Skip to main content
BTC / USDTCRYPTO107,400+2.19%ETH / USDTCRYPTO3,840+2.13%SOL / USDTCRYPTO182.40−1.99%BNB / USDTCRYPTO652.30+0.66%XRP / USDTCRYPTO2.2150+1.61%DOGE / USDTCRYPTO0.3850−1.79%TON / USDTCRYPTO5.240+2.34%AVAX / USDTCRYPTO42.60−2.07%LINK / USDTCRYPTO22.40+2.28%ADA / USDTCRYPTO1.0520−1.68%TRX / USDTCRYPTO0.3300+0.92%DOT / USDTCRYPTO8.420+2.93%BTC / USDTCRYPTO107,400+2.19%ETH / USDTCRYPTO3,840+2.13%SOL / USDTCRYPTO182.40−1.99%BNB / USDTCRYPTO652.30+0.66%XRP / USDTCRYPTO2.2150+1.61%DOGE / USDTCRYPTO0.3850−1.79%TON / USDTCRYPTO5.240+2.34%AVAX / USDTCRYPTO42.60−2.07%LINK / USDTCRYPTO22.40+2.28%ADA / USDTCRYPTO1.0520−1.68%TRX / USDTCRYPTO0.3300+0.92%DOT / USDTCRYPTO8.420+2.93%
Prezzi
macroJun 25, 2026, 12:00 PM

Quantum Computing Backs Case for US Industrial Policy, Economists Say

The Economist columnists argue quantum computing is a unique area justifying early US government intervention, as commercial products and dominant architectures are still lacking.

Columnists Joshua Soffer and Chris Miller of The Economist argue that quantum computing presents a compelling case for targeted US industrial policy. They contrast this with other technologies like drones, batteries, or rare-earth processing, where government can support markets through procurement, regulation, or allied suppliers.

In quantum computing, however, few commercial products exist, no single architecture dominates, and supply chains are still unformed. This makes early government intervention defensible before dependencies become entrenched, the authors contend.

The piece underscores a broader debate about state investment in technology companies and the need for clear rules.

Source: ForkLog