So let's get this straight -- the quasi-nationalised Boeing fucks up, a private company steps in to save the day, and your conclusion is that fully nationalising Boeing is the answer?
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. "
I think a stronger interpretation would be that Boeing's management/corporate culture needs a dramatic shake-up.
Short of letting the company fail completely if left alone, nationalization might well be the best measure out of a long list of not-great measures to shore things up.
Not saying that it's the measure that should be chosen per-se, but as usual it's often better to be pragmatic than ideological at least.
It’s amazing, isn’t it? These same people complain how everything is broken and that the solution is to double down on it. It’s such a sad state of affairs that the corruption is actively supported by people and they want to feed it more and make it bigger.
>For those who "More Engineers and Less MBAs", that's a dog whistle - Just so you know, Boeing is the most diversified aerospace and aircraft manufacturer in the U.S. Typically, Engineers are more arrogant and misogynistic, while MBAs tend to be more progressive, though they can also be more driven by profit. Want an example? SpaceX is a so called "Engineers driven" company.
>At this point, Starliner is actually safe enough (less 1/270 of failure chance) to bring those 2 astronauts back home. The only reason why NASA is not using Starliner, is because there is an election 3 months away. NASA administrator (a politician) made the final decision, so it's not up to MBA or Engineer, it's up to a politician.
>Vote Blue, Nationalize SpaceX and Pass it to Boeing to Run, everybody wins except Musk.
I recommend reading a blow-by-blow account of the causes of the Chernobyl disaster, and compare the long list of failures and coverups with that of the other disasters you mentioned.
Any large disaster will be caused by a long list of failures. Chernobyl was a particularly colossal screw-up (mostly a concatenation of unlucky coincidences, one specific instance of ignorance due to political meddling, and severe human errors eg by Dyatlov).
But it is preposterous to draw conclusions about state vs private enterprises from this N=1 example. There have been many successful government-run megaprojects (Panama Canal, Dutch North Sea dams, China's high-speed-rail). There have been many unsuccessful private ones.
Adjudicating this question would require careful enumeration and analysis across many instances, not just throwing out one example.
McKinsey, for example, states that megaprojects can fail "when big projects cross state or national borders and involve a mix of private and government spending."
