I mean companies can force him out by themselves if they’re pressured enough. Also all companies make unsuccessful business bets. What matters is that from a neutral third person point of view, these companies aren’t doing anything that they’re not supposed to be doing. They’re putting sectors of the American economy in danger of collapse, they’re not committing crimes left and right, and their services are satisfactory for most people.

Please do. I would very much not see a clown on my feed who accuses others of things they don’t even understand.

Are you sure you’re not on drugs? Because this is quite the unhinged rant

I don’t like Elon, fuck him. My point is that what you’re asking for is setting a precedent we never had. We’ve always had complimentary system between the private and public sectors, most countries are like this as well. Nationalizing companies without a genuine justification is going to cause shock waves throughout the economy. Why would investors spend capital in the country if the government can snatch up their business the moment they’re deemed important? If that’s the only thing needed to nationalize companies, what’s stopping idiots in government like Trump from just weaponizing it by nationalizing any company that competes with his own businesses, political opponents, or his crony friends? Not to mention, where is confidence that our incompetent government is going to manage these companies better than they can manage themselves? These are all really big questions.

There’s a reason why nationalization is left as a temporary last resort measure to rescue economic sectors from collapse. You could make an argument that this would apply for a publicly traded company like Boeing that’s quickly heading towards collapse. Considering how they’re only commercial plane manufacturer, that means they’re our entire industry. The company’s stability is a matter of national security. But SpaceX? None of this applies.

SpaceX is a private business that’s stable, reliable, and competitive. They’re doing exactly what they’re supposed to. It’s easy to say that we should just nationalize companies without thinking about the consequences. I’m in favor of things like universal healthcare, public transit systems, and more power to our research agencies. But these things have to come to fruition through stronger regulations and government alternatives, not nationalization. If there are cases where a company has to be nationalized and there are no alternatives, then they should be bought out.

I don’t think what I’m saying is controversial.

A strawman is when somebody mischaracterize an argument, calling someone a tankie is not that.

This is a very valid point. Nationalization essentially means transferring control of these companies to either Trump or congress as well giving them power to use nationalization as a tool. Not only are they horrendously incompetent but they’re also sure to weaponize it. I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump went on a spree nationalizing “liberal Democrat” companies or nationalizing companies that compete with his businesses.

I’m not smarter than everyone, but you are dumb enough to think Marxism and Fascism are economic opposites otherwise you wouldn’t have said what you did earlier.

Yes, that’s why no one in this entire thread suggested anything even remotely close to this. it’s stupid, and a stupid strawman.

The guy that I replied said that we should nationalize any company that receives tax dollars if we depend on it… Buts that case for virtually the entire economy. Everything is touch by our tax dollars and everything in our economy is intertwined. It is a ridiculous suggestion.

Nationalizing spaceX temporarily in order to restore confidence in it’s largest, most important customer, after that customer’s trust has been repeatedly violated by the executive and the board that keeps him in power, is NOT NATIONALIZING THE ENTIRE ECONOMY nor would it be untoward if Boeing or Lockheed’s CEO was dumb enough to engage in this bullshit.

The government doesn’t nationalize on the behalf of companies, it only temporarily nationalizes when to protect the American economy at large. For example, in 2008 the government took hold of a bunch of auto companies to prevent a collapse of this sector. This is not happening here for SpaceX so it doesn’t make sense to do it.

The thing is you would actually have a really good case to temporarily nationalize Boeing because it is basically our entire commercial plane manufacturing sector, and it’s quickly heading towards collapse. This is a case where it makes sense. Starlink and SpaceX don’t fall under this umbrella.

Nationalizing companies is not going to fix the accountability issue we have in the country. The same problems are going to happen, just under new management.

My point is that this can be and is often done without nationalizing entire sectors of the economy

It seems like you don’t know what that term means

Cuba is a shithole by every definition of the word. The only people in the world who think Cuba is decent are brainless Marxists online. Even Cubans don’t agree with your delusions.

This is a false dichotomy. We don’t have to accept either Nazis Marxists. Fuck them both, there other options out that are much better.

Most countries have public options for services and private alternatives as either competitors, backups, or complimentary pieces. It’s very rare for countries to completely nationalize sectors, and it’s especially rare for them to national that many sectors.

Gotcha. So fascism it is then. How’s that working out for y’all? Lmao

This is going to be shocking for you, but there’s more to politics than fascism and marxism

Your comment doesn’t make sense. You say the US never nationalized and in the next sentence you say that they have.

My point was that the US never nationalized any sector permanently for the sake of making it public. It also temporarily nationalized portions of some sectors to stabilize them before making them private again.

Yes

Yeah, we’re not going to nationalize the entire economy because that’s really stupid. Our tax dollars reach every nook and carny of the economy, but that’s fine. Tax dollars are meant to be used in a way that makes the country operate safely, smoothly, and reliably. A lot of this is done by putting the money back into the economy in the form of subsidies, welfare, wages, and government contracts. It’s fine for the government to pay a business to provide as long as the business is offering fair market prices and they’re delivering an acceptable product or service. The tax money that goes into such a business doesn’t just go to the shareholders, it also goes to everybody else as well.

That being said, shareholders can be scumbags, I’m with you there. If they are clearly conducting unethical behavior or illegal behavior then they should be immediately cut off. This includes things like delivering unacceptable products and services by cutting too many corners or committing fraud to take more tax money than they should or trying to scheme to monopolize and so on. These types of shareholders should’ve receive bailouts or awarded government contracts, they should be thrown in jail. But we shouldn’t nationalize the economy because some shareholders are crooks.

You’re conflating Musk with his companies. He might be the one who founded them, but these companies run themselves. This goes for Tesla, SpaceX, and Starlink. The leadership, research, production, and management are all handled by company employees.

But that’s besides the point, regardless of how you feel about Musk himself, there’s clearly a place for private companies in this area. NASA and other space agencies are not businesses, they’re research agencies. Their job is to expand scientific knowledge and innovate new technology. They can’t run a service like SpaceX, which btw doesn’t only serve the government by also other governments and the private sector. It’s better for them to just outsource shuttle launches entirely to the private sector which is why they’ve been doing it for decades. It just so happens that SpaceX provides this service at really good price reliably and safely, which makes them the best choice. It’s symbiotic relationship. It’s an ecosystem where one sector compliments the other.

This is a poor understanding of how the system works. SpaceX is company that provides a service. This service is open to anyone who wants to use it, but this happens to mostly be the government. The reason is because it’s services are cheap, safe, and reliable. SpaceX does what it does very well, and the government chooses their services because it’s economical.

NASA and other agencies provide a service, they’re not companies. They’re research agencies who’s job is to advance scientific knowledge and developed new technology. Their goal isn’t to create a sustainable business, but to conduct research that’s beyond the capacity of the private sector or individual researchers.

The public and private sector compliment each other. They do things that the other isn’t good at. It’s an ecosystem. Getting rid of one will cause the whole system to collapse… and that’s not a good thing.

This is such a childish take. The private and public sectors are not opposites and they don’t contradict each other. They serve different purposes in the economy, and they compliment each other quite well. It’s an ecosystem where one covers the gaps of the other. We need both.

Also, you’re focusing on the space agency of the most corrupt developed country in the world: the USA. Maybe compare the costs with those of the Chinese Space Agency?

NASA as well as the other American space agencies absolutely floor the global competition and it’s not even close. When it comes to China, they will always have cheaper prices because they are poorer country with a weaker currency, which means they’ll have a stronger purchasing power. In real terms, Chinese labor is much cheaper than American labor, Chinese materials are cheaper than American materials, Chinese manufacturing is cheaper than American manufacturing. China’s space expenditure is actually around as the US as percentage of GDP (both are around 0.5%), but China’s economy is smaller per capita and therefore they have a smaller budget to work with. This is why the US has the biggest, the most advanced, and the most flashy projects while China seems to be able to do a lot with less.