4 ms·
No, it does not. It simply suggests it’s the general public that should be protected. Bringing up inefficiency seems wrong because the goal is a subsidy not ac
by Retric 3y ago
No, it does not. It simply suggests it’s the general public that should be protected.
Bringing up inefficiency seems wrong because the goal is a subsidy not acting in the interest of the general public.
- CPLX 3y agoThe goal is to ensure domestic production of physical goods intrinsic and essential to our way of life and other economic sectors. That’s an extremely defensible policy goal.
- Retric 3y agoThe terrible efficiency due to high cost a minimal impact largely disproves that idea. Politicians aren’t stupid, when your argument only works if you assume stupidity then you’re likely misunderstanding something.
- CPLX 3y agoHuh? Either the chips we need are made on an island surrounded by Chinese warships, or they are made in Arizona. That’s what this is about. It’s not some abstract concept.
- Retric 3y agoThe US had several fabs before we decided to subsidize them. We’re still going to still be importing chips after spending this money. So by your reasoning this is a failed initiative.
- CPLX 3y agoFrance imports lots and lots of wine. You think their efforts to preserve a domestic wine industry are "failed"?
- Retric 3y agoIf the argument is about a “strategic resource” then it’s a failure when we need to import any type of chips. Frankly if it’s pure protectionism then slap a Tariff on them.