Core Viewpoint - The Trump administration's acquisition of an 8.9% equity stake in Intel highlights the problematic trend of government involvement in business, which often leads to inefficiencies and market distortions rather than progress or innovation [1][7][15]. Government Involvement in Intel - Intel has been a beneficiary of government subsidies since the America COMPETES Act was signed in 2007, with continued support through various administrations, culminating in the recent equity stake by the Trump administration [4][5]. - The rationale for converting $5.7 billion in unpaid CHIPS Act grants into equity includes stabilizing the semiconductor supply chain and reducing reliance on foreign foundries [5][6]. Implications of Government Equity Stake - The government's equity stake in Intel represents a shift towards public-private partnerships, raising concerns about the impact on competition and innovation within the semiconductor industry [6][7]. - The involvement of the federal government in Intel's operations could lead to conflicts of interest, particularly in regulatory decisions affecting competitors and new entrants in the market [7][12]. Historical Context of Government Nationalization - The current situation is compared to historical instances of government nationalization during crises, but the Intel stake occurs in a non-crisis context, raising questions about the appropriateness of such actions [10][11]. - Previous nationalizations, such as those during World War I and the 2008 financial crisis, were justified by immediate needs, unlike the current Intel situation [10][11]. Concerns Over Market Distortion - The infusion of government capital into Intel may undermine the principles of free market competition, leading to a misallocation of resources and talent [7][13][14]. - Critics argue that government involvement distorts market dynamics, blurs ownership rights, and politicizes scientific advancements [7][13]. Call for Separation of Economy and State - There is a strong argument for reinforcing the separation between government and business to prevent further entanglement and ensure that companies operate based on merit rather than government favoritism [14][15][16]. - Ending direct subsidies and public-private partnerships is seen as essential to restoring competitive enterprise and protecting the integrity of the market [15][16].

question for you. We've seen a centralization of authority in the federal government and we're sitting here talking about, hey, central government plus capitalism doesn't work as well as rule of law. Do you worry sometimes, hey, Biden wanted to use executive orders to do the student loan thing and you know, Trump obviously has taken tariffs and there's a big question, maybe the tariffs are, my understanding is they're supposed to reside with Congress and there's a lawsuit about that.Maybe that goes back to ...

Economic Concerns & Political Landscape - Public dissatisfaction stems from government overspending and concerns about Medicare/Medicaid cuts [1][2] - Wage stagnation and increased costs of living, including groceries and rent, are widely felt [3][4] - There's a concern that nearly half of Americans are directly or indirectly employed by the government, leading to inefficient capital allocation and inflation [4] - Potential for a socialist movement is feared, especially if economic conditions worsen, making promises of "free" services appealing [2][6][7] Energy & Subsidies - Solar energy has seen hyperbolic growth and cost reduction due to incentives [4] - Removing incentives can lead to a decrease in energy generation [4] - Subsidies for solar and wind may have disincentivized investment in nuclear technology, hindering the US from catching up in Gen 4 reactor development [5] - Bureaucracy and regulation are significant obstacles for nuclear power development, not just cost per kilowatt hour [4] - Private sector investment in small modular reactors (SMRs) was catalyzed by hyperscalers' demand and government efforts to reduce bureaucracy [5] Policy & Market Impact - Government policies providing economic support can create a snowball effect, with failures leading to calls for more government intervention [11][12][13] - Potential policy failures could lead to increased taxation and regulatory burdens [13] - The public's trust in leadership and the current economic situation influences their willingness to accept government control and redistribution [5][6]

Government Policy - China announced subsidies of 3,600 yuan (approximately $500) per year for each child under three years old to boost the birth rate [1] Industry Impact - The declining birth rate is already negatively impacting nurseries [1]

‘Subsidies…Do Not Exist’: Musk Dismisses Trump’s Apparent Overture Wanting Him To ‘Thrive’ https://t.co/0rMS77EqoH https://t.co/0rMS77EqoH ...

Company Stance - Musk dismisses Trump's apparent overture wanting him to 'thrive' [1] - Musk states "Subsidies…Do Not Exist" [1]

🔥 JUST IN: Trump denies plans to cut subsidies to Elon Musk’s companies, says he wants Elon and US businesses to “THRIVE like never before.” https://t.co/Y88SmYFlUQ ...

At least farming subsidies are getting cut down to size https://t.co/Dbf7EZCbAD ...

Our next guest is Republican House member uh who opposed President Trump's big bill as of late yesterday, but overnight he voted to move forward with the bill. Joining us right now is Congressman Ralph Norman, Republican of South Carolina. You were outspoken uh on the other side of this bill, sir.And here we are this morning. What has changed. Well, we we had a lot of problems with uh the Senate changing our bill up, mainly adding to the deficit to the tune of with interest right at 100 $1.2% trillion.We we ...

BREAKING:Elon Musk has been calling for the end of Subsidies including EV since 2013.Elon Musk (@elonmusk):Yes, am arguing against subsidies and in favor of a tax on the end bad created. Market will then achieve best solution. ...