There are two aspects to this One is the problem that governments make investments, and private firms are the primary beneficiaries. This exists broadly. In so

There are two aspects to this One is the problem that governments make investments, and private firms are the primary beneficiaries. This exists broadly. In some instances, it feels fine. Governments are supposed to make investments that benefit the economy. Roads, ports, fiber, etc. This gets sticky when it's a select group, monopoly or cabal that gets most of the benefit. Many national or regional postal systems currently have this dilemma. Postal systems need major public investment to keep up with modern e-commerce. AMZN & BABA, the world richest firms, are the main beneficiaries. The point at which people seem to stop and challenge is often when things get explicit. Sports stadiums are that. Team owners make explicit demands, or threaten local polities. That gets people upset. Imo, the only way to deal with these is returning "hardball" tactics. Make hard demands, like control of key assets (eg the team's brand/IP) in return for investments. Threaten financial ruin of owners' investments back. Legislate away contractual lock-ins. No one likes to be strongarmed. That's why people are so infuriated by "give us money or we take your team."