3 ms·

The nationalization I’m referring to is a temporary vehicle for re-organizing into worker ownership and control. I don’t mean for these to be controlled by the

The nationalization I’m referring to is a temporary vehicle for re-organizing into worker ownership and control. I don’t mean for these to be controlled by the government directly in the long term (though I would be open to such an arrangement, but I understand it makes many Americans squeamish). As for the experience with nationalization in other countries, I am hesitant to try to draw lessons from nationalization in socialist countries. Given how much capitalist states meddle whenever a socialist state takes root, I think it’s really hard to disentangle possible perverse outcomes of nationalization (which should be discovered and mitigated against!) from the skullduggery taking place as part of attempts to thwart socialism.

ffgjgf1 2y ago
> re-organizing into worker ownership and control What makes you think such a system would work better than private or state ownership? > attempts to thwart socialism. Nobody is better at that than the (so called) socialists themselves. It simply doesn’t work without coercion, restrictive capital controls and other policies which aim to minimize the competitiveness of private enterprises (if they are not banned outright). This almost leads to lack of innovation, poor productivity, extreme corruption and authoritarianism.
- avidphantasm 2y ago
  > What makes you think such a system would work better than private or state ownership? How much longer should we stand by and let Boeing crumble? What’s next, put tariffs on Comac planes and force Americans to fly and die on sub-standard Boeing planes?
  - tekla 2y ago
    Last time I checked, Boeing is still about half of all Commercial traffic. So until that stops being a thing, Boeing will stay around.
    - stetrain 2y ago
      Existing planes continuing to fly doesn't necessarily keep Boeing in business, at least not in their current form. Or do you mean Boeing is so critical to maintaining the existing commercial fleet that they won't be allowed to fail?
      - ceejayoz 2y ago
        It's not just maintenance, but new airframes. Boeing going bust would leave the world's airlines looking at half as many available new airliners as usual, with any potential competitor taking a decade or more to start up, and Airbus unlikely to be able to double production on a short timeline.
        avidphantasm 2y ago
        Comac enters the chat…
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        Comac expects to deliver single-digit numbers of C919s this year after four in 2023, with nearly a thousand in their backlog. The C929 is delayed to 2030. They're not making up the slack any time soon.
    - avidphantasm 2y ago
      There’s a lot of inertia in commercial aviation. Airframes last for decades. At some point though, the current path will lead to ruin.
- avidphantasm 2y ago
  > Nobody is better at that than the (so called) socialists themselves. It simply doesn’t work without coercion, restrictive capital controls and other policies which aim to minimize the competitiveness of private enterprises (if they are not banned outright). This almost leads to lack of innovation, poor productivity, extreme corruption and authoritarianism. Capitalists don’t even like competition. They say they do when it’s convenient as it’s the politically correct thing to say. But behind the scenes they seek monopoly to thwart “ruinous competition”. I wasn’t suggesting nationalization and running Boeing as a conglomerate. I was talking about nationalization as a vehicle to break up the company into work-owned and controlled units. This, combined with consistent application of anti-trust regulations would do more to foster competition than the sclerotic financialized monopoly that Boeing is now.
- stetrain 2y ago
  >> re-organizing into worker ownership and control > What makes you think such a system would work better than private or state ownership? Why would private ownership where the majority of shareholders are employees be worse than other types of private ownership? I can think of a few advantages, like the shareholders being more motivated by long term sustainable business practices instead of squeezing for quarterly profits at the expense of the health of the business, or PE schemes like selling assets and leasing them back to the company to extract temporary value while setting the business up for failure.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

ffgjgf1 2y ago

> re-organizing into worker ownership and control What makes you think such a system would work better than private or state ownership? > attempts to thwart socialism. Nobody is better at that than the (so called) socialists themselves. It simply doesn’t work without coercion, restrictive capital controls and other policies which aim to minimize the competitiveness of private enterprises (if they are not banned outright). This almost leads to lack of innovation, poor productivity, extreme corruption and authoritarianism.

avidphantasm 2y ago
> What makes you think such a system would work better than private or state ownership? How much longer should we stand by and let Boeing crumble? What’s next, put tariffs on Comac planes and force Americans to fly and die on sub-standard Boeing planes?
- tekla 2y ago
  Last time I checked, Boeing is still about half of all Commercial traffic. So until that stops being a thing, Boeing will stay around.
  - stetrain 2y ago
    Existing planes continuing to fly doesn't necessarily keep Boeing in business, at least not in their current form. Or do you mean Boeing is so critical to maintaining the existing commercial fleet that they won't be allowed to fail?
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      It's not just maintenance, but new airframes. Boeing going bust would leave the world's airlines looking at half as many available new airliners as usual, with any potential competitor taking a decade or more to start up, and Airbus unlikely to be able to double production on a short timeline.
      - avidphantasm 2y ago
        Comac enters the chat…
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        Comac expects to deliver single-digit numbers of C919s this year after four in 2023, with nearly a thousand in their backlog. The C929 is delayed to 2030. They're not making up the slack any time soon.
  - avidphantasm 2y ago
    There’s a lot of inertia in commercial aviation. Airframes last for decades. At some point though, the current path will lead to ruin.
avidphantasm 2y ago
> Nobody is better at that than the (so called) socialists themselves. It simply doesn’t work without coercion, restrictive capital controls and other policies which aim to minimize the competitiveness of private enterprises (if they are not banned outright). This almost leads to lack of innovation, poor productivity, extreme corruption and authoritarianism. Capitalists don’t even like competition. They say they do when it’s convenient as it’s the politically correct thing to say. But behind the scenes they seek monopoly to thwart “ruinous competition”. I wasn’t suggesting nationalization and running Boeing as a conglomerate. I was talking about nationalization as a vehicle to break up the company into work-owned and controlled units. This, combined with consistent application of anti-trust regulations would do more to foster competition than the sclerotic financialized monopoly that Boeing is now.
stetrain 2y ago
>> re-organizing into worker ownership and control > What makes you think such a system would work better than private or state ownership? Why would private ownership where the majority of shareholders are employees be worse than other types of private ownership? I can think of a few advantages, like the shareholders being more motivated by long term sustainable business practices instead of squeezing for quarterly profits at the expense of the health of the business, or PE schemes like selling assets and leasing them back to the company to extract temporary value while setting the business up for failure.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]