• Gorilladrums@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 hours ago

    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.

    • abbotsbury@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

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

  • Not a replicant@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    55 minutes ago

    And the international customers, what about them? The ground stations, POPs, and terminals in other countries, hmmmm?

  • postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 hours ago

    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.

  • Sunflier@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    47 minutes ago

    I think that’s a complicated question. It’s both yes and no. Yes, we should nationalize them. No, nationalizing them should not be by tRump. That sets the sets, or at least reinforces, thr concept that the architecture of industry can be nationalized as payback for petty political squabbling. They should be nationalized, however, because fElon has proven himself to be unstable, reckless, petty, and a risk to the nation.

    • pneumatron@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      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

      • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        Those are different to taking over private companies. The government should, imo, compete against private enterprise in those areas, in turn bringing prices down and making it better for the taxpayers.

        NASA is government owned. Look at the state of it. Do you think the government taking over SpaceX would really be a good thing?

      • Gorilladrums@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 hour ago

        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.

        • pneumatron@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          56 minutes ago

          Tankie your ass. You don’t have to have a shitty dictatorship to have nationalized services. Clearly you don’t know as much as you think you do.

          • Gorilladrums@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            31 minutes ago

            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.

    • turtlesareneat@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      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

      • Gorilladrums@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        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.

        • pneumatron@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          38 minutes ago

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

          Your comment doesn’t make sense. You say the US never nationalized and in the next sentence you say that they have. Remember after the 2008 collapse when the automotive industry was nationalized for a while and the government made a profit? Maybe you need to check your own ignorance.

          • Gorilladrums@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            33 minutes ago

            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.

  • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 hour ago

    That would literally be the worse thing that could happen with regards to them, because they only exist and thrived because they are private enterprise. If the government were capable of doing what those companies do and doing it well, SpaceX and Starlink wouldn’t exist in the first place.

    Can you even imagine just how much money would be wasted and misused and unaccounted for, while nothing actually got done?

    Anyone who thinks this is a good idea is delusional

  • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    I’ve been saying this for years. the footprint that spaceX represents in national launch authority is out of whack to say the least.

    • postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 hours ago

      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).

      • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

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

        • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          54 minutes ago

          You don’t nationalise a company (SpaceX) just because the existing government owned company (NASA) is significantly worse. What do you think would happen to SpaceX if they did nationalise it? Lol. It would go to hell, like NASA.

          The government should not be responsible for things like this. The government should provide services for necessities for human rights and general standards of living, but they shouldn’t take over successful companies just because they couldn’t do it themselves.

          • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 minutes ago

            sure thing freedumb bro.

            imho, we’ve over-privatized and that’s what’s to blame ULA for. NASA used to design it’s own. Bringing spacex into federal control also prevents further idiocy re: starshield, the ISS, and a whole lot more. I get you don’t like it, but between Ketamine bro and these spasms of ‘I’ll cancel dragon! - nyaaah’ we have literally put all our eggs in one basket being held by a drug addled manchild.

  • Subverb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

    One way to get businesses to move their factories back to the US due to tarrifs: Start nationalizing them.

    /s

    • mad_lentil@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      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.

    • zbk@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      I think during world war 2. But things were worse then 15% unemployment and people still had massive economic leverage. I don’t think the US government is nationalizing anything anytime soon now. Neither party will participate in it because they are in the pockets of the oligarchs.

    • TrueStoryBob@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      The automotive manufacturers General Motors and Chrysler were partially nationalized in the wake of the 2008 Financial Crisis as were several banks… these were less a full government takeover and more of a government guided restructuring, but the government owned large stakes in these companies. Before that, the only full nationalization of anything substantial was the bankruptcy of the Penn Central Railroad and subsequent establishment of Consolidated Rail (branded as ConRail) the US’s only national freight rail company.

      Conrail was later privatized into what is now the private companies CSX and Norfolk Southern. The collapse of Penn Central was the largest bankruptcy in history until Enron in the 1990’s. Amtrak, our national passenger rail corporation, is also a nationalized entity created around the same time as ConRail, for similar reasons, and is still nationalized (although the Trump admin wants to privatize it).

    • MrSpArkle@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      SpaceX and Starlink basically have no competition, and if they did, said competitor would also need to be heavily subsidized.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        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.

          • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 minutes ago

            Compared to previously SpaceX has been seeing more and more failed launches, Starlink is banned in a number of countries and there are already other low orbit internet satellite providers popping up.

    • RoyaltyInTraining@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      6 hours ago

      SpaceX has loads of capable engineers. If NASA gets a massive budget increase, they need to draw from that pool of talent.

    • ikidd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      5 hours ago

      NASA hasn’t take the slightest risk since Challenger. They wouldn’t have accomplished 1/20th of the launch capability SpaceX has developed in the last 5 years.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Generally NASA doesn’t “develop” rockets per se, they commission rockets to specification.

        • ikidd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 hours ago

          It’s the specification process that’s the thing, nobody there would have gone out on a limb the way SpaceX has with their recovery systems. Look where they are on a shuttle replacement: the Apollo capsule with more room.

    • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      These things only exist and are as good as they are because they’re not government owned and run.

      Look at NASA compared to SpaceX to see why this would be an absolutely terrible move. Government is where projects like these go to die, while making every politician and contractor involved filthy rich.

  • zbyte64@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    8 hours ago

    The oligarchs wouldn’t like that precedent but they might go for purchasing SpaceX since it is owned by a foreigner. Kind of like with TikTok…

  • Grizzlyboy@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    12 hours ago

    I don’t think the majority of Americans understand what that means. They’ll just scream “commies!” And raise their maga flag.

    But the idea of a starlink-like business owned by UN would be nice, and not an American corporation owned by a nepobaby Elmo.

    • AdamEatsAss@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 hours ago

      In the USA space-x gets away with a lot. A few years ago they announced they were no longer going to bother with getting all the FAA approvals needed for their rockets because it took too long. Space-x still got government contracts.

      • Zron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        If your want proof that the wealthy live by a different set of laws, look no further than the time Elon Musk, ceo of SpaceX, went on a podcast and smoked weed.

        SpaceX has DOD contracts for launches, and somehow him blatantly violating federal law had no impact on the contracts his company fulfilled for the government.

        Do I think weed should be classified like it is? No.

        Do I think that everyone should be held to the same standard? Yes. And if anyone else had been involved in government projects while going on podcasts and smoking weed, they’d at the very least be fired.

      • Eugene V. Debs' Ghost@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        9 hours ago

        A few years ago they announced they were no longer going to bother with getting all the FAA approvals needed for their rockets because it took too long. Space-x still got government contracts.

        How long back was that? I genuinely didn’t hear about that, but I believe that would happen. I tried googling “space x faa” but I’m getting results of FAA investigating rocket issues and approvals of rocket models.

      • ikidd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        They say this is for enterprise and government, and they talk about “terminals”. This seems more like a Hughes network, and let me tell you, if it’s that bad, you want nothing to do with it.

    • Tillman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Can you imagine who would run those companies if they were government owned?

      • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Yeah. A gov; be it the UN or a country.

        Having worked and then contracted to regional and Muni govs, and worked for dotcoms, I can tell you one of them follows way, WAY more of the regs than the other.

        It’s like transpo & highways vs private roads and rail: one of them is way better-maintained when there is a comparison.

        • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          41 minutes ago

          Not the person you commented on, but think about the reason why people are wanting SpaceX to be nationalised when NASA exists and is already Government owned.

          SpaceX is light years, pardon the pun, ahead of NASA. If SpaceX was taken over by the government, SpaceX would likely end up like NASA as it would be taken over by the same people and have mountains more red tape in order to do anything. It would destroy SpaceX and put space exploration back decades.