Bold of you to assume competency will overpower politics in our current era.

So far, the country I know best, the US, has been competent enough to avoid massive corporate bailouts except the aforementioned banks in 2008 and GM. The bailout of GM was not motivated by a desire to avoid a recession when a bubble pops.

If the AI labs become very influential and powerful, Washington might nationalize them, but that would be very different from bailing them out because they have become unprofitable and cannot attract additional investment from the private sector.

	▲	Scottn1 an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		You forgot about the $9b bailout to Intel in August of 2025. With the recent OpenAi deal with the government I am certain they would throw tons of money at OpenAi if it got real bad. But with upcoming IPO where they are expected to be valued at $840b, we would be a LONG way from them needing a bailout. Well past this current admin.
	▲	nyargh 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Despite politics, TARP was arguably an economic success story for the US treasury despite public sentiment. Whether it created moral hazard or not I suppoae is up for debate. GM on the other hand should have been left to die. However, I was obliquely referring to the open transactionality and patronage encouraged by the current administration, and how the AI / big tech players have, with few exceptions, gleefully joined in. Unless they run out of money for bribes, I think it's inevitable that current government will bend over backwards to prop them up.
	▲	graemep 14 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Do the examples of the banks and GM suggest that it is likely that AI companies will get a bailout to avoid the bubble popping? The reason the banks bailouts did not involve nationalisation is that the US is very reluctant to nationalise anything.
	▲	attila-lendvai an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		a bailout is a popular way in which public funds lose their publicness.