In particular, I can't see how this management structure is supposed to work - competing subdivisions is fine, and having divisions just do what the CEO says seems like it could work, but combining them is wild.
The journo tried to paint this as some kind of 'big fraud by FoxConn' but that's clearly not it, a big part of the story was missed.
Often, sometimes corporations just make mistakes and have units that are poorly managed, we just usually don't get to witness their failures publicly.
"but perhaps benefit greatly from avoiding trade sanctions." - I don't think this is the case directly, there doesn't seem to be evidence of that, however, it might be true. Trump hasn't really singled out Chinese manufacturers.
Second - the populist/lazy/naive theme here is the supposed belief that 'political bootlicking magically prints money' - which is ridiculous - businesses have to make money somehow, there are generally no easy/magic handouts of this kind.
So the bootlicking in this circumstance enabled Foxconn to take on some really nice subsidies (!) but there is no way Foxconn comes out of that in the black without doing something productive. Even if it's on the margin.
Foxconn blew this, and possibly lost money on this and we can all agree that 'bootlickers' do not like losing money.
Nobody does.
Foxconn makes the #1 consumer product on Earth - the iPhone, and that is definitely no joke. There are divisions of Foxconn that are not only not fuckups just the opposite, are world leaders in manufacturing, probably surpassing everyone of their peers, anywhere.
So given that 1) bootlicking gets you nice things but not free profits and 2) Foxconn has operationally superior divisions ...
... the story runs short.
There are just as many question marks as answered questions.
Finally, I would say that whatever one thinks of this guy Scott Walker is besides the point - superficially this was probably a reasonable deal. Such subsidies are not uncommon and usually done with credible companies. There was risk obviously but what happened is outlandishly weird. I don't think the politicos who made this deal are so much 'to blame' other than the subsidy thresholds should have been tighter obviously.
I would say this is a good example of 'How even good Chinese companies do Business in 2020' and the results should be on display for bureaucrats and would-be belt-and-roaders everywhere.
This is a Taiwanese company. Belt and Road is a PRC thing.
That said, this is more of an example of "how practically any company will behave when offered poorly designed subsidies". There's a _place_ for state subsidization of industry, but it has to be done very carefully or this happens.
No, it's not at all - again - these cases are not that common.