E.g. saying a state-run car company would've done better because all that profit money would've been perfectly allocated is not right. Otherwise the government's perfect decision-makers would be starting car companies left and right and making a fortune, instead of working for the government.
In things that affect your health, I don't want to be the guinea pig that discovers the service I paid for wasn't up to standard. That provider may go bust in the long run, but in the meantime will do a lot of damage.
"Bob Lutz compares Tesla to socialism after GM took $11B from taxpayers under his reign"
https://electrek.co/2016/08/18/bob-lutz-compares-tesla-socia...
I agree that cars are much better than they were 10 years ago. Thanks mostly to government regulations that the incumbent industry fought strongly, while Chinese state owned firms were taking advantage of the opportunity.
Roads aren't cars? I'm not saying that central planning is never a good idea, just that it's mostly not a good idea. "Where to put roads that a private company will build" is a reasonable role of government in a capitalist society.
> and then getting bailed out
I don't think they should've been bailed out. That was politicians buying car worker votes by doing politician things, like inflating the currency to make everyone's wages worth less.
Cars are better not mostly because of regulations, but because of manufacturing improvements, electronic/chip hardware and software improvements, and, most of all, competition.