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.

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.

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.

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

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.

The issue with this take is that you assume that there is a direct correlation between kindness and civic engagement, which is not true. Someone can be genuinely kind but disengaged from civic duties due to a bunch of reasons ranging from personal to societal. Your take also equates passivity with malice, suggesting that if someone isn’t politically active, they’re morally flawed, which again isn’t true. The people who are the most politically obsessive, engaged, and vocal in the country are MAGA Republicans, and they are clearly not people who are kind… especially when you compare them to someone who’s apolitical but spends a lot of their time volunteering in their community.

But that’s the issue, your take is inherently flawed because you draw your moral superiority from two assumption. The first is that you assume that your views are objectively correct and are superior to others, and the second is that you assume people who are politically zealous or choose to be as such will end up having your views… Both of which are absurdly arrogant assumptions to have. Your views are neither objectively moral or superior, nor do politically active people share your views. In fact the vast, vast majority of people do not see things the way that you do.

There’s really no way you can justify your take because your digesting the world in absolutist terms. To you people are either politically active and share your views, thus are morally correct, or they’re inactive and are intentionally because evil or hostile. It’s such a polarizing and out of touch way to look at people and the world. If you are an example of the chronically online person who obsesses about politics 24/7, fine, but you have to acknowledge that the vast, vast majority of people do not think about politics 24/7, and that’s perfectly okay. Not only that, but just because most people aren’t zealots that does not mean they’re morally flawed or inferior. This holier than thou attitude is shows that your worldview is quite myopic.

But you’re conflating two different things. Someone who doesn’t think about politics 24/7 isn’t necessarily politically unaware or politically inactive. It just means that they understand there’s more to life than politics. You can recognize that politics has more influence on your life than other things, but it’s not the only influence on your life nor is it everything in life. I mean you lived through it, you should know as well as I do that even during blackouts and war, people still find ways to do things life that isn’t politics.

Something this basic seems to be beyond comprehension for Lemmy users for some reason.

The only difference is that people are actually honest about all of these conflicts. They acknowledge who is a fault and what has actually happened. You lack that honesty, hence why you’re using the whataboutism fallacy here to keep dismissing criticism and distracting from the arguments being made instead of addressing them directly. You know you can’t defend the evils that Russia is committing on their own merits, and so you resort to fallacies. If you were able to then would’ve just owned up to the fact that you’re piece of shit who supports the evils that Russia is committing, but you’re not arguing in good faith.

You’re so dishonest it’s unbelievable. Nobody is arguing with you on your political opinions, that’s not the point of contention. You can think whatever you want, that’s your problem and right. What I was saying is that normal people don’t think about politics 24/7 like terminally online Lemmy users. People treat politics like they do any other subject. There are times when they think about, talk about it, and take action on it, and times where they don’t. It’s really simple as that.

This idea that people you deem as non privileged think about politics all day everyday is not reality. That’s an out of touch assumption that you made up to justify an inaccurate worldview you have. People not thinking about politics 24/7 doesn’t mean they don’t care about politics or that they ignore politics, it means that there’s more to life than politics. People who do spend all their time talking and thinking about politics aren’t normal, those are zealots, they’re fanatics. This is not a new or controversial, this was literally always the case.

No, fuck off moron. Russia started this war, they’re committing a genocide, and they’re 100% responsible for ALL of it. Trying to “both sides” the most obviously one sided conflict in the world by blaming the victims for defending themselves puts you and your shitty ideology in the same tier as nazis, which sounds about right for Marxism. You support and defend Russia’s imperialist genocide, you’re morally reprehensible.

You will never find anybody as morally reprehensible as Marxists who support and defend Russia’s genocide in Ukraine. Go fuck yourself Russian shill

They’re so desperate they literally buying shit from North Korea at a premium

It’s ironic how everything you said here applies directly to you.