Trump's ending the $800 duty-free exemption on Friday but customs hasn't told postal services how to actually collect the tariffs. Germany and Singapore just said forget it and stopped shipping packages to the US entirely.

Can't argue with physics.

Join millions who have switched to Grok.

RT @IrvingSwisher: The 10yr yield moved higher even as the 2yr yield moved lower. The dollar sold off. In English: the attacks on the Fed r….

15/15 The Intel equity stake raises questions about government ownership in competitive markets without a clear underlying rationale. The approach may not address the strategic challenges it appears intended to solve. For a great take on this: .

14/ Industrial policy tools should be matched to specific problems they aim to solve. Grants, loans, equity, and regulatory mechanisms all carry different costs and risks. Using equity could introduce unnecessary complications.

13/ The three deals illustrate different approaches to government investment. You could argue that MP Materials and US Steel address specific market conditions or strategic needs. The rationale for Intel equity ownership is less apparent.

12/ This approach would address the real strategic vulnerability, which is excessive concentration in semiconductor manufacturing. A world where the entire AI economy depends on a single supplier creates systemic risk that threatens long-term competitiveness.

11/ What Intel actually needs is customers, not capital. The government could better serve national security by creating demand-side incentives that encourage major technology companies to diversify their supply chains and utilize Intel's manufacturing capacity.

10/ The arrangement may also undermine relationships with potential customers. Intel has disclosed in SEC filings that government ownership poses business risks because foreign customers may be concerned about working with a government-backed supplier.

9/ Government equity ownership introduces novel conflicts of interest. When Intel announces layoffs during elections, will policymakers be seen as profiting from job cuts? When setting semiconductor strategy, will officials act as national stewards or corporate shareholders?.

8/ The equity conversion also eliminates taxpayer protections. CHIPS Act grants included upside-sharing provisions and milestone requirements tied to customer commitments, technology readiness, and production goals. These have been removed.

7/ Converting grants to equity actually makes this customer problem worse. Equity investment comes at a higher cost to Intel than grants, potentially putting the company at a competitive disadvantage relative to Asian manufacturers who benefit from direct subsidies.

6/ Intel's real problem is not financial but operational. Its foundry business lost over $13 billion last year and has virtually no external customers. The 18A process has failed to attract meaningful outside business, leaving Intel dependent solely on its own chip designs.

5/ Intel does not appear to fit these criteria. The company has ready access to private capital markets, as shown by its recent $2 billion equity injection from SoftBank. There is no obvious market failure that government equity ownership would address.

4/ The US Steel golden share could also fit this logic. When critical industrial infrastructure faces foreign acquisition, government veto retention over strategic decisions serves national security interests, even if it raises concerns about deterring future foreign investment.

3/ The MP Materials case could fit this framework. Private capital was hesitant to finance rare earth production given uncertain demand and long payback periods. The Pentagon's $400 million investment included price floors and guaranteed offtake agreements to address these gaps.

2/ There are circumstances when government equity stakes can serve industrial policy goals. These typically involve addressing market failures where private capital is insufficient, securing critical supply chains, or maintaining strategic control over essential infrastructure.

1/ The Trump admin's recent $8.9 billion equity stake in Intel raises questions about what problem this investment is meant to solve. When compared to the MP Materials and US Steel deals, it's unclear what market failure the Intel equity stake addresses. .

Intel immediately files with the SEC warning that Trump's government stake could kill their international sales because apparently foreign customers aren't thrilled about buying chips from America's newest state-run enterprise.

10/10 Reshoring's long-term viability depends on automation competitiveness. Hyundai shows it's achievable, but sustaining those gains across industries requires strategic thinking about how to compete in a new manufacturing landscape.