When governments become top shareholders, corporate focus shifts from pleasing customers to securing political favor and appropriations. R&D budgets are reallocated to lobbying, and market competition devolves from building the best product to playing the policy game most effectively, strangling innovation.

The administration's explicit focus on re-shoring manufacturing and preparing for potential geopolitical conflict provides a clear investment playbook. Capital should flow towards commodities and companies critical to the military-industrial complex, such as producers of copper, steel, and rare earth metals.

The U.S. is shifting from industry supporter to active owner by taking direct equity stakes in firms like Intel and U.S. Steel. This move blurs the lines between free markets and state control, risking a system where political connections, not performance, determine success.

When facing government pressure for deals that border on state capitalism, a single CEO gains little by taking a principled stand. Resisting alone will likely lead to their company being punished while competitors comply. The pragmatic move is to play along to ensure long-term survival, despite potential negative effects for the broader economy.

While headlines focus on advanced chips, China’s real leverage comes from its strategic control over less glamorous but essential upstream inputs like rare earths and magnets. It has even banned the export of magnet-making technology, creating critical, hard-to-solve bottlenecks for Western manufacturing.

The government's equity stake in Intel replaced a milestone-based grant system. This delinks the funding from specific performance targets, like building fabs, converting the deal into a higher-risk bet on the company's overall success rather than a payment for specific outcomes.

To rebuild its industrial base at speed, the US government must abandon its typical strategy of funding many small players. Instead, it should identify and place huge bets on a handful of trusted, patriotic entrepreneurs, giving them the scale, offtake agreements, and backing necessary to compete globally.

The system often blamed as capitalism is distorted. True capitalism requires the risk of failure as a clearing mechanism. Today's system is closer to cronyism, where government interventions like bailouts and regulatory capture protect established players from failure.

A large government commitment, like the $80 billion nuclear development plan with Westinghouse, does more than create a single customer. It acts as a powerful catalyst for the entire industry. This de-risks the supply chain, signals market viability, and attracts massive private capital (e.g., Brookfield), creating tailwinds for all players.