When the federal government takes a 10% stake in Intel, taxpayers carry the risk while politicians decide how the asset is used. In Episode 005, Nicky P, Luke Tatum and Corey Sinz, then with Perfect Spiral Capital, talk through what state ownership of a public company means for you, why the pattern of private profits and public bailouts goes back to at least 2008, and why Corey says real sovereign wealth starts at home.
“Isn’t that a little bit like circular logic at a certain point?”
In August 2025, the federal government announced it would take roughly a 10% stake in Intel. People across the political spectrum argued about what to call it. This episode skips the name-calling and asks the question that matters to you: what does it mean when the state owns part of a company with your tax dollars?
What We Covered
Socialism, fascism, or something else? Nicky calls it a line crossed. Corey calls it a form of socialism and points out that Intel was already starting to improve on its own. Luke notes that labels get thrown around so loosely that the real question gets lost, which is what this does to the US taxpayer.
Even Bernie Sanders likes it. Luke reads Bernie Sanders' statement that if chip companies profit from federal grants, taxpayers have a right to a reasonable return. The talk has already moved on to Lockheed Martin and Raytheon. Luke calls it circular: give a company money so it can make a profit so it can give money back.
What happens to the incentive to end a war? Nicky's concern is what changes once the government profits from defense companies. If making weapons becomes a revenue line for the nation, the reasons to keep conflicts going get stronger.
“It feels like political allocation and not an economic one.”
History rhymes. Corey brings up Woodrow Wilson's temporary takeover of the railroads and telecommunications, and the regulations that still grip both industries today. He also notes that Intel itself warned the stake could hurt the company, since a lot of its income comes from overseas.
Private profits, public losses. Luke ties it to the bailout model we've lived with since at least 2008. When does Intel become too big to fail? He adds that Intel already relies on overseas partners like TSMC and, by his numbers, does only about 75% of its manufacturing in the US.
The national security pushback. Nicky argues the security concern is real, since global trade isn't the open, free system we'd like it to be. Luke's answer: demand for chips will drive domestic manufacturing without a government stake. The factories, the expertise and the capital goods are already here. Companies that can't clean up their act should be allowed to shrink or go private, the way Walgreens is leaving the S&P 500 after almost a century as a public company.
“If I wanted to own Intel, I’d just buy shares of Intel, right?”
Political allocation, not economic. Corey says the government can't allocate resources well because it doesn't have the price signals a business has. It creates moral hazard and sets favored companies apart. For his part, he wouldn't want Intel in his portfolio or a 401(k) now, because government involvement signals there may be shenanigans behind the scenes.
Key Takeaway
You can't vote your way out of a stake the government bought with your tax dollars, but you can decide where your own savings live. Corey and Luke describe the Infinite Banking Concept: properly designed whole life insurance from a mutual insurance company, a private contract with a company its policyholders partly own. You keep control, there are no politicians in the middle, and it can carry across generations.
Key Moments
[2:00] Bernie Sanders Agrees
[3:00] Profit Motives and Defense Contractors
[5:00] Woodrow Wilson and the History That Rhymes
[7:00] Privatized Profits, Socialized Losses
[8:00] The National Security Pushback
[9:00] Walgreens and Letting Companies Fail
[14:00] Political Allocation, Not Economic
[16:00] The Infinite Banking Alternative
[21:00] Sovereign Wealth Starts at Home
“Sovereign wealth starts at home. That’s with the individual.”
Related Episodes
Episode 002: Visa, MasterCard, and the Death of Financial Freedom: When Private Companies Decide Your Morality
Episode 004: Is the Fed's Dual Mandate Failing America? Jerome Powell, the 2% Inflation Target and the Volcker Era
Episode 006: Trump's Tariffs Ruled Illegal: Who Really Pays for Tariffs?
Want the full conversation, including Corey's take on sovereign wealth? Listen to the full episode and grab the free toolkit at PerfectSpiralCapital.com/podcast.
FAQ
-
In August 2025, the federal government announced it would take roughly a 10% stake in Intel, tied to federal chip funding. Supporters, including Senator Bernie Sanders, said taxpayers deserve a return on grants to chipmakers. In Episode 005, the hosts argue it puts political judgment in charge of a business and leaves taxpayers holding the risk.
-
Taxpayers pay for the stake, carry the downside if the company struggles, and have no direct say in how it’s run. Corey Sinz’s point is that government doesn’t have the price signals a business uses, so its decisions are political rather than economic, and a government-backed company starts to look too big to fail.
-
A sovereign wealth fund is a government-owned investment fund that holds stocks, bonds and other assets on the public’s behalf. Corey compares it to a 401(k) where you have no control. His alternative is that sovereign wealth starts at home, with individuals and families building their own.
-
On the episode, Corey Sinz and Luke Tatum describe the Infinite Banking Concept: saving through properly designed whole life insurance from a mutual insurance company. It’s a private contract, policyholders are part owners of a mutual company, and you decide how your money is used.
Show full transcript
Between The Lies: Episode 005 Transcript
Intel, Fascism and a Line Crossed [0:00]
Nicky P: We hear people complain every day about fascism, but it appears the line has officially been crossed here in the United States as Trump takes 10% of Intel on behalf of the United States. Welcome to the Between The Lies Podcast, your weekly lesson on how to approach an uncertain world with positivity and balance.
I'm Nicky P here with my good friends and money brains. Luke Tatum and Corey Sinz from Perfect Spiral Capital. Gentlemen, are you ready for fascism?
First Reactions [0:00]
Corey Sinz: Well call it what you'll, it's definitely a form of socialism. It has definitely lots of different, flavors. I definitely, looking at the news, what's my gut reaction to Intel?
I don't feel good about it. I, you know, Intel was already starting to improve on their own. I don't know what the government has to offer, especially with our tax money.
Luke Tatum: Yeah. I mean, you've got a lot of. A lot of things we can get into here. We pre-show, we're already getting into a lot of stuff here. And so, there, I mean, it's a huge miss.
It's an absolute cluster of problems and a lot to pick apart there. But, one of the things that. I see people talking about a lot is, you know, is this socialism? Is this fascism? Is this communism? You know, people don't even know the definitions of words. And that's the, that includes capitalism, right?
And so anytime you don't like anything, it's capitalism. That's what's trendy and cool, right? My lizard won't eat the cricket that I tried to feed it, right? That must be capitalism's fault somehow. You know, that's the level that we're at a lot of times with these kind of discussions. And so I think it'd be interesting to get into that.
It's definitely late stage. What does that mean, Nick? I mean, let's not make this a episode about defining terms, you know, but.
Nicky P: Well, as much as we joke, I say, I think we've all kinda laughed for years, has left. He, oh, Trump's gonna be, he's gonna be the guy that brings fascism to America. But the bottom line is, you know, we were already halfway there as he's putting, you know, troops in American cities to handle their policing.
So then like you wash the other hand with now taking actual state ownership of businesses. I don't think you get any more fascist of a government than that, you know, or socialist, whatever you want to call it. It's all bad, but it's, that's officially like, you've checked all the boxes now, boys.
Bernie Sanders Agrees [2:00]
Luke Tatum: Right? I mean, we're not the only people to say this by any means. There's been lots of buzz about it, but I did find an actual quote from Bernie Sanders. There's been lots of memes going around about this, right? Where Bernie Sanders supports. Trump's decision to take ownership of Intel. Why would he support that?
He's a literal socialist. He would tell you himself, he's a socialist, right? And so I'm just gonna read from my phone, but it says, this is a quote from Bernie Sanders. If microchip companies make a profit from the generous grants they receive from the federal government, the taxpayers of America have a right to a reasonable return on that investment.
And it's like. Okay. You know, where does that leave us really? I think is what we have to get into today is like, what does that mean for you and I, you know, the US taxpayer, the US citizen, if. The state is going to be taking ownership in companies. 'cause they're talking now about not just limiting this to Intel.
It's not just a one-time thing. It's, well, maybe we should buy Lockheed Martin, maybe we should buy Raytheon, maybe we should do, you know, et cetera, et cetera. Isn't that a little bit like circular logic at a certain point? Like, we're giving the money to the company so that the company can make a profit so that they can give money back to us so that we can, I mean, what are we doing?
What are we doing?
Profit Motives and Defense Contractors [3:00]
Nicky P: So, the obvious problem there, certainly when you're talking about something like Raytheon is that, look, it's all well and good for a government, I guess, get involved in speculation, which is its own thing. The problem, you know, I guess I would rather they spend the money on something that at least has the possibility of returning a profit as opposed to just stealing it and blowing it up in the desert.
That seems like probably a worse way to use our money, but the bottom line is they're starting by stealing it from us to do whatever they're gonna do, which is wrong. Ignoring that for just a second, let's try and deal with the fact that, you know, God, if there's ever been an incentive to keep wars going, you know.
The profit motive, being there for the government is certainly not gonna make things any harder for 'em to pass those laws, to keep things rolling. Like, well, why didn't we never end a single war? Because of just, you know, keeping, making those bomb machines makes us more money as a nation. Like that's where the real issues all stem.
For me, it's like, like I don't dislike the idea of at least if you're wasting my money trying to recoup some expense, but when you control the things that make that happen, well, you know, it's no matter what the government does, it's just, it's licking its own ice cream cone. It's finding ways to take advantage of itself, to make more, to continue creating what it needs to do.
Spend more. Like, it's frustrating.
Woodrow Wilson and the History That Rhymes [5:00]
Corey Sinz: If we take a look at the history, we've got a lot of things on our home field that have already transpired. You know, if we're talking about, Woodrow Wilson shutting down temporarily, the. Telecommunications the trains and then nationalizing them was only for a certain amount of time.
But we can still see even in 2025 that there are still regulations that are grip holding on both of those industries. We know that these aren't gonna go away. It's, this may even be a baseline for how the government interacts with the stock market, in another way to manipulate. Other things.
But along with that is Intel themselves said that this is probably bad news for them because a lot of their income comes from overseas. And you've got, you've got, when you're talking about like national defense though, you know, they're trying to use another excuse like, oh, this is gonna bolster our defense or social or our You know, a national security we're gonna have that. So there I feel like they're almost shotgunning different, excuses to try to take control is my kind of thing. And also when the state controls an asset, you know, there. We've already said this. They're using stolen funds to bolster this and, and saying that it's in the interest of the taxpayers because they're, look, we're gonna have all these benefits.
We're gonna have increased, interest rates, we're gonna have appreciation and assets and. At the same time we'll have, you know, the taxpayers will have no say over that. They may have some bureaucratic way to, you know, elect some of individuals, or we'll appoint people to these, you know, finance are positions or something like that.
But the taxpayers are gonna have the risk and they're gonna bear it all
Privatized Profits, Socialized Losses [7:00]
Luke Tatum: True. I mean, it's the same thing we've seen like, at least since 2008. But certainly I would argue, well before that, the whole. Privatize the risk, socialize the losses, you know, model that's more or less what we've had.
Oh, well, if the company's not doing well, we'll just bail 'em out. Right. When does Intel become a too big to fail bank? Like on the same, the same level as those institutions? Well, you know, it's us manufacturing. We can't let that fail. Right. Oh, it's this, I mean, you just make up the excuses. They write themselves, but it's.
Oh. Intel can't hold up against other chip manufacturing companies, which, I mean, that's a whole can of worms too. TSMC and all these other places, like they do some of Intel's manufacturing, only 75% of it takes place in the US anyway. And so you've got, I, it's all very global and it's weird and one dimensional.
To go, oh, well we're gonna prop up US manufacturing, we're going to prop up this company in particular. 'cause it manufactures the US. I mean, it's just, it's Trump's like talking points that he gets on all the time. I wouldn't be surprised if he bought 10% of a company that you know is working on the border wall, like stuff like that.
You know, the same kinds of things that he. Supporting verbally now he's going to buy interest in, and it just puts us in a weird spot.
The National Security Pushback [8:00]
Nicky P: So I kind of wanna push back a little bit on this, in that, you know, it when, if you're deep in libertarian thought and you're looking at this strictly from that lens.
It's real easy to get lost in the, how it should be. You know, there's the prescription for sure that like, there, this is terrible. But there does seem to be a sense for me in which we do actually genuinely have some concerns about, say, national security and the whole global trade system.
You know, as much as I want it to be a, an open and free. System. It's not. It's cobbled together and most of the people we engage in trade with don't even really like us. Now, trade does work in that, but what happens? One of 'em feels like they've got the edge and then they want to screw the system, and we're not set up because we've have completely divested ourselves from certain types of creation.
Walgreens and Letting Companies Fail [9:00]
Luke Tatum: I mean, it's an interesting question, but I don't think that the US government buying 10% of Intel is necessary for us to have US-based chip manufacturing. Right. As Corey pointed to, like they're already taking moves, they're a profit seeking company. Right. We're, if you wanna talk about pure capitalism without any restrictions, what whatsoever?
Well, the company is going to seek to reconcile its books. Clean up, its act, make a profit. They wanna turn a profit, they wanna report to their shareholders in a favorable way. I mean, you do have some companies that do deserve to fail and should fail, and that is a natural thing. Right. I hear what you're saying about, we shouldn't focus on the shoulds, but Walgreens just is getting out of the S&P 500.
They've been a publicly traded company for 98 years, almost a hundred years. Since, you know, 20 19, 27, they've been publicly traded. They're leaving the S&P 500 and they're becoming a private company again because they just haven't been able to clean up their act. If that were to happen to Intel, so be it.
There's demand for chips, demand will lead to people seeking domestic chip manufacturing, people seeking to, you know, set up some sort of a new way. Those factories are still there. Right. The facilities, the expertise of the people who live in the US, the capital goods are here. It's just a question of how they can be allocated.
No Price Signals [11:00]
Corey Sinz: And the government can't allocate those resources properly. They don't have the price signals. They don't have the demand. They don't, they don't make things. They just take and reallocate or do whatever, and. For the government to do this. You know, like Nick said, it's public. You, I can see my tax dollars right there on the ledger.
However, it's creating a moral hazard for the too big to fail. It's separating specific businesses or industries apart. And, and in the guise of trying to be better than other countries or to bolster America. I just, it just doesn't. Historically work out? I think
Is This Really New? [12:00]
Nicky P: So there's another question on that is that, are you both of a mind that this is not as new as people are making it out to be?
That this is just kind of a maybe the next step or an expected evolution of our desire to allow our government to choose winners and losers? Whatever way they can.
Luke Tatum: I mean, I absolutely agree with that, Nick. It's something that, you know, we've seen with the Federal Reserve policy, we've seen with, you know, direct intervention in the economy previously.
I mean, we've had all kinds of horrible policies in the United States over the last a hundred years, 150 years. Right. There's been a lot of bad things now, some of them haven't been permanent. Yeah, but exactly the last five years are a reflection of some of the stuff that's happened in the, in the past.
Right. It's, the whole history, you know, rhymes kind of thing, right? It's not exactly the same stuff, but it's similar enough. And, you know, this is a return to government at its absolute worst, which is direct. Taking the reins of the economy, you know, this is setting price ceilings, setting price floors, you know, telling companies what to manufacture instead of letting them choose where to do that.
I mean, the goal of a business is to correctly, predict what people need and in what amounts, right? That's what you're doing. You're trying to serve demand. Demand is not a thing. You don't get a like list in your email inbox that says, this is how many products the world needs. Right. You have to be able to navigate that and predict and, and, you know, help to shape trends.
That's what your marketing is for and those sorts of things. And so, you know, if a company can't do that, it shouldn't be here. Right? If it makes too many mistakes, it should be absorbed into something else. What do you think, Corey? I mean, this is,
Political Allocation, Not Economic [14:00]
Corey Sinz: It feels like political allocation and not an economic one.
It. I don't think it really has a place. I think what this does for someone like me, I would see that the government is involved with Intel. I don't want that in my, if I have a stock portfolio, I don't want that in there. If it's in a 401k, it just signals that there might be some shenanigans in the background or.
Or anything like that. So for me, the risk is too high, and that is for every individual to accept. There will be people who will think that this is, this gives the stamp of approval that this is the stock to buy. So it's gonna, it's gonna pendulum swing for many individuals. The other thing is we're talking about this.
In time right now as we have our, you know, our current political, situation. That political situation does the same thing at pendulum. So now the people who are actively, interested in and want this to happen are suddenly going to be against it in the future. And, but the groundwork had, has already been laid.
The problems have already been, you know, established. I think
Nicky P: The political pendulum only goes one way. It doesn't ever seem to swing back. It's always swinging towards more control. Yeah. The cultural pendulum swings back and forth and we're on the beginning of the right wing backswing that I've been warning about for 10 years, but.
You know, it, I don't see this being, like you said, any different than anything that's happened in the past. It does just seem like the next iteration or the next rhyme in the verse of history. You know, it's just the next thing that looks like the last thing that's kind of different. So you've already kind of, I think, started touching on this, but what are the ways in which we can, you know.
Think positively about how this doesn't have to affect us.
The Infinite Banking Alternative [16:00]
Corey Sinz: I think this is, this is just a perfect example of what not to do. And we can in saying that, let's bring, the infinite banking concept into to focus here. So if we've got, we've got the government and they are taking an asset, but the taxpayer's paying for it.
But the taxpayer has no say in how that's used or operated. And then may get some sort of benefit, but they've already paid for it. Versus what we can do is we ourselves can set up our own policy that's properly designed whole life insurance from a mutual insurance company and. With that, then we are accepting the control for ourselves, for our families, and then also benefiting others in our local area.
I have no idea why I wanna go that way. No. It is. We are also not accepting the risk in this policies. That is something that is on the insurance companies to do with our funds. So I think, I think we have full control. To sum it up, we have full control over our policies versus if we are looking into like a sovereign, the sovereign wealth fund, you know, that's something that is really screams like a 401k to me where we don't have control.
It just is going to operate and good luck.
Private Contracts vs. Public Programs [17:00]
Luke Tatum: Well, it's like, what's true and what's an illusion, you know what is true? If you are doing the infinite banking concept, you're implementing that in your life. If you are. Taking direct control over your own wealth and all those things and, and your capital and your ability to generate cash flow and all of these wonderful things that we talk about on a daily basis.
What you're doing is really removing a lot of middlemen, right? You have a private contract with a company that you also own. You're a part owner If you're dealing with a mutual insurance company and. That is a very closed loop system, right? It's shielded from a lot of the negative things that we've been talking about, taxation being one of them.
But the government likes to do things in a, you know, vastly inferior way, but pretend it's the best version, right? And so, okay, well we're gonna steal your money. You don't get to pick if you're gonna do this. We're gonna steal your money. We're gonna put it into this. After we take a big old haircut off the top, you know, 90% can go to our cronies, and then the rest of it can go into this thing, social security or whatever, and we're gonna mismanage it, and then we're gonna give you whatever's left at the end.
You know, like, oh yeah, you can have a road. We'll fix your bridge every 45 years, you know, whatever, like, and so direct control over industry like this. Is it just boggles the mind. Why? If I wanted to own Intel, I'd just buy shares of Intel, right? I mean, obviously. So thank you for stealing my money, putting it in Intel, not giving me the dividend.
Like if you gave me one, you know, 330000000th of the dividend of Intel every time. Okay. I guess, but. Then why would the government do it in the first place? What did they get out of that? Right? So there's always other people that are kind of dipping into this and taking their share. Which I would say is, you know, it's not really their share at all.
They're just taking it, right? It's theft. And so why would you want that? Why would you want that? Why not just arrange your own affairs? Why not arrange your life? So that you don't have to participate in these predatory systems and you can do that. And that's what the infinite banking concept is.
To some extent all about,
Corey Sinz: Yeah. For me it's the state owning the asset and then the taxpayers bearing the risk. We need to have our properly designed policies to protect us from that. No middlemen, no politicians are in there. I've read it several times, so I think that's what's important for me.
And hopefully for others.
Luke Tatum: Yeah. It's you, it's your family. You know, share it with your friends, share it with your grandparents. Share it with your children. Their children. Right. The thing that that makes such a big difference is when it becomes multi-generational. Right. Everybody would love to have huge dynastic wealth.
You know, you hear jokes about being a trust fund baby or whatever. It takes like literally one generation to make that a reality. You just have to decide that you're going to think long range.
Nicky P: Well, and it's, I guess really funny about all this you have so much this is happening is like other nations are getting rid of their sovereign wealth funds as we decide we want to have one.
Like it is like, well, welcome to the party a hundred years late guys.
Luke Tatum: And it's totally gonna go way better. The US is gonna do a way better job. 'cause you know, hashtag America's the best country ever or whatever, right? Like it's just the nonsensical position that we can do better than everybody else.
'cause who Raw America, like it's, that is not a reason, you know?
Sovereign Wealth Starts at Home [21:00]
Corey Sinz: Sovereign wealth I think is. You know, sovereign wealth starts at home. That's with the individual. That's where it's not in some ledger in New York on the exchange, it's not. It's, it's the individual making a difference in their community.
Building up their ideas for entrepreneur, entrepreneurialism. It's all those things. It's not a politician.
Nicky P: Yeah, it, that's my favorite quote from the episode, Corey. That's good. Right on. I love that. Well, Luke, Corey, why don't you gentlemen take us outta here today.
Outro and Free Toolkit [22:00]
Luke Tatum: Alright, well. Thanks so much for joining us again for this week's episode of the Between The Lies Podcast.
If you watch this full episode, then I know that you're clearly interested in money. Now we've got a free toolkit to help you with the future of your. Money. So if you're interested in that, if you wanna demystify the world of finance a little bit and not let the world get pulled over your eyes like politicians love to do, then head on over to perfectspiralcapital.com/podcast and grab your free.
Toolkit today. Thanks so much for being here.
