>>Where's the line between "massive money sink" and "investments for 'geopolitical/economic strategic advantage'"? Obviously, it is not drawn by God or nature

>>Where's the line between "massive money sink" and "investments for 'geopolitical/economic strategic advantage'"? Obviously, it is not drawn by God or nature - it is up to us to draw. Also obviously, not all investments are a sure thing. But we can start by actually bothering to do a reasonable threat evaluation and looking at meta-issues such as authoritarianism vs democracy, expansionist intent, scale, costs being externalized, etc. In this case, it seems that the major drivers were politicians catering to corps wanting to increase their short-term profits, and not to any serious long-term analysis. >>Is everyone on wall street seriously planning to sell all their investments a few decades from now, before everyone else does? NO, they are looking for outperformers, who will create value far faster. And yes, some are playing the Greater Fool theory, and some even succeed at that. But your implied idea that just because someone buys as a valuation that you don't like means that they are therefore long-term investors is, ummm.. so bad it's not even wrong (as physics professors say about the cranks who write them). Someday, at least try to make a cogent point - after multiple exchanges, the only thing that is evident is you don't like something and do like sophistry.