Now I get the issue with a over-regulating bureaucratic government, but the real world is more complex than 'powerful government is bad'.

> In the mid to long term money will move to the person allocating it most efficiently

Is that so?

Not without protections for antitrust and other uncompetitive practices. Picture this: Google becomes an even larger behemoth, with their cash they acquire Facebook, Apple, Netflix, Amazon and a few other larger companies (as it's happened in a much smaller scale with IBM and some other old tech companies growing larger and acquiring competitors). There is no pushback from government, they are allowed because they have the cash, they hoard companies and markets.

Now you are going to try to compete with this. How? You can be as efficient as possible but you are small, they have trillions, how do you compete? Isn't this a corrupt system by definition? It's ingrained in it, if you have more money you don't really have to be hyper competitive, you can just buy out your competition.

So there is a point where government intervention is necessary to keep a fair market, if not then you are bound to the monopolistic tendencies of accumulation of capital.

Under what model? Having more capital at your disposal enables you to stake more and riskier positions, which allows you to outcompete a smaller, but more efficient rival.

2. So going to the moon / CERN are particularly necessary? Besides that, a counter-argument to this doesn‘t work like: Lets pick some „good“ examples out of a big pool. This has to be viewed through the average and on average governments are beyond terrible at investments (some more than others)