Chips are very high in terms of value creation (big difference between the value of the raw materials versus the value of the end result). So, once the factories are up and running, the sales volume can be very good. Demand for chips will only decline if something truly extreme happens. So they won't have to rely on subsidies. Only initial construction is too risky and expensive compared to what these companies can or are willing to pay. And you especially want.
Factories will compete with other cheaper countries, but the difference with potato chips is smaller than with food, for example. People with the training and experience necessary to work in a chip factory are nowhere near cheap. Most chips are now manufactured in Taiwan, where people don't work for one euro an hour. These chip factories also do not carry out all the steps of the process, so production remains partly international.
So, yes, this could work well for healthy companies/factories as an end result.
The question is rather: Are these subsidies necessary? The answer is: in the current geopolitical landscape, and with current corporate power, yes. The West cannot reject this option because government support is also used elsewhere. In fact, Samsung and its partners could have received the money themselves, but it was not there because the profits were distributed to shareholders in good years. As long as this is possible and permitted, the taxpayer will fill in the gaps. The question here is what exactly the “entrepreneurial risks” will remain if the state continues to cover the hard costs… But there are worse places where taxpayer money could end up, and practice suggests that this is the way it should be. Things seem to be the same.
More Stories
Strong increase in gas export pipeline from Norway to Europe
George Louis Bouchez still puts Julie Tatton on the list.
Thai Air Force wants Swedish Gripen 39 fighter jets