An investment is expected to yield a financial return. You subsidise something fully willing to incur financial losses because you are pursuing non-financial goals (such as greener energy, jobs, ...).
not at all, some subsidies are humanitarian, or purely political.
If you have deeper pockets, you could subsidise your products to bancrupt competitors, a technique called dumping.
EU subsidised renewables to enable renewable tech development - a worthy goal, but not an investment. UK founded the Green Investment bank, it did actual investment into R&D and construction. Same goal, but one us subsidy, one is investment.
US corn subsidies no longer make any sense - but cannot be removed because it would piss off a major voting block. If you were to su sidise farming from scratch, you would at least pick a variety of plants to make a balanced meal nutritionally
> not at all, some subsidies are humanitarian, or purely political.
Considering that we’re talking about Apple subsidizing factories to diversify its supply chain, do you think we’re talking about humanitarian and political subsidies at all? I’m sorry but it seems that people are deliberately being obtuse here.
These terms should not be used interchangeably, the meaning is totally different. You expect to see financial returns from investment