So a subsidy. I think of it as how farm subsidies prop up the price of grain.
But the rate of return on investment isn’t necessarily increased. For farmers receiving subsidies. It increases costs to consumers and increases production, even encourages over production, but doesn’t necessarily increase the rate of return on investment.
Not exactly a subsidy. Some subsidies are both useful and justifiable, and aren’t sought by the recipients. For example, providing a child a free or reduced lunch if his parents are indigent is a subsidy, but probably wouldn’t be considered rent seeking.
Rent-seeking implies that the recipient of the government largesse (in whatever form) goes seeking that largesse, usually via lobbying in this country, but also via bribery, extortion, etc. It could come in the form of a big government contract, or a law that excludes competition.
For example, getting the state to establish licensing requirements for a profession is rent-seeking behavior to the extent it’s not in the interests of the rest of us to add licensing to the requirement to do business.
The health insurance companies and the largest medical providers were rent-seeking like crazy when Obamacare was crafted. Not so much this time around, however, which is a probable plus for TrumpCare.