#industrial-policy

#industrial-policy

The European Commission, the EU's executive arm, will next week propose new rules that are expected to include a requirement for companies in strategic sectors to produce in Europe if they want to receive public money. But the definition of "European preference" has triggered debate, with calls especially from France for more "Made in Europe", while other EU states such as Germany call for "Made with Europe".

Campaigners from the Climate Action Network, a pan-European group of NGOs, said European industry was under real pressure from high energy prices, ageing assets, global overcapacity and delayed investments, but these issues could not be solved by watering down climate and environmental policies. Deregulation is not an industrial strategy, the group wrote in an open letter, which argued that the problems facing energy-intensive industries, including steel, cement and chemicals, were driven by prices of fossil fuel-derived energy and global market dynamics, rather than environmental regulation.

While it's appropriate to lament the lack of bipartisan cooperation in Washington, just because something's bipartisan doesn't mean it's a good idea. Exhibit A could be Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Senator J.D. Vance's (R-OH) "Invent It Here, Make It Here" bill. Despite the name and its good intentions, it condemns promising federally funded inventions to waste away without doing a thing to build our domestic manufacturing base. It's scheduled to be considered this Thursday in the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.

During his recent delegation to Beijing-the first by a Canadian prime minister since relations between the two countries became strained in 2018-Mark Carney agreed to allow 49,000 Chinese electric vehicles into the Canadian market at a reduced tariff rate. The move was presented as a pragmatic reset that could draw joint-venture capital back into Canada's auto corridor and offer relief to an industry squeezed by United States president Donald Trump's trade war.

A decade ago, China's political leaders laid out an ambitious industrial plan: By 2025, they pledged, their country would be a world capital, with the goal of moving from "Chinese speed to Chinese quality, the transformation of Chinese products to Chinese brands." This is the difference, they wrote, between "Made in China" and "Created in China." At WIRED, we never take what the government (ours or anybody else's) says at face value.

We have entered a new world economy shaped by two fundamental forces: geoeconomic fragmentation and exponential innovation. In this environment, established cooperative and diplomatic frameworks are under pressure, requiring much more dialogue, imagination and entrepreneurship to regain forward momentum. At the same time, technology and innovation are being deployed at unprecedented speed, with companies playing an ever-greater role. These shifts are transforming how businesses operate across geographies.

The reason for that is simple: the British state is big and getting bigger but as an agent of change it is not up to the job. This is true at both central and local levels. Over the years, the capacity of government to intervene has been pared back and professional expertise has been lost as council services have been outsourced.

Government officials in Hangzhou have grand ambitions to make their city in eastern China a global center for artificial intelligence-and the funds to try to make it happen. In June, they pledged $140 million to subsidize AI firms that operate in town. Not to be outdone, Shanghai promptly followed in July with its own $140 million subsidy program, and inaugurated an "AI innovation town" two months later with low-cost office space for start-ups in the sector.

"If we are able to build on them, maybe we have a chance to reach - not tomorrow, but maybe in one or two decades - something that is getting closer," she told The Register.

The government now perceives itself as a source of capital and the markets perceive them as a source of capital-it's not going to stop,

"Government intervention in the economy in the name of national security is most clearly warranted in cases of market failure," a new report from a bipartisan task force organized by the Council on Foreign Relations says. "Today, the market failures that loom largest for U.S. national security are shortfalls of private capital in strategically important areas and over-concentration of critical supply chains in unfriendly countries," the report adds.

A recent Wall Street Journal report has sparked major renewed interest in the quantum computing sector, claiming that President Trump is pushing for the U.S. government to acquire ownership stakes in several key players. According to the Journal, discussions involve Rigetti Computing ( NASDAQ:RGTI ), D-Wave Quantum ( ), IonQ ( ), and Quantum Computing ( NASDAQ:QUBT ), with each company potentially receiving federal funding in exchange for equity. The report suggests this move aims to bolster U.S. leadership in quantum technology amid global competition.

When you are facing a nonmarket economy like China, then you have to exercise industrial policy, Bessent said. The Treasury Secretary explained that China has put rare earth mineral companies out of business by massively dropping their own prices. We're going to set price floors and the forward buying to make sure that this doesn't happen again, and we're going to do it across a range of industries, he said.

The White House has confirmed that the Trump administration is in talks with Intel about acquiring a stake of up to 10% in the chipmaker. "The president wants to put America's needs first, both from a national security and economic perspective," White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed on Tuesday after days of media speculation over a possible deal. Although it would be unusual for the US government to take a stake in such a large company, it would align with President Donald Trump's trend of intervening in the free market during his second term.

The president wants to put America's needs first, both from a national security and economic perspective,