See, that's just cognitive dissonance. You start by saying it's only in theory, and when prompted with actual examples of this existing, you just shut your ears. I went as far as being honest on the particular points that were lacking, such as women/homosexual rights or climate/pollution regulation, but you're incapable of engaging with honest and reality-based analysis because it contradicts your absorbed anticommunist propaganda.

Health insurance, ISP, Oil Cos, and utilities should also be nationalized. The US is a weird place where everything is a business. A shithole capitalist hellscape

Nationalization is the opposite of privatization, it's how the US's bureaucratic state was really built, we should absolutely do this and right now is the time

The only reason SpaceX exists is because Boeing and Lockheed managed to compete so badly the only solution was to merge their launch businesses.

So we had one launch company, then spaceX made it two providers, now its back to one because B-mart is using antiquated launch systems (single use).

Arrest Musk on violation of controlled substances acts, file immigration violation charges, invalidate his ownership shares due to securities fraud, as he falsified education and naturalization forms.

Or just emminent domain the shit. The Law is just made up right now.

Health; education; energy production; food production & distribution; water; housing; mass transit and telecommunications should all be classified as essential services and nationalised.
Everything else can be whatever.

this isn't incorrect. ULA is a fucking pork barrel of hideous proportions. doesn't mean we shouldn't nationalize spacex.

I mean if they're utilities, we shouldn't let a board decide what should rightfully be in the hands of the voting public. Really they should welcome a stable (OK maybe not so stable in the US atm, but generally...) owner as the government.

Agreed. These are things that should be of the people.

No, they're fine remaining as private companies. If the government wants to better control over the companies then they can pass regulation and if they want total control then they can build their own alternatives. Nationalization of companies should never be used as a political weapon.

Marxist are genuinely dumb enough to understand why this would be an issue.

They also nationalized other sectors. They were actually quite centrist economically.

No, this is just pure ignorance. The US never nationalized any sector. The US has only used nationalization as a means to stabilize certain sectors from collapse temporarily, and even this happens very rarely.

Nationalization stable, growing industries would have devastating impacts on the economy. These companies are running just fine, and they're providing their services reliably and at competitive prices, what would be the justification to nationalize them? If the government feels like it needs more control on these companies they can pass regulations, and if they want total control then they should launch their own public alternatives.

.

Tankies live in alternate reality where they think that nationalization is extremely common and is a magical solution to all of societies problems... even though this view is entirely delusional.

For example, only 3 countries have nationalized the entire ISP industry, and those are Cuba, Turkmenistan, and North Korea. All three of which are horrid tyrannical dictatorships with horrible internet. We should NOT be like them. Even when it comes to health insurance, except for 3 countries I just mentioned, every single country allows private health insurance, even if their system is public. Clearly nationalization is not what you think it is.

Take the /s off the ruskies might believe you and run with it

These last few years they've had very little successes, but the point is it should stay competitive and not be automatically handed to these doofuses. Even the USSR maintained a competitive rocketry sector.

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.

Nah fuck the shareholders, if they do something we depend on and pay for it with tax dollars then we should own them.