An argument can be made that you risk losing the talent to lead these companies to much more economically viable industries. I'm not sure I completely subscribe

An argument can be made that you risk losing the talent to lead these companies to much more economically viable industries. I'm not sure I completely subscribe to the argument, but I think to some degree corporate welfare is as necessary as general welfare to help give a leg up to industries that are necessary but would otherwise have a harder time being successful. Hot take, I know. That said, I do agree with your premise and think a disproportionately high government stake in a bailed out company makes a ton of sense.