4 ms·
Regulation can raise the floor of company quality, but nationalization also lowers the ceiling, especially if it means no competitors are ever viable. This need
by fl0ki 3y ago
Regulation can raise the floor of company quality, but nationalization also lowers the ceiling, especially if it means no competitors are ever viable. This needs more regulation, not nationalization.
- MaxBarraclough 3y ago> nationalization also lowers the ceiling on how good it can be How's that? What private company outshines, say, NASA (especially in its glory days)?
- abduhl 3y agoIn what metric? SpaceX outshines them on launches. In fact, NASA has consistently outsourced design and construction to the private sector. The space shuttle? Privately built by Rockwell. Hubble? Lockheed. ISS module 1? Boeing.
- geoffreypoirier 3y agoHow about humans on the moon? NASA's still crushing SpaceX. (Glory days.)
- tekla 3y agoWhat does NASA build?
- dotnet00 3y agoIf we're leaning on an excuse like glory days, why do anything to Boeing either? After all, no one yet outshines their glory days of building classic planes and building the SaturnV?
- MaxBarraclough 3y agoI was responding to the suggestion that nationalization imposes a ceiling on quality.
- dotnet00 3y agoI understand that, but I don't agree that it makes sense to at all consider the "glory days" as indicative of the ceiling. As it isn't really relevant to discuss ceilings on quality in terms of exceptional circumstances. Just like how the "glory days" of many nations or many companies are when they're unsustainably burning resources for a short time for the sole purpose of glory. To me quality implies sustainability.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- loloquwowndueo 3y agoNo competitors? points at Airbus
- ajkjk 3y agoAs the article clearly states near the top: if Airbus physically can't compete with Boeing because they have years of backlog and no ability to take on more orders, they are effectively not competing with Boeing.
- tehjoker 3y agoexplain how the soviet space program beat the us on every metric except moon landing (a vanity project hyped by the us to compensate for lagging)
- voakbasda 3y agoThey beat us by canibalizing their society. It works for a time, but eventually you have a revolution on your hands.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- gcanyon 3y ago> every metric Sure, except: - First spacecraft to detect/study the Van Allen belt - First solar-powered satellite - First polar-orbit satellite - First photograph of Earth from orbit - First satellite recovered from orbit - First spy photos from space - First aerial recovery of an object returning from orbit - First great ape in space - First pilot-controlled space flight - First successful planetary flyby (Venus) - First spaceplane - First reusable piloted spacecraft - First geosynchronous satellite - First geostationary satellite - First piloted spacecraft orbit change - First successful Mars flyby mission - First rendezvous of manned spacecraft - First spacecraft docking - First direct-ascent (first orbit) rendezvous - First (and only) human orbit of the Moon - First (and only) humans to land on the Moon - First spacecraft to orbit another planet (Mars) - First spacecraft sent on solar escape trajectory - First spacecraft to enter the asteroid belt - First Jupiter flyby - First Mercury flyby - First Saturn flyby - First untethered spacewalk - First Uranus flyby - First Neptune flyby - First Pluto flyby So, yeah, vanity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Space_Race https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/o51254593.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_artificial_satellites_and_space_probes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explorer_1
- tehjoker 3y agoGood points, the race does seem closer than I was aware.
- skywhopper 3y agoYou missed the second part of the headline apparently. Nationalize and then break it up into new competing entities.
- abduhl 3y agoSo nationalize then privatize?
- cge 3y agoYes. I'm not sure that a clearer explanation of the author's argument would call this nationalization at all. The author seems to be arguing that Boeing is already essentially nationalized in terms of the disadvantages of a nationalized industry, without the advantages, while at the same time, is nationally essential and can't be made to stop operating, or even punished that harshly. I think the author's suggestion could be better summarized as: seize Boeing, and have the state keep it running during the time it takes to break it up into private companies that would compete with each other and would be actually private, rather than quasi-nationalized. If anything, the author seems to be more pro-private-industry than many comments here. I'm not sure if the author used 'nationalize' in the title to be provocative, but if so, given the comments here, it seems to have been an unfortunate choice.