But that's exactly the thing, where we care about an industrial capacity for its strategic reasons rather than because we're trying to maximize efficiency of revenue extraction. Pure market efficiency is great if you're trying to maximize profits, but that's not necessarily the goal here because the benefits are indirect, just as they are with universal postal service (or universal healthcare, etc).

Maximize economic output not necessarily profit outside of that I agree with your comment, nobody is questioning whether we should have other goals.

The problem is however first can we all define the goals consistently and agree on the definition.

Next can we measure the value/benefits of the goal. This is typically subjective so everybody paints the picture best suited to their preconceived ideas.

Finally perception drives the political will for a social program. UBI style programs or just giving money in welfare instead of in-kind benefits for food or healthcare etc or rehabilitation over punishment are more efficient and while shown to work, will rarely get political support because of how they are perceived.

Given that we all have different understanding of the goals, measure them differently and have different moralities on what should be done as society (for welfare, crime etc) and have varying degrees of influence over policy what can we do to approach a problem better