and then the build phase there are three certificates that are critical. The FAA is the agency in the United States that awards the three certificates to the airframe manufacturer. The first certificate is the Type Certificate. This certificate is the result of the company submitting an airplane design to the FAA and then the FAA determines that this design is safe to build prototypes for additional testing. This is an extensive process, and the process must be followed to ensure the planes will be airworthy.

The second certificate associated with building airframes is the Production Certificate. This certificate is awarded to a manufacturer when they have demonstrated that its production processes produce consistently high quality product. This means the design submitted to the FAA will be produced correctly. It is also awarded when the production process demonstrates that is meets the Codes of Federal Regulations. These codes require airplane manufacturers to have mechanisms in place to control manufacturing plans, engineering drawings, measurement equipment, and non-conforming material. The manufacturer then provides procedures to the FAA that describes how the manufacturing processes meet the CFR requirements. The FAA then visits various facilities of the manufacturer to determine is what the company really does matches what it said it does. I dealt with the FAA when they came to the Portland plant to audit us for compliance.

The third certificate the manufacturer deals with is the airworthiness certificate. Each airplane delivered to a customer must have an airworthiness certificate. After the plane is manufactured it goes through various tests and is inspected by an FAA representative at a Boeing facility. This could be an actual FAA employee or a Boeing employee certified by the FAA to represent the FAA. If all of the tests are good, all non-conforming material issues dealt with, and documentation complete, the airplane gets the airworthiness certificate and can be flown to its customer.

The process worked well when I worked there, and I am assuming it still does. However, the FAA was struggling a bit, and mind you this was twelve years ago, with understanding new technology. There was talk they did not have the needed expertise. I am sure they took the steps to up their skills, but I can’t say. I also cannot say that Boeing and the FAA was in cahoots to get the Max approved quicker that it should have. I really have a hard time believing that. I don’t believe that anyone at Boeing wants to put unsafe product in the air. I also cannot believe that the FAA would short cut the certification process.

However, here we are, and Boeing needs to repair its relationship with its customers. This will take some time, but its current CEO, it will be interesting to see how long he lasts, Dennis Muilenburg “said the company was focused on safety and the plane maker would look for ways to improve how it develops airplanes.” Knowing what I know about Boeing culture I believe this will happen. However, I think the company needs to work on its communication with its customers.

First, if Boeing did know about the problem with MCAs and different sensors a year before it came to light with the crashes, and told no one, then shame on them. The company needs to be more proactive with the Advanced Directive (AD) process. This will help the company restore some of its reputation. Second, it needs to be completely honest with issues, if there are some, at various locations. Union employees came forward saying there were production issues in the South Carolina. That particular plant mainly builds the 787, the 737 is built in Renton, Washington. However, if there are problems at any facility the company needs to address them quickly. Last, the company needs to spend a lot of time talking to their customers. But, talk is cheap. They need to talk and demonstrate through actions that it can be trusted.

Boeing and Airbus, the competitor, sell the majority of commercial airplanes. China is building a plane similar to the 737, Fokker, a Dutch airplane manufacturer, and Bombardier, a Canadian manufacturer, typically build small planes. With two main players, every order is highly contested. The stakes are extremely high, therefore cultivating strong relationships are critical for Boeing’s success. The company needs to work hard to repair its relationship with its customers. In the old days Boeing could get away with treating its customers badly. It is a new day, and customers have somewhere else to go. It is time for Boeing to do what it needs to do to stay number one. Oh, and make sure I keep getting my pension checks.

And that is my thought for the day.

Hickenlooper’s Plan To Create State Capitalism

When I was younger growing up in California I was what you would call a hippie. I had long hair and round glasses. I wanted to be John Lennon. My parents were Democrats, and my first political awakening was Robert Kennedy, so when I was old enough to vote I registered as a Democrat. Over the years as I engaged politically, I became disillusioned, and have over the last few years reengaged as an Independent. I experimented with Libertarianism, but it really wasn’t me, so I have settled on being a center right Independent. I feel pretty good with this assessment of my political leanings.

Economically I am a Capitalist. I believe in a Free Market system based the private ownership of the means of production. However, I am a realist, and as a Christian, I recognize how the nature of humankind leads to all kinds of horrible decisions, such as exploitation and greed. Government then has a role to play in the market. I see this role as one of being a referee. I don’t see government as being the owner of the means of production, and I don’t see our economic system as state Capitalism, but I do see an important role for government in ensuring that the playing field is level, and people have the same opportunities. I don’t believe in equal outcomes though. There is value to meritocracy, and I do see incentive as critical, but I don’t think that the elites should have the ability to influence social systems for their benefit.

This preamble sets the stage for my comments on John Hickenlooper’s editorial today in the Wall Street Journal. His, “I’m Running to Save Capitalism,” article caught my attention, and after reading it twice, once again demonstrated to me why I am concerned about all of the Democratic candidates for President.

Hickenlooper starts his article with “American capitalism is at risk.” My first thought as I read this was, who in their right mind would want to change our economic system to one like Venezuela? I don’t think politicians from either party want to do that, but I also am cynical enough to realize that politicians from both sides only care only about power. Give the people free things and they will be elected. But, in all fairness “dramatic income inequality” is an issue. Hickenlooper’s article then describes how he intends to save Capitalism, in my opinion, he intends to change it into a state-owned Capitalist system.

I agree with his comment how neither of the two sides, massive government growth and uncontrolled deregulation, “recognize the realities of our situation,” but I am also concerned about several of his so-called solutions. As a loyal Democrat he needs to attempt to dismiss the current economic growth, and then demonstrate how our government savior can come in and adjust the system to be fair, “just like it has done in the past.” Don’t get me wrong, income inequality and health care are critical issues that need to be addressed, I am just not too sure our current political environment will allow a realistic solution.

His first recommendation for saving Capitalism is to make obtaining the necessary skills to thrive in the economy more affordable. Then he comes back with the common Democratic response, “making community college “free for those who can’t afford it.” He also adds, “expand apprenticeships and skills training programs dramatically.” I totally agree with the second half, but I don’t think government should be the driver on this. I think business should take the lead. I do think government has a role to play, but it is not to be the primary banker. I do think that government could give business tax breaks for educational and apprenticeship activities. This is what incentive is all about.

His next part of the solution is earned-income tax credit and raise the minimum wage to $15. According to the Wall Street Journal $15 an hour represents almost 70% of the median U.S. hourly wage. “A value of 50% or 60% of median pay is in line with the international average among rich economies and with the U.S. historical average during the 1960s and 1970s.” I would agree with raising the minimum wage, but we do need to be careful with raising it too much. The WSJ quoted Arindrajit Dube, a labor economist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, as stating, “setting a minimum wage at 100% of the median wage would have a big impact on jobs because it would compress the entire bottom half of the labor market at one wage.” As we see in France, Portugal, and others higher minimum wages result in higher youth unemployment. I would agree with the need to raise the minimum raise, but I do think it should be connected to cost of living.

Hickenlooper’s next part of his solution sounds like Warren. Government needs to “protect the heart of capitalism – competition.” This sounds really good, and in principle I agree with it, but what level of increased regulation does this mean? He argues that the Clayton Act needs to be restored to its original focus. This seems reasonable, but once again can we trust government to have our best interests in mind, or will big business lobbying lead to greater cronyism? My lack of trust for both Republicans and Democrats will not help me in this matter, nor with the healthcare discussion.

I do think the healthcare system does need to be reformed. This is the one place I agree with Hickenlooper: “I reject the idea we can improve healthcare by turning it entirely over to the government.” However, I do like my Medicare with my supplement. I think some level of compromise that reduces costs and “establishes potability” would be good. I also agree with the author in principle when he discusses taxing the extreme wealthy. Even Warren Buffet agrees. What worries me though is we have finally reduced business taxes to be on par with the rest of the world, will the Democrats increase taxes not just on the wealthy, but businesses as well. This will stifle our current economic expansion. Hickenlooper claims to want to protect small businesses, but once again my cynicism rears its ugly head.

The Democrats always look for revenue increases to fund wonderful programs that never do what they say they will do. But, I agree with Hickenlooper when he says “Capital-gains reform would also allow Americans to pour their money into what is needed: skills and education.” But, I am not too sure I agree with him that the amount raised through this tax will be the $2.4 Trillion windfall he says it is supposed to be.

His last point is something I agree with whole heartedly. I am amazed at how the Republicans have given up on this last point. “Finally, the U.S. should expand free trade rather than adopt a protectionist crouch.” It does seem that in the past we have given away the farm to benefit other countries and not our country. So, his comment intrigues me, “my policy would extend fair trade that benefits Americans.” He gives a couple of examples regarding green-house emissions and intellectual property, which I think are good.

Hickenlooper ends with, “The 2020 election will decide if capitalism flourishes in America. I am a small-business man, and yes, a capitalist. But today American capitalism is broken. We have to fix it before it is too late.” I agree with this in principle, but I disagree that the Democrats are the only one with a solution. I think I suffer from what Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff call distorted thinking and vindictive protectiveness. I see the Democrats and Republicans as both proposing singular theses and antitheses. Each are incomplete in themselves, ones that do not represent the total needs of our country. Hickenlooper is trying to portray himself as a compromise ideology that is nothing more than a sanctified Democratic platform of very large government and a deep state. In fact, I think he is proposing a state capitalism.

Now the person I am interested in is Howard Shultz. “I wanna see the American people win. I wanna see America win. I don’t care if you’re a Democrat, Independent, Libertarian, or Republican. Bring me your ideas.” Shultz grew up in the projects of Brooklyn and became the first person in his family to graduate from college. He has run a very successful business, Starbucks, and I think he is someone who could find compromise between the extremes. This is a very initiatory viewpoint that I am sure will change as we go along.

As I said earlier, I am a center-right independent. None of the current crop of Democratic candidates float my boat. I am not a Trumpian, I think he is too volatile. He needs to stay off of the Twitter. I don’t want someone telling me that they are a Capitalist and then work to dismantle it. I am all for fighting crony capitalism, but I am not too sure there is a Democrat that can accomplish what needs to be done.

In my opinion this is what needs to be done. Our politicians need to leave business taxes alone. Corporate tax is on par with the rest of the world, don’t hamstring our businesses with high taxation and more regulation. Second, increase taxes on the super wealthy. It appears the wealthy have no problem with that, so let’s do it. Third, create strong apprenticeship programs with tax incentives for business. Millions of jobs are not being filled due to a gap between needed skills and labor force skills. I think this could be a combination of business and government funded programs. Fourth, government should have a competing healthcare option. This option should compete with private market programs. I also think business should receive tax incentives to provide insurance for employees. This could offset the cost to small and midsized companies.

Obviously, I am not an expert, but if our politicians really cared about people and not power, they would find the solutions needed to create a better healthcare and immigration system (I didn’t talk about that because Hickenlooper didn’t). Because I am suffering from vindictive protectionism, I don’t think it will happen.

And that is my thought for the day!

When Liberation Theology And Christian Nationalism Become Another Gospel

Now that I am retired I have found that my body can only handle so much golf. Today was one of those days where my back just got tired. After playing golf five days in a row I have learned a lesson. I need to take a day off in the middle of the week because it will help me play better. Another activity, on the positive side, I have found rewarding is reading. I think I read a fair amount before I retired, but now I seem to be reading a bit more. One of the more negative activities that have been a part of my new routine is Twitter and Facebook. Of course, I only allow myself a certain amount of screen time, which does help with my sanity.

The other day I saw a post mentioning how May 2 was the anniversary of the death of Athanasius of Alexandria. Unless you study Church history, you probably wouldn’t know who he was. He was a theologian, a Coptic Christian, and the protagonist in the drama surrounding Arius. The Arian heresy is similar to what the Jehovah’s Witnesses teach today.

According to the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology Arius was a North African priest who developed some heretical views concerning the nature of Christ. Arius felt, “since God was immutable and unknowable, Christ had to be a created being, made out of nothing by God.” Arius was a competent communicator and had convinced many that his views were correct. However, Athanasius stood his ground and disputed the heretical views of Arius. There is an apocryphal story of how someone stated to Athanasius, “the whole world is against you Athanasius,” he responded, “no, it is Athanasius against the world.”

As I thought about what I knew about Athanasius I pondered the heresies of today and where the champions of the church are? I also contemplated what Paul told the Galatians in chapter one of the epistle of the same name. “I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. As we said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1: 6-8).

In this age of tolerance, and how people are saying, “oh I have learned so much from this religion about love and peace,” or how Islam is a religion of peace, and we need to have interfaith activities. I wonder how Paul would have handled this?

The Galatians passage tells me there are different gospels, the Greek means another of a different kind, and if someone is preaching those gospels, Paul says let them be accursed. Barnes notes makes an interesting statement about the meaning of this word. “The object of Paul is to express the greatest possible abhorrence of any other doctrine than that which he had himself preached. So great was his detestation of it, that says Luther, he casteth out very flames of fire, and his zeal is so fervent that he beginneth almost to curse the angels.” Pretty strong words.

I am not too sure we in the Church today understand the seriousness of the gospel and the judgment of God. If Paul is using strong words to express this reality, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, then we should pay attention. There is the ability to preach another gospel, in fact, there are many other gospels, and we need to be aware. When I was a very new Christian someone told me that the devil will give you 90% truth and 10% error. I think that is true, and I think there are many in the Church that have embraced this 90% truth and 10%! There are two popular beliefs in the Church today that I want to focus on, and identify them as another gospel. The first is Liberation Theology, and the second is Christian Nationalism.

Liberation Theology is a mix of Marxist ideology and Christianity. Liberation Theology, according to Mark Galli, is “a political theology that interprets the teachings of Jesus Christ in terms of liberation from unjust economic, political, and social conditions.” I know several people who adhere to this particular gospel, and I have always been a little concerned about the Marxist element associated with the theology. As the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology states, “Liberation Theologians contend their continent (Latin America) has been victimized by colonialism, imperialism, and multinational corporations. Economic developmentalism has placed so-called underdeveloped third-world nations in a situation of dependence, resulting in the local economies of Latin America being controlled by decisions made in New York, Houston, or London.”

To the Liberation Theologian “theology is not a system of timeless truths, engaging the theologian in the repetitious process of systematization and apologetic argumentation. Theology is a dynamic, ongoing exercise involving contemporary insights into knowledge (epistemology), man (anthropology), and history (social analysis).” Truth is evolutionary and “comes out of a given historical situation through personal participation in the Latin American class struggle for a new socialist society.” Although these quotes discuss Latin America, there are many in the United States that embrace Liberation Theology.

I think there are several key components that will help us identify this ideology as heresy. Leonardo Boff states, “Jesus secularizes the means of salvation, making the sacrament of the other a determining element for entry into the kingdom of God.” Enrique Dussel said, “The poor are the epiphany of the Kingdom or of the infinite exteriority of God.” And according to the Evangelical Dictionary, “We are forced to understand God from within history mediated through the lives of oppressed human beings. God is not recognized analogically in creations beauty and power, but dialectally in the creatures suffering and despair.”

I am not a big Ron Sider proponent, but he does help us to see the heresy and strength of Liberation Theology. “God is on the side of the poor and oppressed” (Sider). One would be a fool to dismiss this as heretical, because scripture is clear that God cares for the poor. Sider does do a good job of warning us about the concerns of this statement. Sider states that God does not intend for people to give up material wealth and seek poverty. Also, he states that the poor are just as much a sinner as the rich. Just because one is poor does not give them a place in the kingdom of God. Another problematic element is that God cares more about the salvation of the poor than the rich. Sider notes that the poor do not have a special claim on salvation. The last, and probably most critical, is “that knowing God is nothing more than seeking justice for the poor and oppressed.”

Liberation Theology’s emphasis on the poor and oppressed is commendable. However, it becomes another gospel, another of a different kind of gospel, when it deemphasizes the primacy of Jesus Christ replacing it with care for the poor. Many churches today are rightfully focused on the poor and oppressed, attempting to bring relief to people who are in tragic situations. Those actions however, as altruistic as they are, do not relieve the most important aspect of history, who is Jesus Christ and what did He do on the cross. If we do these wonderful things for the poor, thinking that it saves us and them, but not tell them about sin and the need for salvation found in Jesus Christ, then we have not created disciples. I had a colleague tell me one time that our place of employment was not a church. At the time I said ok, I can accept that. But now I can’t, because each of us who are Christians are the Church. And as a result, we have a responsibility to tell people about Jesus. Ok, I’ve hit the left, now I want to go after the right.

Christian Nationalism is another gospel. It is insidious ideology based on an incorrect assumption of American exceptionalism in God’s economy. Contrary to what some people believe God did not replace Israel with America, we are just another kingdom that God has raised up, and if we are not careful will be taken down. To mix salvation with being an American is heretical. As Mark Galli states in this month’s Christianity Today, “To believe that America is a divinely chosen nation, to be privileged at the expense of other nations – that is idolatry.”

Christian Nationalism has been around for a long time, and expressed is many countries, not just the US. The phrase white supremacy was used in the past by Nazi Aryanism and in this country, the KKK. It has been used by adherents of identity politics as representing systemic racism in our culture. Galli defines the phrase identity politics as, “a tendency of people sharing a particular racial, religious, ethnic, social, or cultural identity to form exclusive political alliances, instead of engaging in traditional broad-based party politics, or promote their particular interests without regard for interests of a larger political group.” With the rise of identity politics there is an emergence of tribalism that is impacting the Church in a negative way. Christian Nationalism is an ideology that, in my estimation, has emerged because people in our country are afraid of the changes occurring around the nation.

I agree with Galli when he states that “Christian Nationalism comes in many forms.” I also agree with his statement that “it usually includes a fierce protection of national borders, a deep distrust of those who are not Christian or citizens, a belief in special divine favor for one’s homeland, an excessive dependence on military power, and an attraction to brutal authoritarian leaders.” The “another gospel” aspect of this is the use of the tools of the kingdom of man to propagate the kingdom of God. It has not, and does not work, it is another gospel.

I am of the conservative mindset, but I am also a Christian. I worry about combining my faith with any political ideology. The left part of the Church has connected itself with Liberation Theology and as such has lost its ability to lead people to Christ. Jesus becomes immaterial to the poor and oppressed. All the left has left is a universal salvation that allows for a watered-down sense of sin. The right has done just as poorly by aligning itself with Nimrod and a literal tower of Babel. I am not able to say it better than Galli, so I will close with a lengthy quote from his article. Describing the sin of Christian Nationalism Galli states, “their unrepentant hearts blind them to the desperate who knock on our nations doors to escape persecution, poverty, and drug wars at home! Their blindness prevents them from seeing that, except for angry terrorists, the vast majority of Muslim men and women seek to know the true God, and thus Christian Nationalists fail to see the opportunity to share with them the merciful love of Jesus.”

It is time for the Church to repent. In the past we were sitting in a tent, and when the camel of Marxism and Nationalism stuck its nose into the tent we did nothing to stop it. Eventually, the camel was in the tent up to its neck. Ultimately, the camel took other the tent and we are in the cold. The Church in the United States is in danger of losing its ability to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ because we have allowed other ideologies to overwhelm the true gospel. Paul warned Church leaders in Acts 20, starting in verse 28, “Therefore, take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock.”

I have been pondering this for quite a while. What do I think about current events in this country. How do I feel about Trumpism? The current expression of the Democratic party? Racism? Abortion? I am developing my own social theory and will share it as we go along. My biggest concern right now is the alignment of the Church with political ideologies. I think it is destructive and minimizes the ability of the Church to do its work.

And that is my thought for the day!