>>68008
>People will easily see what's going on if the government tried that.
Trust me, in our time and age, it doesn't work that way. The state has become so big and society so complex and dynamic that even an educated person cannot keep up with everything. You cannot trust the electorate to notice every single time when a state passes some law to make his own businesses more attractive. This can be as simple as making it harder to acquire new infrastructure when most of it is already owned by the state. You can achieve these kinds of effects by adding an addendum of two or three sentences to an already existing paragraph.
>Holding onto businesses which they don't even profit from?
It doesn't matter so much if the state profits, so long as someone in the state does. When you can concentrate the profits but socialize the losses, the winners have every incentive to fight for their beneifts, while the losers individually have maybe a dollar per year to gain, and no one loses his shit over such a low sum except when it's a matter of principle to him.
Not that your proposal wouldn't help, but don't overrate it.