The star of this article, as well as the main target of the comment you were replying to, is Boeing, so forgive me for interpreting it as a broader point than j

The star of this article, as well as the main target of the comment you were replying to, is Boeing, so forgive me for interpreting it as a broader point than just semiconductors, especially since you named conglomerates which have dozens of subsidiaries in orthogonal industries. > I'm only talking about the semiconductor industry, and yes, the China at trying to develop a private sector in the entire Semiconductor supply chain via the Big Fund [0]. Interesting! Even then, I can see that only lasting until they get semi-succesful, just like Tencent et. al. Your main point seems to boil down to "subsidizing semiconductors makes sense", and I think you're absolutely right there! But I don't see many here argue against that. It doesn't contradict the message of the first comment you replied to: "We should let failing businesses fail. Everyone would have learned their lessons a long time ago and we would have less corporate greed/corpo-political corruption". Both can be true at the same time. One note though, borrowing from your other reply: > This "capitalist doctrine" of shareholder return is alive and well in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. Take a look at KOPSI or Nikkei sometime. The KOSPI is generally seen both by domestic as well as international investors as a complete joke, and a big reason behind it is in fact the main argument the parent comment was arguing for; unlike the US, shareholder returns are not put above all else by the conglomerate subsidiaries. Investors don't like this, and so see the market as completely unreliable.