This is what they want, since they release Qt under LGPL. If they wanted to prohibit static linking altogether, then they would use GPL exclusively.
This is exactly what Nokia wanted when they made Qt available under the LGPL in 2009; they fully endorsed this kind of usage. All subsequent buyers and investors have been fully aware of what the LGPL means.
Just remember that some ancillary Qt software - such as Qt Virtual Keyboard - are only available under the GPLv3 and commercial licenses.
"Creative accounting is what we want, since we didn't outlaw it."
It would mean however that if someone were to make a proprietary fork of your project, they would no longer be permitted to use the no-charge version of Qt. They would have to get a commercial licence. I don't see anything wrong with any of this though.
Edit: I wasn't clear here: Qt is also available under the LGPL, so the restrictions of the GPL aren't directly relevant.
However, using any GPL-code, no matter if linked statically or dynamically, requires the author to release the combined work under GPL.
I'm not sure where you're going with this.
Correct.
> using any GPL-code, no matter if linked statically or dynamically, requires the author to release the combined work under GPL.
Yes, the combined work itself ends up being GPL [0]. This is similar to making a fork of some BSD-licensed code and adopting the GPL for the fork. Your code, treated independently of the combination, may still be released under a (more permissive) GPL-compatible licence (like the BSD licence) if you so choose.
Put another way then, if Qt were only made available under the GPL, it would still be fine to release your Qt-powered application code under the BSD licence, but it wouldn't be possible to make a proprietary fork of that BSD-licensed application code, as you wouldn't then be permitted to link against libraries released only under the GPL. (I'm ignoring commercial licensing of Qt, of course.)
[0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesCompatMean