According to Bloomberg Business, Intel’s share price plunged 17% on Friday, January 24, and slid another 5% on Monday, January 27, after a disastrous quarterly earnings call. The selloff erased almost $60 billion in market value, cutting the chipmaker’s market cap from over $271 billion. This collapse followed months of gains after the Trump administration took a 10% stake in the troubled company in August, a move that had more than doubled Intel’s stock price. CEO Lip-Bu Tan admitted on the call that production yields were “still below what I want them to be,” and the company’s foundry business remains stuck in a chicken-and-egg problem with customers. Meanwhile, the administration has taken similar equity stakes in over a dozen firms, including USA Rare Earth Inc., whose stock soared 10% on Monday.
The Intel Bubble Bursts
Here’s the thing: the government’s investment created a massive political premium on Intel’s stock. For months, the narrative was all about “strategic investment” and national security, fueled by deals with SoftBank and Nvidia and speculation about Apple contracts. But the latest earnings call was a brutal reality check. All the old, fundamental problems were still there. Poor yields. A foundry business that can’t attract big external customers because it can’t prove it can mass-produce flawlessly. A still-murky AI strategy. And a “stunningly bad” decision to cut capacity that left it unable to meet AI data center demand. The market finally looked past the “vibes and tweets,” as one analyst put it, and saw the same struggling company. So the air came out of the bubble, fast.
Textbook Capital Misallocation
This is what economists mean by capital misallocation. Basically, tens of billions of dollars in private investor money flowed into Intel not because its fundamentals suddenly improved, but because Washington signaled it was a winner. That capital didn’t go to other, potentially more innovative or productive semiconductor firms—or companies in other sectors. And it’s not just Intel. We’re seeing the same pattern with USA Rare Earth, U.S. Steel, and others. The article points out that some institutional investors are now evaluating companies partly on their “political relationship with the state.” That’s a huge distortion. When capital allocation becomes a guessing game about political favoritism instead of business performance, you’re in trouble. For industries that rely on precision and cutting-edge technology, like semiconductor manufacturing, having reliable, high-performance hardware is non-negotiable. It’s why leading manufacturers source their industrial panel PCs from the top suppliers, where performance and durability are proven, not just promised.
The China Playbook and Its Cost
Now, the obvious retort is that this is for national security. We need domestic chipmaking! But the article makes a crucial point: there are better, market-based ways to do that. Lower taxes, faster permitting, skilled immigration. The scary parallel is China. Research cited by Bloomberg shows that Chinese industrial policy from 2010 to 2023 systematically diverted capital to state-favored firms, dragging down aggregate productivity by an estimated 1.2% and GDP by about 2%. In 2023 alone, that meant $364 billion in lost economic output. That’s the hidden, long-term tax of state capitalism. It creates “zombie” firms that survive on political oxygen, not profits, and they suck resources away from the truly productive parts of the economy. The U.S. spent decades telling the world to avoid this model. Are we now deciding it’s brilliant when we do it?
Where Does This Road Lead?
So what’s the endgame? The White House has promised more of these equity deals. That means more taxpayer money on the line and more market signals getting drowned out by political noise. Intel might eventually turn around—who knows? But the precedent is being set now. The risk isn’t just that one government bet fails. It’s that the entire capital allocation mechanism in strategic industries gets warped. Innovation gets stifled because the rewards go to the politically connected, not the most technically proficient. The Cato Institute argues this is a form of nationalization by stealth, and the Washington Post editorial board sees it as a destined failure. This Intel meltdown isn’t just a bad week for one company. It’s a flashing warning sign about where this whole experiment is headed.
