BTW, the government does run a pretty big business now called TVA. And the President wants to sell it because there is major risk for the taxpayers to the tune of $30 billion.
I’ll respond to the rest of your post later, but this one was too ridiculous to pass up. First, I realize that you may think I am using a hostile tone, and for that I apologize. I honestly feel like you need to take a step back and realize that you may not be very educated in the area you are attempting to discuss. I am not trying to lord my expertise over you, but you are just wrong with much of what you are saying. I will try to write in a more friendly manner, however.
To answer your question, I can name you dozens and dozens of companies in Texas in the same industry as Pemex that are doing better. Better by what measure, you might ask? Well, by most of the measures that oil and gas companies score themselves. Things like production growth, reserve replacement, cash flow growth, profitability, etc. We could start by looking at Pemex’s situation. Here is a handy place to start.
Please note that this fact sheet is current as of May 2013. Also, put it in perspective that we are essentially living in the period of a renaissance of the oil and gas industry. Pemex, is a monopoly controlling an incredibly resource rich land. The geology in many ways is very similar to much of the incredibly resource rich areas of the U.S.
Pemex’s performance is putrid. They have declining oil production. They have declining gas production. Their proved (1P) reserves have declined. Their developed proved reserves have declined more. They have an increasing amount of debt. Their debt to EBITDA ratio has increased. They have a negative equity position. They lost money in their refining sub-sector. They lose money in petrochemicals. They are rated one notch above junk bond status by Moody’s, S&P, and Fitch. Again, this is a state run monopoly in a resource rich country.
Now, do you really think it would be difficult for me to come up with some oil and gas companies headquartered in Texas that are doing better than that?
Here’s an applicable article about Pemex.
Mexico’s President Pushes Reforms for State Oil Company Pemex
[QUOTE=Bloomberg]
The bottom line: Mexico, facing a steady decline in oil output, needs foreign money to develop shale gas and deep-water reserves.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Bloomberg]
Without some private capital and expertise from abroad, Mexico risks becoming an importer in the next decade. Many of Mexico’s politicians and policymakers have known this for years. Yet Mexican nationalism, resistance from the unions, and the sheer size of the task of transforming Pemex have stood in the way.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Bloomberg]
He has, however, been sending signals to international oil companies that he needs their help to arrest eight years of decline in Mexico’s crude output. “It’s obvious that Pemex doesn’t have the financial capacity to be in every single front of energy generation,” the 46-year-old president said in an interview in London on June 17, before he traveled to Northern Ireland for meetings with Group of Eight leaders. “Shale is one of the areas where there’s room for private companies, but not the only one.”
[/QUOTE]
So… the US should start an oil company because the Mexican government may be able to successfully bail out its mostly money-losing nationalized oil business?
If anything, the government’s best at doing things that AREN’T profitable, and never would be- stuff like flood control projects, etc… Or for that matter, things that could be profitable, but probably shouldn’t be- potable water production and distribution, public safety provision, military services, etc…
One problem that would hamstring any government attempts at running businesses would be governmental regulations on itself that would slow its ability to adapt to changing business conditions-the whole lowest bidder purchasing scheme, and the greater degree of hiring/firing difficulty would be a clear hindrance on the bottom line for a company trying to compete in today’s marketplace.
Like others have said, that doesn’t imply competence or incompetence, but rather that a governmental agency can’t realize that a business unit is unprofitable and shit-can it like a private company can. And it can’t recognize a business opportunity and write a check to get stuff bought, people hired and things built like a private company can. It’s got to go through RFPs and bids and all that crap. They could be streamlined somewhat, but the fact remains that private companies can sacrifice cost effectiveness for speed or efficiency in a way that governments are explicitly prevented from doing.
How about the government start a TV series about zombies?
Well put. 
When this thread was alive my first reaction was a flashback to the old David Frye as Richard Nixon routine announcing his “the United States going out of business sale”. I forget the specifics but I remember laughing hard enough to feel the pain afterwards.