• Knightfox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 minutes ago

    A lot of people are calling this a bailout for Elon, but in reality it would be a seizure. Elon doesn’t want to let go of Starlink and the US likely wouldn’t pay him what it’s worth to take it over.

    What people seem to be missing is the precedent this would set. It’s all well and good when we empower the office of the president to seize a private company we don’t like, but after we give them that power what’s to stop them from seizing other businesses?

    XYZ company refuses to get rid of their DEI policy because the shareholders voted to keep it? Well now the orange man can seize it.

    Let’s not forget that previously it took 2/3rd majority to confirm presidential appointments, but the Senate under Obama decided to change that rule to 50% to get past Republican objections. The result of this is all these shit appointments Trump has passed with 51% of the Senate, none of them would have gotten by if the Democrats hadn’t made a precedent for changing the rules.

    • Inucune@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 hours ago

      NASA is too beholden to politics… You can’t do 7 year builds and missions when the Senate flips every 4 years and has to kill everything the other side did on principle that it has a D or R attached to it. Everything is political.

  • gamer@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Throw Musk in prison for his many documented crimes, but don’t support this kind of dictator shit.

  • laber@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    13 hours ago

    The nationalization of SpaceX will mean a slowdown in development, like in the case of NASA.

    • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Because American politicians would rather spend the money on engaging international wars. NASA will only get the funding it desperately needs if one of US’ rivals one up them, like how the launch of Sputnik spurred the race to the moon.

  • postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    23 hours ago

    Arrest Musk on violation of controlled substances acts, file immigration violation charges, invalidate his ownership shares due to securities fraud, as he falsified education and naturalization forms.

    Or just emminent domain the shit. The Law is just made up right now.

    • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Such an effort would be likely to fail AND take longer than the current administration is likely to exist.

    • ikidd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      NASA hasn’t take the slightest risk since Challenger. They wouldn’t have accomplished 1/20th of the launch capability SpaceX has developed in the last 5 years.

        • ikidd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          It’s the specification process that’s the thing, nobody there would have gone out on a limb the way SpaceX has with their recovery systems. Look where they are on a shuttle replacement: the Apollo capsule with more room.

  • Gorilladrums@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    22 hours ago

    No, they’re fine remaining as private companies. If the government wants to better control over the companies then they can pass regulation and if they want total control then they can build their own alternatives. Nationalization of companies should never be used as a political weapon.

    • abbotsbury@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      22 hours ago

      Nah fuck the shareholders, if they do something we depend on and pay for it with tax dollars then we should own them.

      • Gorilladrums@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        21 hours ago

        Yeah, we’re not going to nationalize the entire economy because that’s really stupid. Our tax dollars reach every nook and carny of the economy, but that’s fine. Tax dollars are meant to be used in a way that makes the country operate safely, smoothly, and reliably. A lot of this is done by putting the money back into the economy in the form of subsidies, welfare, wages, and government contracts. It’s fine for the government to pay a business to provide as long as the business is offering fair market prices and they’re delivering an acceptable product or service. The tax money that goes into such a business doesn’t just go to the shareholders, it also goes to everybody else as well.

        That being said, shareholders can be scumbags, I’m with you there. If they are clearly conducting unethical behavior or illegal behavior then they should be immediately cut off. This includes things like delivering unacceptable products and services by cutting too many corners or committing fraud to take more tax money than they should or trying to scheme to monopolize and so on. These types of shareholders should’ve receive bailouts or awarded government contracts, they should be thrown in jail. But we shouldn’t nationalize the economy because some shareholders are crooks.

        • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          21 hours ago

          we’re not going to nationalize the entire economy because that’s really stupid.

          Yes, that’s why no one in this entire thread suggested anything even remotely close to this. it’s stupid, and a stupid strawman.

          Nationalizing spaceX temporarily in order to restore confidence in it’s largest, most important customer, after that customer’s trust has been repeatedly violated by the executive and the board that keeps him in power, is NOT NATIONALIZING THE ENTIRE ECONOMY nor would it be untoward if Boeing or Lockheed’s CEO was dumb enough to engage in this bullshit.

          • Gorilladrums@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 hours ago

            Yes, that’s why no one in this entire thread suggested anything even remotely close to this. it’s stupid, and a stupid strawman.

            The guy that I replied said that we should nationalize any company that receives tax dollars if we depend on it… Buts that case for virtually the entire economy. Everything is touch by our tax dollars and everything in our economy is intertwined. It is a ridiculous suggestion.

            Nationalizing spaceX temporarily in order to restore confidence in it’s largest, most important customer, after that customer’s trust has been repeatedly violated by the executive and the board that keeps him in power, is NOT NATIONALIZING THE ENTIRE ECONOMY nor would it be untoward if Boeing or Lockheed’s CEO was dumb enough to engage in this bullshit.

            The government doesn’t nationalize on the behalf of companies, it only temporarily nationalizes when to protect the American economy at large. For example, in 2008 the government took hold of a bunch of auto companies to prevent a collapse of this sector. This is not happening here for SpaceX so it doesn’t make sense to do it.

            The thing is you would actually have a really good case to temporarily nationalize Boeing because it is basically our entire commercial plane manufacturing sector, and it’s quickly heading towards collapse. This is a case where it makes sense. Starlink and SpaceX don’t fall under this umbrella.

            • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 hours ago

              you genuinely don’t care that critical national infrastructure - literally our ability to put stuff into orbit - is compromised by this penny ante shitbird. I get it, fanboys don’t use logic.

              • Gorilladrums@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 hours ago

                I don’t like Elon, fuck him. My point is that what you’re asking for is setting a precedent we never had. We’ve always had complimentary system between the private and public sectors, most countries are like this as well. Nationalizing companies without a genuine justification is going to cause shock waves throughout the economy. Why would investors spend capital in the country if the government can snatch up their business the moment they’re deemed important? If that’s the only thing needed to nationalize companies, what’s stopping idiots in government like Trump from just weaponizing it by nationalizing any company that competes with his own businesses, political opponents, or his crony friends? Not to mention, where is confidence that our incompetent government is going to manage these companies better than they can manage themselves? These are all really big questions.

                There’s a reason why nationalization is left as a temporary last resort measure to rescue economic sectors from collapse. You could make an argument that this would apply for a publicly traded company like Boeing that’s quickly heading towards collapse. Considering how they’re only commercial plane manufacturer, that means they’re our entire industry. The company’s stability is a matter of national security. But SpaceX? None of this applies.

                SpaceX is a private business that’s stable, reliable, and competitive. They’re doing exactly what they’re supposed to. It’s easy to say that we should just nationalize companies without thinking about the consequences. I’m in favor of things like universal healthcare, public transit systems, and more power to our research agencies. But these things have to come to fruition through stronger regulations and government alternatives, not nationalization. If there are cases where a company has to be nationalized and there are no alternatives, then they should be bought out.

                I don’t think what I’m saying is controversial.

                • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 hour ago

                  I don’t think what I’m saying is controversial.

                  no, it’s simply business as usual, nothing ever changes, nothing ever improves, and fuck you america, that’s the way it has to be because reasons.

                  I strongly suspect NASA can manage spaceX better than the ketamine kid. Why don’t you give a fuck about those astronauts who have to put their faith in his hardware? why don’t you give a fuck about the kids who are growing up in an age where that drug addled prick is put up as an icon of success?

                  Do you really think soldiers sailors and airmen (and spacemonkeys) should have to rely on that HORSE DRUG ADDICTED PRICK for their mission critical infrastructure?

                  If you do, fuck right off, you’re either a musk fanboy or stockholder.

                  Either way, get bent.

    • TronBronson@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

      I agreed with this sentiment six months ago, but now I like public hangings and nationalizing companies

      • Gorilladrums@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Nationalizing companies is not going to fix the accountability issue we have in the country. The same problems are going to happen, just under new management.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Nobody thinks about that, just about hitting the people they don’t like. They don’t think of consequences, they don’t think that nationalization means humongous companies and wealth in fact changing hands in favor of people who already control the government.

      That’s every fascist regime in history BTW - make your natural opponents hang themselves. Like in Russia in 1999 groups people most hurt by Yeltsin’s regime were deceived into voting for Putin, because he managed to create that “Soviet intelligence agent” image, despite being continuation of said regime. Or again in 2004, when he managed to take credit for growing oil prices, which meant that said groups of people feared literal starvation less, and the factor they’ve grown by compared to 1998 was so huge, that Russia’s level of life really didn’t catch up, but that was enough. Hold people in misery, throw them bones, they’ll be grateful.

      Also why most Russians gloated over Khodorkovsky, Berezovsky, other oligarchs being beaten by Putin.

      Cause the oligarchs seemed the face of that regime, except Putin was its soul materialized. They somehow thought that when he hurts all the oligarchs enough, things will be good.

      • Gorilladrums@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        This is a very valid point. Nationalization essentially means transferring control of these companies to either Trump or congress as well giving them power to use nationalization as a tool. Not only are they horrendously incompetent but they’re also sure to weaponize it. I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump went on a spree nationalizing “liberal Democrat” companies or nationalizing companies that compete with his businesses.

  • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 day ago

    I’ve been saying this for years. the footprint that spaceX represents in national launch authority is out of whack to say the least.

    • postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      23 hours ago

      The only reason SpaceX exists is because Boeing and Lockheed managed to compete so badly the only solution was to merge their launch businesses.

      So we had one launch company, then spaceX made it two providers, now its back to one because B-mart is using antiquated launch systems (single use).

      • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        23 hours ago

        this isn’t incorrect. ULA is a fucking pork barrel of hideous proportions. doesn’t mean we shouldn’t nationalize spacex.

    • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      20 hours ago

      The precedent that will set and the implications

      and what precedent is there for dealing with the executive of your country’s entire space launch infrastructure when they become dependent on horse drugs?

      No really, what’s the precedent here, I want to know. Because if we set a precedent by ignoring it until the problem is impossible to ignore, that’s gonna be a far more expensive fix.

      So yeah, yeah we should consider this very strongly.

      • mechoman444@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 hours ago

        If the government actually nationalized SpaceX, the precedent would be insane. You’d be telling every private company working in defense, infrastructure, or tech that if they become too essential, the government might just take it. Doesn’t matter how much risk or capital they fronted.

        SpaceX isn’t just launching rockets for fun—it’s practically a branch of the U.S. space program at this point. GPS, Starlink for military comms, launching classified payloads, putting astronauts in orbit. If we nationalize that over a political pissing match between Trump and Musk, we’re basically saying innovation is conditional on obedience.

        And let’s be honest—once you do this to SpaceX, you open the door to doing it to AWS, Tesla’s energy grid systems, Google’s AI infrastructure. Any private company that gets too important suddenly becomes “too critical to stay private.” That’s a fast track to killing private innovation in sectors where we need it most.

        If Trump’s threatening funding, and Musk is threatening to walk, and the public’s response is “just take the company,” then we’ve officially politicized the tech-industrial base. That’s not governance, that’s dysfunction.

        Nationalizing SpaceX would be a Cold War move in a modern economy. It might feel good in the moment, but long-term, it’s a terrible idea.

        • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          how can you be so casually apathetic about saddling our soldiers sailors airmen and spaceforce with the products of a horse drug addled asshole?

          https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/30/us/elon-musk-drugs-children-trump.html

          What kind of prick tells these people VOLUNTEERING TO DEFEND YOUR COUNTRY “hey man, the ketamine kid is the only way!” - how are you comfortable or confident in the products produced when he’s tripping balls in the oval office?

          meh. this is a pointless argument, I’m never going to convince these elon fanboys their hero is a prick

          • mechoman444@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            45 minutes ago

            I’m sorry were you talking to me? Because nothing in your response had anything to do with what I actually said.

            I never claimed to like Elon. I don’t. I never expressed support for this administration’s policies. I don’t.

            My argument is about the moral, ethical, and historically dangerous precedent of nationalizing a private company.

            That drug-addled sycophant stood before the most powerful political body on Earth wearing a baseball cap and a T-shirt while the Vice President of the United States told President Zelensky to put on a suit.

            Unbelievable.

            Where the hell do you get off making wild, baseless assumptions about things you barely understand? What exactly prevents you from engaging in civil discourse like an adult, instead of spouting off like you did in that comment?

            Fine if we’re slinging assumptions now, here’s mine: You strike me as a fedora-wearing, vape-huffing, woman-hating neckbeard. Am I wrong? Don’t care. That’s the image your words paint.

  • Deflated0ne@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    1 day ago

    Has anyone considered funding NASA?

    They made rockets that didn’t explode with duct tape and a TI-83 calculator.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      What “they made” 50 years ago is of little value now. Expertise matters, and it’s lost with time passing.

      Still - yes. Nationalization is a bad solution because it gives the state power to nationalize. Seems a truism.

      Just let NASA work in its normal role. Instead of replacing that with SpaceX contracts.

    • Uruanna@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 day ago

      Shouldn’t be incompatible with nationalizing SpaceX and Starlink. Just give it all to NASA, actually.

  • Subverb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 day ago

    One way to get businesses to move their factories back to the US due to tarrifs: Start nationalizing them.

    /s

    • TrueStoryBob@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      The automotive manufacturers General Motors and Chrysler were partially nationalized in the wake of the 2008 Financial Crisis as were several banks… these were less a full government takeover and more of a government guided restructuring, but the government owned large stakes in these companies. Before that, the only full nationalization of anything substantial was the bankruptcy of the Penn Central Railroad and subsequent establishment of Consolidated Rail (branded as ConRail) the US’s only national freight rail company.

      Conrail was later privatized into what is now the private companies CSX and Norfolk Southern. The collapse of Penn Central was the largest bankruptcy in history until Enron in the 1990’s. Amtrak, our national passenger rail corporation, is also a nationalized entity created around the same time as ConRail, for similar reasons, and is still nationalized (although the Trump admin wants to privatize it).

  • Sunflier@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    18 hours ago

    I think that’s a complicated question. It’s both yes and no. Yes, we should nationalize them. No, nationalizing them should not be by tRump. That sets the precedent, or at least reinforces, the concept that the architecture of industry can be nationalized as payback for petty political squabbling. They should be nationalized, however, because fElon has proven himself to be unstable, reckless, petty, and a risk to the nation.

    • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      20 hours ago

      remember the halcyon days when NASA could do something and the president might not like it, but they were all FUCKING ADULTS and the grift was well distributed amongst the congresscreatures, so it never devolved into adolescent twitter whining?

      goddamn those were better than whatever this shit is