Why Americans Should Fear Washington in Intel’s Boardroom

Turning Intel into a government partner undermines competition and national prosperity.

By Vance Ginn. Excerpts:

"But once government crosses the line into equity ownership, the game changes. It’s no longer about setting fair rules of the road—it’s about Washington joining the race as a participant. That undermines competition, politicizes corporate decisions, and exposes taxpayers to risks they never agreed to take."

"Every dollar the government spends buying shares is a dollar it cannot use to reduce taxes, retire debt, or provide genuinely public goods. 

The resources are scarce, and putting them into Intel stock means less available for other, possibly more valuable, uses. Economists from Adam Smith to Milton Friedman have warned that when governments redirect capital for political reasons, the result is misallocation."

"Private investors demand efficiency because their money is on the line. Government officials, by contrast, make decisions based on politics. If Intel falters, will Washington push for restructuring and accountability—or will politicians double down to save face? History suggests the latter. 

From Amtrak to Solyndra, government ownership often locks in inefficiency rather than driving improvement."

"Once government owns part of a firm, special interests swarm. Lobbyists push for favorable regulation, subsidies, and procurement contracts that tilt the playing field. This breeds cronyism—where success depends on political access instead of innovation. 

Thomas Sowell put it plainly: “The first lesson of economics is scarcity. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.”"

"This kind of industrial policy is not new. Japan’s Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) famously tried to steer the country’s industries in the 1980s, funneling state resources to “strategic sectors.” Yet the results were mixed at best. Japanese chipmakers, once dominant, fell behind precisely because competition gave way to cozy relationships with bureaucrats.

Closer to home, the federal government nationalized passenger rail with Amtrak in 1971, promising efficiency and profitability. Fifty years later, Amtrak still relies on billions in subsidies and remains unable to compete with private alternatives where they exist. 

Similarly, the 2009 federal bailout of GM and Chrysler made taxpayers temporary shareholders. The firms survived, but at the cost of distorting the bankruptcy process and politicizing capital allocation."

"Conservatives long criticized Democrats for pursuing industrial policy through the CHIPS and Science Act. Yet now, under Republican leadership, we see the same tactics—only bigger. 

If the right normalizes government equity stakes in the name of security, they will have no credibility left to oppose similar measures when the left expands them to other industries."