4 ms·

It's not the business of the federal government to encourage or discourage investment in an industry. When it does subsidize investment, it often comes with str

It's not the business of the federal government to encourage or discourage investment in an industry. When it does subsidize investment, it often comes with strings attached that don't help the industry in the long run.

collingreen 2y ago
I think it requires a lot of mental gymnastics to dismiss the semiconductor industry as anything but critical to all modern economies and militaries. I think it takes similar willful blindness to lump "encourage investment" in with "bring on shore in the name of national security" as if they are exactly the same. We do a lot of corrupt/wrong subsidizing in this country but that doesn't mean throw the baby out with the bathwater. If I had a magic wand we'd still have tariffs and subsidize critical infrastructure and expertise - for example I find it very surprising that we don't make sure we always have wartime level of doctors and farmers trained and ready.
halJordan 2y ago
That has not ever been true in the history of governments. Even when John Smith's version of laissez-faire was at its most influential
- Bostonian 2y ago
  Many governments do things that are economically inefficient, for example imposing tariffs to protect industries.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    And they also - subsidize farmers so consumers have cheaper groceriess - help fund public schools so education is less limited by socioeconomic status - fund science to advance the future - offer tax credits to encourage adopting environentally-friendly technology - apply taxes to disincenivize bad habits (e.g. tobacco) So I'm not sure where you're coming at with this angle. That's government's greatest effect on society. > imposing tariffs to protect industries. Trump is doing it wrong and recklessly, so no disagreement in reality But there are smart tactics for this short term inefficiency that can cause long term competitiveness. You can apply a high tarriff if you trust that domestic competition can catch up in a few years so you don't lose your own market to overseas competition. Long term, encouraging domestic stimulation is much better and more reliable than relying on foreign products for consumption. Especially essentials.
apognwsi 2y ago
to be clear, this is an opinion pertaining to the preferred behavior of eg the american government and not anything like a summary of its history in this regard. that is, the tech industry since its inception in the 60s has accepted, to its benefit, [massive] federal subsidy.
_fs 2y ago
What about when the lack of advanced chips are a real threat to our technological advantage, in addition to the fact that our largest threats are pouring billions of subsidized currency in to their own comparable industry.

collingreen 2y ago

I think it requires a lot of mental gymnastics to dismiss the semiconductor industry as anything but critical to all modern economies and militaries. I think it takes similar willful blindness to lump "encourage investment" in with "bring on shore in the name of national security" as if they are exactly the same. We do a lot of corrupt/wrong subsidizing in this country but that doesn't mean throw the baby out with the bathwater. If I had a magic wand we'd still have tariffs and subsidize critical infrastructure and expertise - for example I find it very surprising that we don't make sure we always have wartime level of doctors and farmers trained and ready.

halJordan 2y ago

That has not ever been true in the history of governments. Even when John Smith's version of laissez-faire was at its most influential

Bostonian 2y ago
Many governments do things that are economically inefficient, for example imposing tariffs to protect industries.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  And they also - subsidize farmers so consumers have cheaper groceriess - help fund public schools so education is less limited by socioeconomic status - fund science to advance the future - offer tax credits to encourage adopting environentally-friendly technology - apply taxes to disincenivize bad habits (e.g. tobacco) So I'm not sure where you're coming at with this angle. That's government's greatest effect on society. > imposing tariffs to protect industries. Trump is doing it wrong and recklessly, so no disagreement in reality But there are smart tactics for this short term inefficiency that can cause long term competitiveness. You can apply a high tarriff if you trust that domestic competition can catch up in a few years so you don't lose your own market to overseas competition. Long term, encouraging domestic stimulation is much better and more reliable than relying on foreign products for consumption. Especially essentials.

apognwsi 2y ago

to be clear, this is an opinion pertaining to the preferred behavior of eg the american government and not anything like a summary of its history in this regard. that is, the tech industry since its inception in the 60s has accepted, to its benefit, [massive] federal subsidy.

_fs 2y ago

What about when the lack of advanced chips are a real threat to our technological advantage, in addition to the fact that our largest threats are pouring billions of subsidized currency in to their own comparable industry.