Truly a comical choice for a board member

It's an indictment of the capitalist system. There's supposed to be oversight that ensure our organizations are run by capable people. But you look at this board (and I'm sure a few others) and it's clear they are not worth the money they are paid. What is anyone even thinking, having a guy from Boeing there?

The board is also too big, and filled with irrelevant people. Four or five specialists who know the area, and one or two financial side people, that's all you need. Too many chefs = nobody's cooking, nobody is responsible.

> It's an indictment of the capitalist system.

Do you have any evidence, that any other system, has demonstrated historical immunity to this problem? Last I checked, the Soviet system put some awfully unqualified people in charge of nuclear plants, and we know how that went. Last I checked, China put some awfully unqualified people in charge of the housing market, and we know how that's going.

The correct response is that unqualified people in positions of power has plagued every social structure. Arguably, alternative systems have failed in this regard to even worse degrees, with far more catastrophic outcomes.

> Do you have any evidence, that any other system, has demonstrated historical immunity to this problem?

That's not the point though. Our current system seems to not work. If it worked, you would think a tech giant like Intel would be well managed.

That doesn't mean I think we should go the Soviet route, it means the current system needs to be fixed. How to fix it? I'm not too sure, the answer would probably take quite a deep dive into how the stock market works, governance, and so on.