storm2006
Supporter
- 29,035
- 64,028
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2001
There still would be Boeing if it were nationalized and it would largely run as it did before save for three things.
No more cutting corners on safety.
Much smaller pay for higher ups
The American people are the shareholders
- No more cutting corners on safety.
- Not justifying the 737 MAX crashes but can you please point to me outside of that design flaw where Boeing has cut corners that has led to safety in-service safety issues?
- Much smaller pay for higher ups
- This would be terrible for the entire industry because it would cause a mass exodus to remaining private companies.
- The American people are the shareholders
- Boeing has manufactured ~1/3 of of the world's in-service planes and does the MRO on a great deal of them. In addition to facilitatiing global air travel (~4.5B global and ~800MM domestic passengers) they also create the products that defend the freedoms of the United States and their allied nations. They might be private but they are working for Americans, shareholders or not.
How are you guys defining nationalization? Or, more to the point, what does nationalization look like (procedurally, in terms of democracy, inequality, etc)? What does nationalization look like given the challenges (and opportunities) of federalism? And if nationalization of Boeing means “no more cutting corners on safety” what of the idea of regulatory capture?
A lot to read these days, but I’ve been trying to think about just where nationalization fits, so to speak, within leftist politics. Very useful overview of the growing lukewarm support for nationalization post 1990s (Borris Kagarlitsky, “Is Nationalization Dead?” 2000).
Excellent point. I think we all might have differing definitions of nationalization. I am more so speaking against it conceptually but I would love to hear a more proper definition because I could be thinking about this the way.