I literally never seen anybody say this outside of left wing people online complaining about people supposedly saying it like it's an epidemic.
If the only takeaway that the Democrats have from the 2024 election is that they lost because of racism and sexism then they're cooked.
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.
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.
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.
They also nationalized other sectors. They were actually quite centrist economically.
That's a lot of important context