4 ms·
If something is critical to National Security or Human Survival, it should be Nationalized. So if Intel, or Boeing, or electric companies, or ISPs, or banks are
by stego-tech 2y ago
If something is critical to National Security or Human Survival, it should be Nationalized. So if Intel, or Boeing, or electric companies, or ISPs, or banks are really that necessary to the American Government that letting them fail would jeopardize our national security, then those entities shouldn’t be publicly-traded or privately-owned enterprises, full-stop.
Unfortunately, that policy is wholly incompatible with the current wealth-extraction and funneling model of the present-day economy, and that’s why it won’t happen until it’s so irreparably broken that the entire global status quo shifts to adjust.
- ninetyninenine 2y agoLook at the military industrial complex. Nationalizing intel will turn it into the semiconductor industrial complex.
- undersuit 2y agoThe US military industrial complex isn't nationalized.
- ninetyninenine 2y agoIt is. But if you want to be pedantic it’s both nationalized and private. It depends on whether you’re referring to the military or industry. When you create these hybrids of business and government, corruption is inevitable.
- undersuit 2y agoIf I was referring to the military I wouldn't have answered.
- ninetyninenine 2y agoSure. I'm just saying your answer is incorrect. Doesn't matter whether you would or wouldn't of answered. You're completely wrong and you wrote a statement that is utterly false.
- undersuit 2y agoThen we already have a semiconductor industrial complex.
- ninetyninenine 2y agoNo we have a military industrial complex where semiconductors are one small part of industry.
- consteval 2y agoThe military-industrial complex is a consequence of privatization. Since the defense industry is 100% private, capitalistic corps with 1 customer, they have no reason to innovate or compete on prices. They can, and do, extort the government for as much money as humanly possible. That wouldn't be possible if those entities were simply nationalized. But since the gov is a customer, and them a producer, and the gov NEEDS the thing, and only the private sector can give the thing, it's a money bath. Of course it's really full circle, because while the industry is private it's actually funded entirely by taxpayers. Because the customer is the government. So the corps have a strong incentive to be as inefficient and greedy as possible, and you actually pay for that.
- V_Terranova_Jr 2y agoI don't know about full-on nationalization, but we have plenty of evidence to show the incentives for publicly-owned for-profit companies whose primary customer is the Government are strongly misaligned with the non-economic interests of the public. I don't have a pat solution to this, but for example, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon have little reason to improve when they have a captive customer. Raytheon recently agreed to pay ~$1B in penalties for illegal exploitation of their position and the market doesn't care: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/raytheon-company-pay-over-950m-connection-defective-pricing-foreign-bribery-and-export https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/raytheon-company-pay-over-950... Pure capitalism for these kinds of uniquely critical products and services doesn't seem like the right answer.
- stego-tech 2y agoExcellent comment. As someone who spent time in the MIC, I’m always glad to see others make the same sort of callouts about exploitation of the Government by entities unaligned with and detached from the goals of the people. Extremes rarely work; rational compromise is what moves the needle forward, bit by bit.