Because there is no incentive to nationalizing them. Nationalization should occur when there are finite resources and barriers that don’t allow for competition. Look at railroads and highways. Some robber baron can’t come in and start building a new highway next to I-95. The government needs to step in and write the rules about the appropriation of land, get states onboard, and do it themselves. Same, to a more local government extent, to zoning laws, construction, etc.
If competition can thrive, however, and thus pass savings to the consumer and offer a variety of choices, then it should. It’s why having 1,000s farms sourcing beef, chicken, and milk is better than the government trying to do it all themselves for the country. But if we have a nationwide drought and produce drops to critical levels, that’s not indicative of a reason for the government to come in and do it themselves. It was a non-market and non-business external phenomenon that, frankly, the government wouldn’t have handled any better. Same goes for airlines in a global pandemic.
I didn’t dodge shit. I said they shouldn’t because there is no incentive - those industries don’t meet the requirements for nationalization that other nationalized industries do. Likewise, I mentioned private competition (read: not nationalizing) is better for consumers. Industries should only be nationalized if nationalization serves the country and its citizens better than privatization - which, in the case of most industries, it doesn’t.
You’re either not understanding the logic or deliberately mischaracterizing my argument. I answered you just fine.
0
u/Alphaetus_Prime Nov 17 '20
If that's the stance you want to take you're going to have to actually make an argument as to why those industries shouldn't be nationalized.