JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon uses the CHIPS Act as a prime example of well-intentioned government policy becoming inefficient. He argues that while the core idea was good, it was diluted by a 'layer cake' of requirements from special interest groups, such as union mandates and childcare provisions, turning it into a 'swamp'.

The current political and regulatory environment means running a biotech company is no longer just about science and capital. CEOs must now actively engage in policy discussions and lobby legislators to ensure the ecosystem remains favorable for innovation. Ignoring politics is no longer an option.

Policymakers and interest groups often reject "good enough" solutions that would help the vast majority. They fear that implementing a simple, 98% solution will eliminate the political urgency needed to address the remaining 2% of complex edge cases, which are often central to their ideological goals.

New York employs a unique legislative process called "chapter amendments," where the governor can negotiate changes to a bill with its sponsors *after* it has passed the legislature. This allows for post-passage adjustments, with about a third of signed bills going through this process.

The legislative process is notoriously slow, but this is an intentional feature. The Constitution's structure creates a deliberative, messy process to ensure that laws with nationwide impact are not passed hastily. This "inefficiency" functions as a crucial check on power, forcing negotiation and preventing rapid, potentially harmful policy shifts.

Introducing legislation in Congress isn't always about immediate passage. Bills frequently function as messaging vehicles to build awareness and support for an idea over several congressional terms. This gradual process allows for the evolution of major policy, like the creation of new government agencies, which rarely happens in a single two-year cycle.

Well-intentioned laws become distorted through layers of interpretation down the chain of command. This 'cascade of rigidity' results in practices that are inefficient and sometimes contrary to the original legal intent, creating perverse outcomes and process bottlenecks.

A more effective policymaking model is "outcomes-driven legislation," where lawmakers define a goal and give agencies freedom to achieve it. The current model, which specifies every rule, locks agencies into rigid, inefficient processes, especially when legislators disagree on the ultimate goal.

Expect AI legislation to be a series of targeted, incremental bills rather than one sweeping law. Congress will address specific issues like model transparency and intellectual property while engaging in international diplomacy and observing state-level experiments.