This week we talk about General Motors, the Great Recession, and semiconductors.
We also discuss Goldman Sachs, US Steel, and nationalization.
Recommended Book: Abundance by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson
Transcript
Nationalization refers to the process through which a government takes control of a business or business asset.
Sometimes this is the result of a new administration or regime taking control of a government, which decides to change how things work, so it gobbles up things like oil companies or railroads or manufacturing hubs, because that stuff is considered to be fundamental enough that it cannot be left to the whims, and the ebbs and eddies and unpredictable variables of a free market; the nation needs reliable oil, it needs to be churning out nails and screws and bullets, so the government grabs the means of producing these things to ensure nothing stops that kind of output or operation.
That more holistic reworking of a nation’s economy so that it reflects some kind of socialist setup is typically referred to as socialization, though commentary on the matter will still often refer to the individual instances of the government taking ownership over something that was previously private as nationalization.
In other cases these sorts of assets are nationalized in order to right some kind of perceived wrong, as was the case when the French government, in the wake of WWII, nationalized the automobile company Renault for its alleged collaboration with the Nazis when they occupied France.
The circumstances of that nationalization were questioned, as there was a lot of political scuffling between capitalist and communist interests in the country at that time, and some saw this as a means of getting back against the company’s owner, Louis Renault, for his recent, violent actions against workers who had gone on strike before France’s occupation—but whatever the details, France scooped up Renault and turned it into a state-owned company, and in 1994, the government decided that its ownership of the company was keeping its products from competing on the market, and in 1996 it was privatized and they started selling public shares, though the French government still owns about 15% of the company.
Nationalization is more common in some non-socialist nations than others, as there are generally considered to be significant pros and cons associated with such ownership.
The major benefit of such ownership is that a government owned, or partially government owned entity will tend to have the government on its side to a greater or lesser degree, which can make it more competitive internationally, in the sense that laws will be passed to help it flourish and grow, and it may even benefit from direct infusions of money, when needed, especially with international competition heats up, and because it generally allows that company to operate as a piece of government infrastructure, rather than just a normal business.
Instead of being completely prone to the winds of economic fortune, then, the US government can ensure that Amtrak, a primarily state-owned train company that’s structured as a for-profit business, but which has a government-appointed board and benefits from federal funding, is able to keep functioning, even when demand for train services is low, and barbarians at the gate, like plane-based cargo shipping and passenger hauling, becomes a lot more competitive, maybe even to the point that a non-government-owned entity may have long-since gone under, or dramatically reduced its service area, by economic necessity.
A major downside often cited by free-market people, though, is that these sorts of companies tend to do poorly, in terms of providing the best possible service, and in terms of making enough money to pay for themselves—services like Amtrak are structured so that they pay as much of their own expenses as much as possible, for instance, but are seldom able to do so, requiring injections of resources from the government to stay afloat, and as a result, they have trouble updating and even maintaining their infrastructure.
Private companies tend to be a lot more agile and competitive because they have to be, and because they often have leadership that is less political in nature, and more oriented around doing better than their also private competition, rather than merely surviving.
What I’d like to talk about today is another vital industry that seems to have become so vital, like trains, that the US government is keen to ensure it doesn’t go under, and a stake that the US government took in one of its most historically significant, but recently struggling companies.
—
The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 was a law passed by the US government after the initial whammy of the Great Recession, which created a bunch of bailouts for mostly financial institutions that, if they went under, it was suspected, would have caused even more damage to the US economy.
These banks had been playing fast and loose with toxic assets for a while, filling their pockets with money, but doing so in a precarious and unsustainable manner.
As a result, when it became clear these assets were terrible, the dominos started falling, all these institutions started going under, and the government realized that they would either lose a significant portion of their banks and other financial institutions, or they’d have to bail them out—give them money, basically.
Which wasn’t a popular solution, as it looked a lot like rewarding bad behavior, and making some businesses, private businesses, too big to fail, because the country’s economy relied on them to some degree. But that’s the decision the government made, and some of these institutions, like Goldman Sachs, had their toxic assets bought by the government, removing these things from their balance sheets so they could keep operating as normal. Others declared bankruptcy and were placed under government control, including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were previously government supported, but not government run.
The American International Group, the fifth largest insurer in the world at that point, was bought by the US government—it took 92% of the company in exchange for $141.8 billion in assistance, to help it stay afloat—and General Motors, not a financial institution, but a car company that was deemed vital to the continued existence of the US auto market, went bankrupt, the fourth largest bankruptcy in US history. The government allowed its assets to be bought by a new company, also called GM, which would then function as normal, which allowed the company to keep operating, employees to keep being paid, and so on, but as part of that process, the company was given a total of $51 billion by the government, which took a majority stake in the new company in exchange.
In late-2013, the US government sold its final shares of GM stock, having lost about $10.7 billion over the course of that ownership, though it’s estimated that about 1.5 million jobs were saved as a result of keeping GM and Chrysler, which went through a similar process, afloat, rather than letting them go under, as some people would have preferred.
In mid-August of this year, the US government took another stake in a big, historically significant company, though this time the company in question wasn’t going through a recession-sparked bankruptcy—it was just falling way behind its competition, and was looking less and less likely to ever catch up.
Intel was founded 1968, and it designs, produces, and sells all sorts of semiconductor products, like the microprocessors—the computer chips—that power all sorts of things, these days.
Intel created the world’s first commercial computer chip back in 1971, and in the 1990s, its products were in basically every computer that hit the market, its range and dominance expanding with the range and dominance of Microsoft’s Windows operating system, achieving a market share of about 90% in the mid- to late-1990s.
Beginning in the early 2000s, though, other competitors, like AMD, began to chip away at Intel’s dominance, and though it still boasts a CPU market share of around 67% as of Q2 of 2025, it has fallen way behind competitors like Nvidia in the graphics card market, and behind Samsung in the larger semiconductor market.
And that’s a problem for Intel, as while CPUs are still important, the overall computing-things, high-tech gadget space has been shifting toward stuff that Intel doesn’t make, or doesn’t do well.
Smaller things, graphics-intensive things. Basically all the hardware that’s powered the gaming, crypto, and AI markets, alongside the stuff crammed into increasingly small personal devices, are things that Intel just isn’t very good at, and doesn’t seem to have a solid means of getting better at, so it’s a sort of aging giant in the computer world—still big and impressive, but with an outlook that keeps getting worse and worse, with each new generation of hardware, and each new innovation that seems to require stuff it doesn’t produce, or doesn’t produce good versions of.
This is why, despite being a very unusual move, the US government’s decision to buy a 10% stake in Intel for $8.9 billion didn’t come as a total surprise.
The CEO of Intel had been raising the possibility of some kind of bailout, positioning Intel as a vital US asset, similar to all those banks and to GM—if it went under, it would mean the US losing a vital piece of the global semiconductor pie. The government already gave Intel $2.2 billion as part of the CHIPS and Science Act, which was signed into law under the Biden administration, and which was meant to shore-up US competitiveness in that space, but that was a freebie—this new injection of resources wasn’t free.
Response to this move has been mixed. Some analysts think President Trump’s penchant for netting the government shares in companies it does stuff for—as was the case with US Steel giving the US government a so-called ‘golden share’ of its company in exchange for allowing the company to merge with Japan-based Nippon Steel, that share granting a small degree of governance authority within the company—they think that sort of quid-pro-quo is smart, as in some cases it may result in profits for a government that’s increasingly underwater in terms of debt, and in others it gives some authority over future decisions, giving the government more levers to use, beyond legal ones, in steering these vital companies the way it wants to steer them.
Others are concerned about this turn of events, though, as it seems, theoretically at least, anti-competitive. After all, if the US government profits when Intel does well, now that it owns a huge chunk of the company, doesn’t that incentivize the government to pass laws that favor Intel over its competitors? And even if the government doesn’t do anything like that overtly, doesn’t that create a sort of chilling effect on the market, making it less likely serious competitors will even emerge, because investors might be too spooked to invest in something that would be going up against a partially government-owned entity?
There are still questions about the legality of this move, as it may be that the CHIPS Act doesn’t allow the US government to convert grants into equity, and it may be that shareholders will find other ways to rebel against the seeming high-pressure tactics from the White House, which included threats by Trump to force the firing of its CEO, in part by withholding some of the company’s federal grants, if he didn’t agree to giving the government a portion of the company in exchange for assistance.
This also raises the prospect that Intel, like those other bailed-out companies, has become de facto too big to fail, which could lead to stagnation in the company, especially if the White House goes further in putting its thumb on the scale, forcing more companies, in the US and elsewhere, to do business with the company, despite its often uncompetitive offerings.
While there’s a chance that Intel takes this influx of resources and support and runs with it, catching up to competitors that have left it in the dust and rebuilding itself into something a lot more internationally competitive, then, there’s also the chance that it continues to flail, but for much longer than it would have, otherwise, because of that artificial support and government backing.
Show Notes
https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/did-trump-save-intel-not-really-2025-08-23/
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/23/business/trump-intel-us-steel-nvidia.html
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/08/intel-agrees-to-sell-the-us-a-10-stake-trump-says-hyping-great-deal/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapter_11_reorganization
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/government-financial-bailout.asp
https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/amds-desktop-pc-market-share-hits-a-new-high-as-server-gains-slow-down-intel-now-only-outsells-amd-2-1-down-from-9-1-a-few-years-ago
https://www.spglobal.com/commodity-insights/en/news-research/latest-news/metals/062625-in-rare-deal-for-us-government-owns-a-piece-of-us-steel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-owned_enterprises_of_the_United_States
https://247wallst.com/special-report/2021/04/07/businesses-run-by-the-us-government/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization
https://www.amtrak.com/stakeholder-faqs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapter_11_reorganization
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit letsknowthings.substack.com/subscribe