> Shutting down a company results in people losing their jobs. No terrorists involved.

I'm always baffled by this unholy protection of "jobs".

Making asbestos essentially illegal resulted in tens of thousands of people losing their jobs and shutting down coal plants will do the same.

It makes no sense to protect jobs at all costs, and doing so can have very bad outcomes.

If a company is doing something illegal or dangerous or that does not serve society anymore, we shouldn't bend over backwards just because people will lose their jobs.

There is two aspects to a company : - one that benefits a few private people, mainly the share holders and high level manager/executives - one that benefits the society as a whole, mainly through the company production/services and the salaries of its employes

There is an option to punish the first aspect while limiting the damage on the second one : the nationalisation of the company, with limited compasation to its shareholder. Strangely it seems to only be done or considered to save "to big to fail" business, such as bank, in time of crisis, not as a tool of law enforcement.

> Shutting down a company results in people losing their jobs.

And ending murder and child victims results in people (investigators, litigators, counselors) losing their jobs. Should we stop trying to solve these problems too?

Spirit Aerosystem will soon no longer exist. but the assets and almost all the jobs will be divided between Boeing and Airbus. If Boeing were split up the result would be similar.