The OP is wrong. The US _indirectly_ controls its corporations. It certainly forces its vassal companies to comply but does it by bartering public policy for p

The OP is wrong. The US _indirectly_ controls its corporations. It certainly forces its vassal companies to comply but does it by bartering public policy for private favors, by a revolving door of shared administration, by strategic alignment, and with monetary payouts. Direct control is not something that the US government thinks is healthy to the long term efficiency of its power. It is much better to direct the ambitions and creativity of power aspirants to fulfill state objectives than it is to consume and directly run parts of industry. For the layman in America there is hardly a difference in terms of opportunity or freedom between these two besides wild and fascinated imaginings that somehow, someday, they might wake up in this elite professional class of power broker - similar to the daydreams of poor people in pre-modern Europe simulating themselves as members of royal family. This system of state-directed competition and macroeconomic investment ("dirigisme") was discovered in Europe around the 1920s, popularized by the Nazi Party in Germany, and adopted around the world by power hungry and competitive states that were looking for alternatives to the extremes of laizze faire and state-directed communism. It would be cool if the OP has some examples of industries that were temporarily taken over by powerbrokers on K Street, but broadly - it isn't how the power relationship works in America.