Intel fab construction is exactly the kind of corruption we’re talking about here. Trying to manipulate markets via subsidies is horrifically inefficient and thus a vast waste of taxpayer dollars.

> Intel fab construction is exactly the kind of corruption we’re talking about here.

It's good when we do it, it's bad when China does it

> Trying to manipulate markets via subsidies is horrifically inefficient

By what means should markets be manipulated?

Regulations, Research, or Taxes. In this case tariffs would be the obvious option as there’s no long term costs beyond the inherent inefficiencies of domestic production.

This statement contains the unstated premise that efficiency is a higher goal than all other goals.

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.

The 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.

The 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.

Huh? 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.

The 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.

France imports lots and lots of wine. You think their efforts to preserve a domestic wine industry are "failed"?

If 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.

“Against the public interest” might contain a clue for the distinction they’re making.

It's not as silly for cable lobbyists to want something they shouldn't have as it is to have people on the gov payroll attempt to write it into law. Even more silly is for journalists to not name the offenders. Those evil cable lobbyists did this!

"Against the public interest" is the vaguest bar for investigation I can imagine, it's even vaguer than "probable cause" in policing! As long as you can find a person who disagrees (and presumably pays taxes), you're good to go on "against the public interest"?

K, so let's give it a try anyway and see what kind of behavior it incentivizes.

Your example is too vague to make much of, frankly, but in theory I'd believe perhaps it's possible for lobbyists' positions to align with or at least not contradict the public interest, though recent decades have shown precious few examples compared to the sheer volume of fuckery like this. A law could be written to not target all lobbying activity while still being able to draw useful distinctions between doing harm in the name of profit and providing some kind of useful industry insight (whatever that may be) to the process of government

How about AI censorship? Without lobbying, how would corporations share their expertise on the matter for politicians to take into account?

>Without lobbying, how would corporations share their expertise on the matter for politicians to take into account?

There is literally an entire govt department in the US whose core job is to unbiasedly keep the politicians informed on the expert details of the areas they're legislating.

Specifically, the Library of Congress (this is why the US Congress has a library), and it's Congressional Research Service.