Replies

"If the US Govt got 50% of the equity, I might agree with you."

Do you "really" believe that gov't can do a better job of managing companies?? I don't. BUT, if it was NON-VOTING stock, I actually agree with you. And easy enough to implement.

"Any company that relies on at least 20% of its revenue to come from the government AND is still losing money hand over fist, isn’t a company, but an embezzlement. It may be a flashy embezzlement, and maybe many many years down the road it will work out, but there are many other car makers besides Musk and odds are it won’t work out great for taxpayers."

And this is the typical "libertarian purist" response. History has already shown otherwise over and over again. See post 20 for the definitive example. It already has "worked out for taxpayers", and in a big, big way.

For every successful example you give me, there are dozens of failures. And in most of the ones that were successful, it's very likely they would have been successful on its own, just less profitable for owners (eg: railroads) and maybe it would have rolled out a bit slower.

No, I don't think government can manage companies well, but for the same reason they also can't pick good investments, either. Non-voting shares would be better than none.