It creates a lot of perverse incentives, and is probably a bad idea in the long run. If the govt makes more money when intel is successful, then the govt is incentivized to sabotage Intel's competitors (e.g. through tariffs, export controls, and many other powers). This distorts the free market that is (allegedly) at the center of America's success

▲

vizzier an hour ago | parent | next [-]

The answer is probably an automatic state in any company over a specific size given to the government. The only competition is then international.

	▲	dibujaron 41 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I read recently that corporate taxes used to be a lot higher on large conglomerated companies, which used to deter monopolization somewhat. Under this automatic-stake idea, it'd be interesting if the government's stake in corporations increased as they got larger? Companies try to avoid this and so don't combine so much? Of course once the government does have a large stake in the largest monopoly-like companies, it's immensely motivated to keep them large. Hmm. This idea isn't good.
	▲	smallerfish an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Still perverse incentives. In this case the government is implicitly biased against startups competing against a giant.
	▲	nafey an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Reinventing Socialism from first principals

▲

jazzyjackson an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

See also: confessions of an economic hitman, the mysterious affair of Olivetti

US government has always had a policy of sabotaging international competition