Yes. 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 alre

Yes. 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.