China’s new plan to seize the world’s tech crown from the U.S(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
China’s new plan to seize the world’s tech crown from the U.S
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-20/china-has-a-new-1-4-trillion-plan-to-overtake-the-u-s-in-tech
173 comments
Newer != more advanced. ~20 years ago I remember people arguing that Latin American telecommunications infrastructure was "more advanced" than in the U.S. simply because per capita cellular usage was greater. If you Google that claim today, it's still being made regarding Latin America vs Canada. But what those figures actually represent is that their wired infrastructure is poor and unreliable in Latin America.
The degree to which an economy is "advanced" has more to do with institutional systems and processes, not whether they're using the latest tech. Often times the latest tech papers over institutional deficiencies, but only superficially. Mobile payment platforms have been ubiquitous in Africa for many years, but nobody would say that Africa's banking system is "advanced" or that it's capable of supporting the needs of an advanced financial sector. They became ubiquitous in Africa first precisely because of institutional deficiencies. Mobile payments solved some of the most visible consequences, but by itself it didn't go very far in addressing the underlying problems. Sure, it's easy to pay a vendor for lunch or a pair of sneakers using your phone, but what matters infinitely more is how safe and reliable it is to secure a $2,000,000 LoC to help bring your factory online.
Old systems in older economies persist because they work, or at least work well enough.
If China overtakes the U.S. in technology dominance, it's because they've spent 30 years studying, copying, and improving upon American legal, financial, and business management systems. Notwithstanding the fact that they are serving the interests and demands of the Communist Party, which often puts them in a lose-lose scenario, China's economists and policy advisers understand the systems of modern capitalism better than most of their Western counterparts.
The degree to which an economy is "advanced" has more to do with institutional systems and processes, not whether they're using the latest tech. Often times the latest tech papers over institutional deficiencies, but only superficially. Mobile payment platforms have been ubiquitous in Africa for many years, but nobody would say that Africa's banking system is "advanced" or that it's capable of supporting the needs of an advanced financial sector. They became ubiquitous in Africa first precisely because of institutional deficiencies. Mobile payments solved some of the most visible consequences, but by itself it didn't go very far in addressing the underlying problems. Sure, it's easy to pay a vendor for lunch or a pair of sneakers using your phone, but what matters infinitely more is how safe and reliable it is to secure a $2,000,000 LoC to help bring your factory online.
Old systems in older economies persist because they work, or at least work well enough.
If China overtakes the U.S. in technology dominance, it's because they've spent 30 years studying, copying, and improving upon American legal, financial, and business management systems. Notwithstanding the fact that they are serving the interests and demands of the Communist Party, which often puts them in a lose-lose scenario, China's economists and policy advisers understand the systems of modern capitalism better than most of their Western counterparts.
> Mobile payment platforms have been ubiquitous in Africa for many years, but nobody would say that Africa's banking system is "advanced"
I'm not a fan of mobile payments myself but I would say that compared to the US most of Africa's mobile payments are indeed more advanced, yes.
If I understand correctly many poor people in Africa are de facto banked (as long as they have a mobile phone, which has become pretty achievable right now), while a very large proportion of the US poor population is de-facto non-banked, with all the extra financial hardships that that situation entails.
I'm not a fan of mobile payments myself but I would say that compared to the US most of Africa's mobile payments are indeed more advanced, yes.
If I understand correctly many poor people in Africa are de facto banked (as long as they have a mobile phone, which has become pretty achievable right now), while a very large proportion of the US poor population is de-facto non-banked, with all the extra financial hardships that that situation entails.
> it's because they've spent 30 years studying, copying, and improving upon American legal, financial, and business management systems.
My goodness. American exceptionalism at its very finest. You honestly think that Eurorpean, Asian, and other countries have nothing to offer? Not everything great is from American. We need to get over ourselves and realize that we're not at all that exceptional. Do we do certain things better? Absolutely. Do we do certain things worse and have a lot to learn from others? You can bet your last dollar.
My goodness. American exceptionalism at its very finest. You honestly think that Eurorpean, Asian, and other countries have nothing to offer? Not everything great is from American. We need to get over ourselves and realize that we're not at all that exceptional. Do we do certain things better? Absolutely. Do we do certain things worse and have a lot to learn from others? You can bet your last dollar.
It's not American exceptionalism but rather a statement about the tendency of Chinese policymakers to focus on America when they look for inspiration in reforming their legal, financial and business systems. For most Chinese, America is the stereotypical example of how those things work in foreign countries. In other domains they may look to other countries, e.g. Japan and Germany when it comes to industry.
I think you replied to the wrong person :) Incidentally, I do fully agree with you.
AFAIK the reason why poor people are unbanked in America is because they can't afford the fees/minimum balance associated with the account. I fail to see how switching from $0.50 bank cards to phone apps is going to make banking more affordable.
Afaik exchanging money through mobile phone apps in Africa doesn’t involve actual banks, that’s why I used the expression “de facto banked”. The money-exchange system is totally different, more advanced if you look at it from the poor people’s perspective.
You’re probably correct though, this could never happen in the US because of regulatory capture (by the banks, mostly, but not only).
You’re probably correct though, this could never happen in the US because of regulatory capture (by the banks, mostly, but not only).
There are some philosophical questions involved about what is "advanced": is it purely a matter of timeliness? Of what requires a more sophisticated set of institutions to sustain? Who has more advanced weaponry: a civilization with barely functioning firearms, or one with arcane but sophisticated metallurgy to forge durable, sharp swords?
Comparing consumer payment infrastructure in the US and China, there is really no comparison. For me, in cost, convenience, and security (against the threat models I'm concerned with), China wins on every factor, by significant margins. Except opening a bank account.
A month after I moved to China, I got a fraud notification. From what? It turned out a gas station in Oakland had a skimmer. I'm told stuff like that simply can't happen in China (which I take with a grain of salt, but I have a hard time imagining what fraud vectors there are).
Comparing consumer payment infrastructure in the US and China, there is really no comparison. For me, in cost, convenience, and security (against the threat models I'm concerned with), China wins on every factor, by significant margins. Except opening a bank account.
A month after I moved to China, I got a fraud notification. From what? It turned out a gas station in Oakland had a skimmer. I'm told stuff like that simply can't happen in China (which I take with a grain of salt, but I have a hard time imagining what fraud vectors there are).
Chinese banking security confuses me, internet explorer activex plugins for much too long but also fairly rigorous protection. I don't know anyone whose been defrauded via the banking infrastructure itself. At least it seems like not a issue compared to credit card fraud in the West. Was blown away I could still swipe and sign credit cards a few years ago in the US.
For an anecdote. I don’t know anyone in the US that has had serious fraud happen. At most one or two items purchased as fraud.
>> Old systems in older economies persist because they work, or at least work well enough.
Until the next bubble bursts...what works then is YOU, because YOU pay for too big to fail.
Until the next bubble bursts...what works then is YOU, because YOU pay for too big to fail.
> Mobile payment platforms have been ubiquitous in Africa
Define "Africa".
Define "Africa".
In software products and AI/Machine Learning China is at best half a decade behind the US. In hardware and robotics, China is already way ahead of the US (except certain fundamental blocks like semiconductors).
Anecdotally, I remember competing against Chinese robotics teams as a college student. It's a myth that the Chinese are not innovative - their engineering is top notch and they routed the competition with hardware tech that had never been seen before in an academic setting. More surprisingly, they freely share their designs with other Chinese teams, cultivating a culture of open hardware.
Here's a video of a Chinese robot throwing balls through a hoop and landing them on a platform: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqUZgMrl7qQ
Anecdotally, I remember competing against Chinese robotics teams as a college student. It's a myth that the Chinese are not innovative - their engineering is top notch and they routed the competition with hardware tech that had never been seen before in an academic setting. More surprisingly, they freely share their designs with other Chinese teams, cultivating a culture of open hardware.
Here's a video of a Chinese robot throwing balls through a hoop and landing them on a platform: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqUZgMrl7qQ
> It's a myth that the Chinese are not innovative
I think that the self-told Western media narrative (of the Chinese not being innovative and only being copy-cats) has cut at least 5 to 10 years of the advantage that the West used to have in front of China.
Had the decisions makers in the West been more aware of the real innovative minds/processes active in China maybe those decision makers would have taken more pro-active steps earlier on, instead they chose to sleep on their laurels. I think a similar thing happened to the US car industry in relation to the Japanese car industry in the '70s and early '80s, with known devastating results for the US car industry.
I think that the self-told Western media narrative (of the Chinese not being innovative and only being copy-cats) has cut at least 5 to 10 years of the advantage that the West used to have in front of China.
Had the decisions makers in the West been more aware of the real innovative minds/processes active in China maybe those decision makers would have taken more pro-active steps earlier on, instead they chose to sleep on their laurels. I think a similar thing happened to the US car industry in relation to the Japanese car industry in the '70s and early '80s, with known devastating results for the US car industry.
I wonder how many innovative Chinese thinkers can behave in innovative ways in china? Is there (true) cultural support?
Maybe their curriculum gives them more time to work on these things? I couldn't imagine being a college student and doing much outside of a typical college workload. You're going to be good at what you train for. An analogy for the US might be putting a division 1 football team against a division 3 team.
If one team does dramatically better than another team, I would look at training and resources. If there's a big gap in that preparation, then it's not a good comparison. If I'm going to college and I'm putting all my time into something other than a conventional pursuit of a college degree, then I'm going to question why I'm there and if I would be better off elsewhere.
This assumes an undergrad experience. I know nothing about college beyond that point. All I wanted to do was get my degree and move on.
If one team does dramatically better than another team, I would look at training and resources. If there's a big gap in that preparation, then it's not a good comparison. If I'm going to college and I'm putting all my time into something other than a conventional pursuit of a college degree, then I'm going to question why I'm there and if I would be better off elsewhere.
This assumes an undergrad experience. I know nothing about college beyond that point. All I wanted to do was get my degree and move on.
> Maybe their curriculum gives them more time to work on these things?
I should have mentioned that I didn't go to college in the States. This could be true, a lot of the technical college experience in some parts of Asia involves doing practical stuff. In my part of the world, the theory is often lags practice because the curriculum rarely keeps up with state of the art in academia or industry.
> If one team does dramatically better than another team, I would look at training and resources.
They were definitely better funded than other teams. They also had unrestricted access to the biggest hardware markets in the world, and perhaps some bleeding edge automation technology from the industry.
> If I'm going to college and I'm putting all my time into something other than a conventional pursuit of a college degree, then I'm going to question why I'm there and if I would be better off elsewhere.
Yeah I guess the average US undergrad experience in Computer Science/Engineering is more focused on preparing you for a job and/or grad school. The coursework is rigorous enough that it prevents you from going for more hobbyist pursuits. America's path-breaking innovation comes from its Science funding and Graduate Programs, and that's where China and other emerging powers have a lot of catching up to do.
I should have mentioned that I didn't go to college in the States. This could be true, a lot of the technical college experience in some parts of Asia involves doing practical stuff. In my part of the world, the theory is often lags practice because the curriculum rarely keeps up with state of the art in academia or industry.
> If one team does dramatically better than another team, I would look at training and resources.
They were definitely better funded than other teams. They also had unrestricted access to the biggest hardware markets in the world, and perhaps some bleeding edge automation technology from the industry.
> If I'm going to college and I'm putting all my time into something other than a conventional pursuit of a college degree, then I'm going to question why I'm there and if I would be better off elsewhere.
Yeah I guess the average US undergrad experience in Computer Science/Engineering is more focused on preparing you for a job and/or grad school. The coursework is rigorous enough that it prevents you from going for more hobbyist pursuits. America's path-breaking innovation comes from its Science funding and Graduate Programs, and that's where China and other emerging powers have a lot of catching up to do.
I'd be very curious to understand where China stands vis a vis US military tech. You never know how things would play out until they actually do, but it is clear that China has put their bets on "disruptive" military tech, instead of dropping tens of billions onto carrier fleets.
The US military manages to do both because it can afford to. Carrier fleets are pretty much required for global military force projection, something China isn't even close to have the capability to start thinking about at this stage.
The chinese military is way, way behind in pretty much all regards and even going for "disruptive tech" won't do them much good when they can't even manage to design/produce a working jet engine for their fighter jets that isn't complete garbage. They basically resorted to copying 1980s russian designed engines, but couldn't get the metallurgy right so they just imported them. You can't start to compare with the US military capability if even Russia can be much better than you at producing something as basic (in terms of military needs) as a jet engine
The chinese military is way, way behind in pretty much all regards and even going for "disruptive tech" won't do them much good when they can't even manage to design/produce a working jet engine for their fighter jets that isn't complete garbage. They basically resorted to copying 1980s russian designed engines, but couldn't get the metallurgy right so they just imported them. You can't start to compare with the US military capability if even Russia can be much better than you at producing something as basic (in terms of military needs) as a jet engine
I've heard/read of that too, and remember having a cognitive dissonance when reading about a chinese company offering some very advanced metallurgy to german companies, some time not longer than a year ago. I can't find it anymore now, just https://3dprint.com/266401/formnext-pm-south-china-partners-... but it is not the same, just in a similar domain.
Right, any comparison would need to be done within the context of what they are optimizing for. China's priority right now seems to be securing the S. China Sea.
There's also nuclear weapons as a concern. I'm not sure we're quite talking mutually assured destruction, but we wouldn't want to go there. So far, nuclear deterrence has held up.
There's a lot of ways to fight a war. Conventional military technology likely wouldn't be involved on any battleground we would find ourselves on with China.
There's also nuclear weapons as a concern. I'm not sure we're quite talking mutually assured destruction, but we wouldn't want to go there. So far, nuclear deterrence has held up.
There's a lot of ways to fight a war. Conventional military technology likely wouldn't be involved on any battleground we would find ourselves on with China.
What about cyber capabilities?
For a hot war, China seems underequipped, but this doesn't seem the most relevant anyways.
Cyber and proxy war-like capabilities seem more important in this day and age. From what I can tell China leads in cyber capabilities versus the US. And they've been able to expand in the South China Sea without much retaliation so far, so maybe they're even doing alright on the other.
For a hot war, China seems underequipped, but this doesn't seem the most relevant anyways.
Cyber and proxy war-like capabilities seem more important in this day and age. From what I can tell China leads in cyber capabilities versus the US. And they've been able to expand in the South China Sea without much retaliation so far, so maybe they're even doing alright on the other.
Long Dong
How can they be way ahead of us yet behind us in the most important and fundamental ways?
That's like saying a car is the fastest car except it's engine.
I feel like China sometimes looks more advanced, but in actuality is far behind. It's easy to look advanced when your technology ecosystem is highly centralized and on display for the purpose of bolstering national pride. In the US the ecosystem is fractured and exists solely to provide value. The tech isn't there for show, it's there for competition and profit.
That's like saying a car is the fastest car except it's engine.
I feel like China sometimes looks more advanced, but in actuality is far behind. It's easy to look advanced when your technology ecosystem is highly centralized and on display for the purpose of bolstering national pride. In the US the ecosystem is fractured and exists solely to provide value. The tech isn't there for show, it's there for competition and profit.
When thinking about Hollywood, Disney, Pixar, Industrial Light & Magic, Times Square in NYC while at the same time there are 'food deserts' not in some sparsely inhabited parts of 'fly-over-country' but metropolitan regions, i tend to disagree. Furthermore, profit for whom? Eternal competition is tiring, and may even end in a race to the bottom.
SPLAT!
SPLAT!
Profit for everyone? The general premise of capitalism is you have to make something someone else values. If more people get value from it, and they get more value from it, you make more money, so you're very incentivized to benefit as many people as much as possible.
> In hardware and robotics, China is already way ahead of the US
Boston Dynamics is far ahead of anyone in robotics, and I can't really see an argument for being more advanced in computing while being behind in semiconductors/chips since that's all that really matters.
Also in other areas of tech such as aerospace companies like SpaceX are only further increasing the technological gap.
Boston Dynamics is far ahead of anyone in robotics, and I can't really see an argument for being more advanced in computing while being behind in semiconductors/chips since that's all that really matters.
Also in other areas of tech such as aerospace companies like SpaceX are only further increasing the technological gap.
The Chinese general public don't value information privacy as much as the Western counterparts. Mass surveillance could become a huge problem if the tech keeps evolving while the public awareness lags behind. And that is assuming it's not already a problem. If you think about how much tracking data you hand out when all your social activities are facilitated by one app (wechat), and the fact that giant Chinese tech companies are known to corroborate government surveillance...
you don't think the US companies don't corroborate with US gov surveillance or Google doesn't track user data?
Try having end to end encryption in China without the government having full access. In the west at least this is possible.
Have you heard of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court?
true for now, but western governments are getting envious of china (ex. earn it act https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/s3398)
Getting? Always wanted... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip
Edit: While I'm at it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_AG , ah yes, there was something else ...lemme' ssink...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON
I could go on and on...
Edit: While I'm at it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_AG , ah yes, there was something else ...lemme' ssink...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON
I could go on and on...
In the US, the legal infrastructure certainly prevents the police from invading your home because you’ve posted politically incorrect comments online. In China the covid-19 crisis has painted a very different picture.
Hmmm, then why is it possible to SWAT someone after DOXXING?
Or being swatted just after jokingly having posted something about school or work in combination with weapons? (somewhere online, doesn't matter which service)
Edit: Die Gedanken sind frei! The mind is free... Is it, anymore?
Edit: Die Gedanken sind frei! The mind is free... Is it, anymore?
A lot of the conveniences in tier1 cities is predicated on fusion of income disparity and technology. That doesn't make your claim untrue - there's certainly a lot more indulgences being upper-middle class living in a tier1 Chinese city, and there are advantages to such an unjust developmental model. But ultimately it's not something to aspire towards, even though the west seems to be trending that way regardless.
Is the income disparity bigger in China or in the US?
China by far. Our homeless have iPhones, their homeless get run over by trucks and public busses without any consequence and suffer the indignity of being forced to perform labor to be able to use a toilet.
Now if you mean the lowest overall classes, I've been to rural areas in China where the entire community shits in a hole dug in the ground, it gets filled, a new one is dug. They also all share a single water source. We're talking a few hundred people here. On the opposite end of the spectrum I've met someone in Shenzen who owns two houses in London, one in Toronto, and one in Hawaii. Each house is nicely furnished and has a few luxury sports cars to choose from.
Now if you mean the lowest overall classes, I've been to rural areas in China where the entire community shits in a hole dug in the ground, it gets filled, a new one is dug. They also all share a single water source. We're talking a few hundred people here. On the opposite end of the spectrum I've met someone in Shenzen who owns two houses in London, one in Toronto, and one in Hawaii. Each house is nicely furnished and has a few luxury sports cars to choose from.
I live in San Francisco and I see indignities on our streets on a daily basis.
China due to very uneven development, but the stratification is more organized and part of the development strategy, i.e. cheap labour makes the construction projects and gig service models viable in ways that are not in the west. There's migrant labour / houkou (domestic passport) system that controls the availability of rural labour pools between provinces, hence tier1 cities has a lever to reduce number of poor in the region to amounts sufficient to support industry and businesses. The result is you actually have less visible vagrancy - migrants who can't afford to the city gets displaced to less developed provinces with lower costs. You will not find as many homeless people in a tier1 Chinese city compared to many western countries. At least not anymore, there was a lot in the 90s. Note: it's not an issue of hiding the poor but being able to optimize disparity over regions with different development levels.
To dovetail, this system still exist in the west in the form of agricultural migrant workers, their work is outside of populated areas so it's more palatable.
To dovetail, this system still exist in the west in the form of agricultural migrant workers, their work is outside of populated areas so it's more palatable.
You had to scan a QR code?? :)
When I was in China this year there were places where you paid just by scanning your face (this was for street food....)
When I was in China this year there were places where you paid just by scanning your face (this was for street food....)
I doubt it's used as a primary means of identification. Apple's faceid has trouble identifying some siblings and twins. I can't imagine how many impossible-to-discern faces there are in a country with a billion people.
I saw already on TikTok someone utilized Alipay face payment while wearing a mask. So I assume the Computer Vision is quite good.
I'm not sure whether that proves anything or not. It could be a tech demo or publicity stunt, for instance. If anything, if the first time you're hearing about it is through a tiktok video, rather than some sort of press release or news story, makes me think it's not a real production system.
It's real. It's also not new in China. At quite a few places we HAD to use face identification. To check into a hotel for instance a computer scans your face in some provinces.
My original comment said I doubted it was used as a primary means of identification. I have no doubt that they use it as a second factor, but using it as the only factor (ie. based on a face scan alone, determining who to bill) is doubtful.
For what it's worth, I can confirm that I've seen my girlfriend use facial recognition to identify and authenticate herself and authorize payment via Alipay at a self checkout at a grocery store, using a camera on the self checkout machine. She probably got a message on her phone once she did, but there was no second factor.
This is the video that I saw btw
https://www.tiktok.com/@roger311/video/6816922140231601414?l...
The tiktok I watched was something similar to daily VLOG so I am pretty sure it is not a demo or trial product but a general purpose one.
Most of things aren't the future. Most of those things are whats wrong with china tech because no one actually wants them. They are usually more expensive than just hiring a person or older tech. And really they've been forced onto people by the government from what a lot of people see.
Are there any reason why that "Tech" or model cant happen in US?
It really has nothing about technological advance. If you can get the living cost and wages low enough you could make deliver works, profitable and sustainable. If the average POS system does not charge 10 to 100x of those in China there no reason why restaurant cant have them in US.
I see it as economic difference. Not so much about technology in itself.
It really has nothing about technological advance. If you can get the living cost and wages low enough you could make deliver works, profitable and sustainable. If the average POS system does not charge 10 to 100x of those in China there no reason why restaurant cant have them in US.
I see it as economic difference. Not so much about technology in itself.
> delivery of food is profitable
It is profitable because labor is cheaper, a quality associated with less advanced economies.
It is profitable because labor is cheaper, a quality associated with less advanced economies.
[deleted]
The examples you gave were all developed and used first in the United States.
As a young and very proud Chinese colleague of mine put it:
"in technology, the US are ten years ahead of Europe; China is ten years ahead of the US"
"in technology, the US are ten years ahead of Europe; China is ten years ahead of the US"
Is that a comment on confidently ignorant youthful comments or is that anecdote something you think resembles truth because someone once said it. It was spoken; therefore it is?
It comes down to which country people prefer to live in. I suspect a lot of of foreign money will be leaving China soon, if they can keep peace and prosper without depending on the west,they stand a solid chance against the US.
Make no mistake,the CCP has no intention of being self-contained, if you are not with them,you are against them. Their intention is hostile.
The dramatic slow collapse of the US is what enables their success. Americans and foreigners no longer think it is the land of opportunities. Fears,divisions,mistrust,avoidable tragedies all over. In China they'll just suppress anything negative.
They've already positioned themselves well for internal subversion of american government and society. I just hope things remain peaceful.
Make no mistake,the CCP has no intention of being self-contained, if you are not with them,you are against them. Their intention is hostile.
The dramatic slow collapse of the US is what enables their success. Americans and foreigners no longer think it is the land of opportunities. Fears,divisions,mistrust,avoidable tragedies all over. In China they'll just suppress anything negative.
They've already positioned themselves well for internal subversion of american government and society. I just hope things remain peaceful.
One interesting thing is how much of a foil the US is to China and how it acts as a legitimizer. Whatever failings the CPC has, they can point to American government and make plausible claims that at least they aren't that incompetent. And no one's heard of any evidence to the contrary.
> I suspect a lot of of foreign money will be leaving China soon
I do to, a giant portion of China's current account is operational capital of big multinationals.
When they will start withdrawing money, Yuan will fall through the floor for a year, or two before rebalancing.
This will give a great boost to China's exporters.
I do to, a giant portion of China's current account is operational capital of big multinationals.
When they will start withdrawing money, Yuan will fall through the floor for a year, or two before rebalancing.
This will give a great boost to China's exporters.
The Yuan is heavily managed. If there was no PBOC intervention in FX markets the Yuan would fall 50%, and that’s before any capital even leaves.
The PBOC is running low on FX reserves relative to the demand that they have to serve. I’ve seen a few analysts talk about a dollar shortage in China. That’s why they’re suffocating businesses in bureaucracy when they want to get their money out of China. One could say the capital will never be allowed to leave, because really it’s like it went into a black hole within the Chinese financial system, ie it doesn’t exist, it exists only nominally in whatever bank the company happens to deal with.
On top of that there is a sizable amount of dollar-denominated debt in the Chinese domestic system, so a mega deval of the yuan could be mayhem.
The PBOC is running low on FX reserves relative to the demand that they have to serve. I’ve seen a few analysts talk about a dollar shortage in China. That’s why they’re suffocating businesses in bureaucracy when they want to get their money out of China. One could say the capital will never be allowed to leave, because really it’s like it went into a black hole within the Chinese financial system, ie it doesn’t exist, it exists only nominally in whatever bank the company happens to deal with.
On top of that there is a sizable amount of dollar-denominated debt in the Chinese domestic system, so a mega deval of the yuan could be mayhem.
But can anything replace the west's unending consumer appetite? As big as they are, can their own people consume enough? I think a lot also depends on US elections.
That's the question.
Either China tries to grow more itself, or it will seek to boost trade with whomever is left in the non-aligned camp.
Boosting own consumption didn't work much for China in the past
Selling more to the few of its allies will not work either for the sane reason.
China's only option is to do a Marshall Plan 2.0 in the developing world, and hope to dramatically reshape their economies, in hopes of them actually making these money, and just borrowing to buy Chinese trinkets.
Either China tries to grow more itself, or it will seek to boost trade with whomever is left in the non-aligned camp.
Boosting own consumption didn't work much for China in the past
Selling more to the few of its allies will not work either for the sane reason.
China's only option is to do a Marshall Plan 2.0 in the developing world, and hope to dramatically reshape their economies, in hopes of them actually making these money, and just borrowing to buy Chinese trinkets.
> Make no mistake,the CCP has no intention of being self-contained, if you are not with them,you are against them. Their intention is hostile.
One country _might_ think that. One country right out proclaimed it.
"You are either with us or against us." - George Bush
One country _might_ think that. One country right out proclaimed it.
"You are either with us or against us." - George Bush
Bush was 100% correct, you either support the war against al-qaeda or you support it. Indifference means terrorists can use your country/resources, being hostile to them means you're "with" america. It doesn't mean you support everything America does,it just means you support the need to combat terrorism.
You know? That thing wasn't born by itself from the virginity of Holy Mother Mary, but instead enabled by the fu..... err messing around of the Cocaine Import Agency & Co. in internal and external affairs of other sovereign countries since decades.
Seems the world police man is too lazy to clean its own shit up?
Seems the world police man is too lazy to clean its own shit up?
Not at all, you seem to be missing a lot of historical context here. The cold war was a thing,as was WW2. You should be happy the US played world cop else it would be russia and china playing world ruler.
You are extremely misinformed, the US was superbly pissed off at 9/11 but Al-qaeda terrorized europe,africa, SE asia and even china. They declared a "holy" war and used that pretext to attack the US and anyone supporting the US or Israel. The CIA are pretty terrible ,but hey..why not compare them with the KGB and ex-soviet states? How about modern russia and it's treatment of it's neighbors , straight up invading countries on a whim and annexing their territory. You should check out how they toppled Ukraine's entire government before the current one also because they're using that playbook against trump. Let's compare apples to apples, you can disagree with US policy just fine without claiming the world would be a better place without their intervention policy. Also,FYI, the pretext of interventionism is WW2, you know,how if someone say toppled Nazis or Mussolini before they went out of hand hundreds of millions of lives could be saved? A 3rd world country falling for say Russia or China (even by proxy) means Russia or China will play economic or direct warfare which will lead into a bay of pigs type of a stand off where either you let you let them point a nuclear gun to your head and hope they don't shoot or you stand by and let them invade your allies. Oh and which world policing are you talking about? The serbian genocide? Because US lead but it was NATO just like afghanistan,so it was more like NATO policing. It's ridiculous that you expect the US or any major power to not attempt to interfere in other countries politics to have an outcome that benefits their country. Every country including UK,Germany,Netherlands,France,China,India,Vietnam and Russia do this, they just don't try and succeed as much as the US.
You are extremely misinformed, the US was superbly pissed off at 9/11 but Al-qaeda terrorized europe,africa, SE asia and even china. They declared a "holy" war and used that pretext to attack the US and anyone supporting the US or Israel. The CIA are pretty terrible ,but hey..why not compare them with the KGB and ex-soviet states? How about modern russia and it's treatment of it's neighbors , straight up invading countries on a whim and annexing their territory. You should check out how they toppled Ukraine's entire government before the current one also because they're using that playbook against trump. Let's compare apples to apples, you can disagree with US policy just fine without claiming the world would be a better place without their intervention policy. Also,FYI, the pretext of interventionism is WW2, you know,how if someone say toppled Nazis or Mussolini before they went out of hand hundreds of millions of lives could be saved? A 3rd world country falling for say Russia or China (even by proxy) means Russia or China will play economic or direct warfare which will lead into a bay of pigs type of a stand off where either you let you let them point a nuclear gun to your head and hope they don't shoot or you stand by and let them invade your allies. Oh and which world policing are you talking about? The serbian genocide? Because US lead but it was NATO just like afghanistan,so it was more like NATO policing. It's ridiculous that you expect the US or any major power to not attempt to interfere in other countries politics to have an outcome that benefits their country. Every country including UK,Germany,Netherlands,France,China,India,Vietnam and Russia do this, they just don't try and succeed as much as the US.
I don't care much about narratives of one sort or another, because of the impossibilty to verify them as eiter thruth, or fiction with my resources. I pick them like i see fit, just like you do too. Repeating one over and over again doesn't make it more true than any other.
I'll give you one i particularly enjoy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art,_Truth_and_Politics
Transcript: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/literature/2005/pinter/256...
I'll give you one i particularly enjoy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art,_Truth_and_Politics
Transcript: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/literature/2005/pinter/256...
This is going to answer a very important question for the future. Is American tech dominance the result of some magic cultural mojo born from American values that can't be replicated in a different cultural sphere, or is it something that can be replicated if you pump enough money into the right educational, institutional, and industrial structures while completely divorced from American culture. Since the fall of the USSR, the global zeitgeist has been that if you want to be a developed country, adopting American values in some form is necessary sooner or later. China is challenging this assumption and many developing countries will be watching the outcome.
America attracts top talent from all around the world. China has a lot of domestic talent but struggles to put it to good use, and does not really have a compelling proposition for anybody coming from the outside. This I think is the biggest differentiator and unlikely to change for the time being.
American tech dominance is also predicated upon having a huge domestic market that is relatively uniform in terms of the business environment and easy to navigate. Start here and you have access to 330M potential customers. This is something that the EU/EEA is only struggling to become: it's mostly still separate national markets there. China has the same advantage America had as well, and an even larger population to start with.
America has well-oiled financial markets that are good at allocating capital. In China it's the government doing the allocation, and the results have often been abysmal, e.g. technology investment funds being used to further inflate the property bubble in disguise. However, historically, many of the biggest technological breakthroughs in the US were associated with government-funded military projects. No reason why China could not replicate this in principle.
Not sure where the "American values" fit here, it depends what you mean by that. If you meant entrepreneurial spirit and individualism then the Chinese are entrepreneurial and individualist too. If you mean liberty/freedom then these aren't only American values but more broadly the values of the European Enlightenment, and this is indeed another differentiator between China and the cultural West. Would be interesting to know what values you had in mind.
American tech dominance is also predicated upon having a huge domestic market that is relatively uniform in terms of the business environment and easy to navigate. Start here and you have access to 330M potential customers. This is something that the EU/EEA is only struggling to become: it's mostly still separate national markets there. China has the same advantage America had as well, and an even larger population to start with.
America has well-oiled financial markets that are good at allocating capital. In China it's the government doing the allocation, and the results have often been abysmal, e.g. technology investment funds being used to further inflate the property bubble in disguise. However, historically, many of the biggest technological breakthroughs in the US were associated with government-funded military projects. No reason why China could not replicate this in principle.
Not sure where the "American values" fit here, it depends what you mean by that. If you meant entrepreneurial spirit and individualism then the Chinese are entrepreneurial and individualist too. If you mean liberty/freedom then these aren't only American values but more broadly the values of the European Enlightenment, and this is indeed another differentiator between China and the cultural West. Would be interesting to know what values you had in mind.
America has currently slammed the doors shut on top talent from anywhere, even its allies.
I think the most interesting market and the best predictor for eventual dominance may be neither China nor the US, but the rest of the world. Chinese companies like Alibaba are investing heavily in the South-East Asian tech scene, and this market alone has twice the population of the US. However, to date the market has largely been the domain of homegrown players (Grab, Gojek, Tokopedia, Lazada, Shopee etc) that remain basically unknown in the region.
I think the most interesting market and the best predictor for eventual dominance may be neither China nor the US, but the rest of the world. Chinese companies like Alibaba are investing heavily in the South-East Asian tech scene, and this market alone has twice the population of the US. However, to date the market has largely been the domain of homegrown players (Grab, Gojek, Tokopedia, Lazada, Shopee etc) that remain basically unknown in the region.
AFAIK, H1B, E3, etc visas are still going through and maybe a bit stricter but relatively unchanged.
Top companies in the US still hire developers from abroad. I've personally interviewed and onboarded from China and India in the last 3 years. I'm not sure "doors shut" is the right metaphor.
As for American values, I think the best way for me to illustrate it would be with a thought experiment. Suppose that due to an act of god America ceases to exist tomorrow. However, it can transfer all its wealth and knowledge to one other country in the world which would propel it to take America's place instead. I'm sure that as the soon to vanish Americans debate among themselves about who should be their successor, China would come very low on the list of proposed countries. Frankly, Americans do not want to see a world where China is the world leader and how China would then influence the world. That's the values gap I'm referring to. That nebulous set of characteristics that groups some countries in the world with America as "us" and pushes other countries outside as "them," and how "we" do not want to live in a world that "they" create.
This may be a bit challenging -- especially I can appreciate how most Americans would fear a world where China is the world that "they" create. However, for a lot of people in the world, there is actually a gap of values where America is the "they" in this picture. I still remember the celebrations in Japan when Obama was elected as president (which I thought was being a bit optimistic, personally -- only so much a president can do, no matter how much they wish to do good (or not)). But the thing for me was, why are all the people in my office so invested in an election, half way around the world, where they have absolutely no say? Of course it is obvious. What the US does affects everybody and it doesn't always affect non-Americans in a good way. In some ways, I think it is good that Americans get some inkling that you don't really want a single country imposing their set of values on the rest of the world. Of course, I have no idea what the best alternative is, but I think it's food for thought.
Greece: Acceptable food, weather & landscapes. DEMOCRACY! Corruption. Drama.
India: Same, more drama.
Italy: Same, historically more corruption & drama. Elegance.
France: Same. More chic.
India: Same, more drama.
Italy: Same, historically more corruption & drama. Elegance.
France: Same. More chic.
Depends on the situation. If America vanished because of an alien invasion, and Americans debated among themselves about who could best take revenge against the aliens, China would be at the very top of the list of proposed countries.
I feel like Russia would end up higher up on that list.
Their active military engagements and large nuclear arsenal make them perfect for that.
Their active military engagements and large nuclear arsenal make them perfect for that.
Err. LOL? Uniform business environment? Different sales tax everywhere? Different environmental and recycling laws? Some things not allowed to cross state lines? Other things maybe some state lines?
R U serious?
edit: I mean in the U.S. of A.
R U serious?
edit: I mean in the U.S. of A.
> China has a lot of domestic talent but struggles to put it to good use
Is there something quantifiable you're referring to?
Is there something quantifiable you're referring to?
More Chinese people come here to America looking for opportunities than the other way around.
That's quite a leap being stated matter-of-factly
Your argument is true with most countries in general https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_Chinese. Are you saying Myanmar does a better job of putting talents to use than China?
Your argument is true with most countries in general https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_Chinese. Are you saying Myanmar does a better job of putting talents to use than China?
> America attracts top talent from all around the world.
The current administration seems to be trying hard to change this via travel bans etc. The one actually good idea that Trump floated in his campaign was meritocratic points based immigration ala Canada, but it seems that topic got dropped in favor of more attention drawing stunts like the border wall.
> technology investment funds being used to further inflate the property bubble in disguise
Same thing in Silicon Valley, and to a lesser extent many other US cities with good tech jobs.
The current administration seems to be trying hard to change this via travel bans etc. The one actually good idea that Trump floated in his campaign was meritocratic points based immigration ala Canada, but it seems that topic got dropped in favor of more attention drawing stunts like the border wall.
> technology investment funds being used to further inflate the property bubble in disguise
Same thing in Silicon Valley, and to a lesser extent many other US cities with good tech jobs.
I think it’s unsubstantiated to claim that travel bans on select Middle eastern countries have reduced talented immigration to America.
Employment based immigration has been up year on year for the past 5 years: https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/Annual...
Employment based immigration has been up year on year for the past 5 years: https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/Annual...
Well the worst aspects of the travel ban were reversed by the courts, but the initial version that Trump tried to pass would have meant that eg Iranians with green cards who happened to be outside the US when the ban started couldn't return to the US, which obviously would have reduced (even reversed?) talented immigration.
Also your link is meaningless because the most common way to get an employment green card is by adjusting status in the US (from eg H1-B status to green card), not by getting an immigrant visa, but that table only counts immigrant visas.
Also your link is meaningless because the most common way to get an employment green card is by adjusting status in the US (from eg H1-B status to green card), not by getting an immigrant visa, but that table only counts immigrant visas.
> meritocratic points based immigration
this is one of the main ideas that Ted Cruz has promoted.
this is one of the main ideas that Ted Cruz has promoted.
Like China's social credit system, but for immigrants?
I was applying for PhD in CS in 2017, I changed my destination from USA to Canada specifically because of Trump. Although job prospect is way better in USA, I will never ever come to a country where they don’t treat me right.
(I am talking about government and policies. I don’t have any problem with Americans actually and gave quite a lot of American friends).
By not treating me right I am talking about for example:
1) At that time they were talking about imposing tax for graduate students. That could have had devastating effect on grad student life.
2) Right now they are talking about removing OPT.
(I am talking about government and policies. I don’t have any problem with Americans actually and gave quite a lot of American friends).
By not treating me right I am talking about for example:
1) At that time they were talking about imposing tax for graduate students. That could have had devastating effect on grad student life.
2) Right now they are talking about removing OPT.
> Is American tech dominance the result of some magic cultural mojo born from American values that can't be replicated in a different cultural sphere
To an extent I think it was, nothing inherently American but openness and a certain amount of cowboyness has been a key differentiator in what tech thrives and what dies and authoritarian cultures/governments/organizations don't tend to favor openness. Look at the web verse what it could have been though something like minitel or AOL, look at linux vs commercial operating systems, unix itself and windows fostered a cowboy culture where everyone could write there own programs, bring there own hardware and generally and do what they want.
For the most part I think American tech is abandoning those values anyway, walled gardens are becoming more common and getting more restrictive, open standards are yielding to proprietary services, users are being restricted in how they operate their own machines. That's something China can compete with and win, you wouldn't get IRC out of china but you would get slack, you wouldn't get Linux but you would get apple.
To an extent I think it was, nothing inherently American but openness and a certain amount of cowboyness has been a key differentiator in what tech thrives and what dies and authoritarian cultures/governments/organizations don't tend to favor openness. Look at the web verse what it could have been though something like minitel or AOL, look at linux vs commercial operating systems, unix itself and windows fostered a cowboy culture where everyone could write there own programs, bring there own hardware and generally and do what they want.
For the most part I think American tech is abandoning those values anyway, walled gardens are becoming more common and getting more restrictive, open standards are yielding to proprietary services, users are being restricted in how they operate their own machines. That's something China can compete with and win, you wouldn't get IRC out of china but you would get slack, you wouldn't get Linux but you would get apple.
>Is American tech dominance the result of some magic cultural mojo born from American values that can't be replicated in a different cultural sphere
I'd question if that's even the case inside the US. America was industrialised on the back of the American System and Silicon Valley was built on top of defense contracts.
Napoleon brought the first civil code to France and Germany's national education system is a result of Prussian militarism.
In many countries that tell a story of some sort of Western transparency and laissez-faire culture it was arguably authoritarian structures that initiated reform not unlike those you find in Singapore or China today.
There's this popular narrative today championed by people like Acemoglu of "extractive" and "inclusive" institutions with the latter leading to progress and the former being bad, but even in Western nations a significant amoung of progress was built by the former and inherited by the latter.
I'd question if that's even the case inside the US. America was industrialised on the back of the American System and Silicon Valley was built on top of defense contracts.
Napoleon brought the first civil code to France and Germany's national education system is a result of Prussian militarism.
In many countries that tell a story of some sort of Western transparency and laissez-faire culture it was arguably authoritarian structures that initiated reform not unlike those you find in Singapore or China today.
There's this popular narrative today championed by people like Acemoglu of "extractive" and "inclusive" institutions with the latter leading to progress and the former being bad, but even in Western nations a significant amoung of progress was built by the former and inherited by the latter.
Linux came from Finland, not the U.S. And there's quite a lot of underground "cowboy culture" in Chinese tech, though people will disagree as to whether that promotes good quality.
> Linux came from Finland, not the U.S.
Not really.
Linux is a clone of Unix, developed by Bell Labs in the USA, and Linus' salary over decades has come from US companies (Transmeta) and foundations (The Linux Foundation.)
Not really.
Linux is a clone of Unix, developed by Bell Labs in the USA, and Linus' salary over decades has come from US companies (Transmeta) and foundations (The Linux Foundation.)
>> Linux came from Finland, not the U.S.
> Not really.
Yes really. Linux is technically Unix-like, wherein the code is original. The closest analogue is BSD which is based off the Unix source code. This history notwithstanding, the re-implementation of Unix came from Finland, not the US.
Software is almost universally designed and built from the lessons of other software. This doesn't discount the achievements.
> Not really.
Yes really. Linux is technically Unix-like, wherein the code is original. The closest analogue is BSD which is based off the Unix source code. This history notwithstanding, the re-implementation of Unix came from Finland, not the US.
Software is almost universally designed and built from the lessons of other software. This doesn't discount the achievements.
Userland was mostly American though. If not Linux, then we'd would have used very American FreeBSD, almost 100% same thing.
No, it's not a matter of magic cultural mojo. Japanese tech was ascendant for a long time in the 1970s and 1980s, and arguably even today beats the pants off American tech in many areas like automobiles (until Tesla came along, at least). And while Japan has adopted/had some American values rammed down its throat post-WW2, it remains very different culturally: there's very little in common between a Silicon Valley startup and a Japanese megacorp.
Post WWII, Japan was able to differentiate itself from other developing nations in becoming a major economic center precisely because it was the first to adopt American ideas such as the free market and free enterprise. A free market and a lack of regulations is what enables America today to be center for innovation when it comes to technology. Likewise, an uptick in regulation explains why car manufacturing is a stagnant industry in the US. Just to drive the point, the downfall of Detroit coincides timeline-wise closely with the city becoming a union town.
The example of Tesla being forced to stay closed is another one.
Japanese automobiles are still much higher quality than Tesla's. But yes, Tesla is pushing boundaries.
Alternative answer:
America's geography makes all the important things easy, leaving us the resources to take risks and innovate.
We have some of the best farmland in the world. With a river system to feed it water and easily transport goods. As well as a relatively flat landmass to facilitate transportation of people and goods. Add to that the largest energy deposits in the world, and nearly every other natural resource needed to run a modern economy.
We have it pretty easy. A highly inclusive democratic society is just the cherry on top that pulls it all together.
And BTW- Chinda does not come out very well on any of those metrics. They are a massive net importer of food and energy, for instance. That makes it much harder for them to come out ahead in a global economic shock. Say one brought on by a global pandemic.
We have some of the best farmland in the world. With a river system to feed it water and easily transport goods. As well as a relatively flat landmass to facilitate transportation of people and goods. Add to that the largest energy deposits in the world, and nearly every other natural resource needed to run a modern economy.
We have it pretty easy. A highly inclusive democratic society is just the cherry on top that pulls it all together.
And BTW- Chinda does not come out very well on any of those metrics. They are a massive net importer of food and energy, for instance. That makes it much harder for them to come out ahead in a global economic shock. Say one brought on by a global pandemic.
By no means trying to be racist or dismiss the natives, but the geography of North America surely did not change since white man came.
Which clearly shows culture is probably just as important as geography.
> the geography of North America surely did not change since white man came
Effectively, it did change. The Erie Canal, the Welland Canal, and the Illinois & Michigan Canal were transformative. And then the railroads came...
Effectively, it did change. The Erie Canal, the Welland Canal, and the Illinois & Michigan Canal were transformative. And then the railroads came...
In the sense that “being exposed to the literal rest of humanity’s innovations” is culture, yes.
Anything and everything had to be independently developed in the Americas prior to contact due to isolation, the white man backwater of Europe got to ride the coattails of R&D across the entire Eurasiafrican supercontinent for millennia, as a comparison.
For a concept like a wheel to spread from, say, Northern China to Southern Spain, they could literally just roll on over.
Anything and everything had to be independently developed in the Americas prior to contact due to isolation, the white man backwater of Europe got to ride the coattails of R&D across the entire Eurasiafrican supercontinent for millennia, as a comparison.
For a concept like a wheel to spread from, say, Northern China to Southern Spain, they could literally just roll on over.
Could it be the lack of horses? Horses enables faster transportation and communication over a larger distance. This is essential for trade, governance and technology transfer.
The pre-industrial world was a very different place than where we live now.
Back then, technology and information gave you a massive advantage. Nowadays information moves relatively freely.
Also, there were some extenuating circumstances. An epidemic that wipes out 90% of your population makes it pretty hard to compete.
Also, there were some extenuating circumstances. An epidemic that wipes out 90% of your population makes it pretty hard to compete.
White Man in NorthAm came into post-apocalypse caused by sickness, brought on by earlier White Man in SouthAM and LatAM, spreading northwards. And maybe, just maybe a lil' bit of climate change.
>We have some of the best farmland in the world
Is that still the case though? Things are changing, and it seems things aren't as good as in the old days with draught, and climate changes.
Is that still the case though? Things are changing, and it seems things aren't as good as in the old days with draught, and climate changes.
I don't think you can separate the educational etc structures from the culture.
Another poster mentioned cowboyism, which I think is apt. The US culture reveres the rugged individual ideal, and the structures allow or encourage it.
All the big US tech companies have an origin story with one or two people, often without traditional credentials, who turned a small idea into a big idea and a huge company. Usually not a lot of group glory, unless it's the five or ten people who left after building a big company and made their own bigger companies (see the traitorous eight that formed Fairchild and went onto form others companies; or the many video game companies starting with A formed by Atari employees such as Activision)
You don't get innovation by doing what everyone else is doing. You get it by doing stuff that seems crazy and turning out right.
Another poster mentioned cowboyism, which I think is apt. The US culture reveres the rugged individual ideal, and the structures allow or encourage it.
All the big US tech companies have an origin story with one or two people, often without traditional credentials, who turned a small idea into a big idea and a huge company. Usually not a lot of group glory, unless it's the five or ten people who left after building a big company and made their own bigger companies (see the traitorous eight that formed Fairchild and went onto form others companies; or the many video game companies starting with A formed by Atari employees such as Activision)
You don't get innovation by doing what everyone else is doing. You get it by doing stuff that seems crazy and turning out right.
> Since the fall of the USSR, the global zeitgeist has been that if you want to be a developed country, adopting American values in some form is necessary sooner or later. China is challenging this assumption and many developing countries will be watching the outcome.
Imitating the leader is just common sense if you want to emulate their success. China has been doing it bigtime also. Central planners can do a fine job of catching up once the path is obvious. Train people with these skills and have them build these products. Just watch the news to learn how. But even if they take over their targeted fields, US tech will move on to new ones. To lead means to figure out what to do next, before it's the biggest thing in SV already.
Imitating the leader is just common sense if you want to emulate their success. China has been doing it bigtime also. Central planners can do a fine job of catching up once the path is obvious. Train people with these skills and have them build these products. Just watch the news to learn how. But even if they take over their targeted fields, US tech will move on to new ones. To lead means to figure out what to do next, before it's the biggest thing in SV already.
No, that is the illusion.
The primary thing you need is capital. Money, and lots of it. Then a service and manufacturing economy to support and sustain it.
But the most important ingredient, is to be sovereign. And not get invaded for a hundred years, while you build out your economy and institutions.
The last major war on American soil was the Civil War. You can achieve a lot of momentum, when war and invasion is not happening on your territory.
Basically, don’t be poor. And have a lot of nuclear weapons to F! up your opponents, if they dare attempt to invade you.
If you have all that, then everything else will fall into place.
The primary thing you need is capital. Money, and lots of it. Then a service and manufacturing economy to support and sustain it.
But the most important ingredient, is to be sovereign. And not get invaded for a hundred years, while you build out your economy and institutions.
The last major war on American soil was the Civil War. You can achieve a lot of momentum, when war and invasion is not happening on your territory.
Basically, don’t be poor. And have a lot of nuclear weapons to F! up your opponents, if they dare attempt to invade you.
If you have all that, then everything else will fall into place.
I'm not sure this makes sense as an explanation of tech dominance. Tech is one of the least capital-intensive industries around. The capital required to build Twitter, or Facebook, or Google, arguably even the Internet, was available in many contemporary countries.
Each of those companies solved hard tech problems to scale and also only managed to achieve that scale because of venture capital subsidization (prior to monetization). They also benefited from major human capital involvement. Looked at the right way, they were extremely capital-intensive endeavors. It just came into more play going from “1 to n” than “0 to 1”.
In fact, I’m willing to bet that you’ll find lots of examples of 0 to 1s similar to Facebook and Twitter that preceded them but lacked the capital necessary to get to the same scale.
In fact, I’m willing to bet that you’ll find lots of examples of 0 to 1s similar to Facebook and Twitter that preceded them but lacked the capital necessary to get to the same scale.
To have $2 billion available to invest in Facebook you need to have $200 billion laying around to invest in all the Webvans you find while looking for the next Facebook.
What do you mean by American values? Specific examples?
Disobedience.
http://www.paulgraham.com/gba.html
"Those in authority tend to be annoyed by hackers' general attitude of disobedience. But that disobedience is a byproduct of the qualities that make them good programmers. They may laugh at the CEO when he talks in generic corporate newspeech, but they also laugh at someone who tells them a certain problem can't be solved. Suppress one, and you suppress the other."
http://www.paulgraham.com/gba.html
"Those in authority tend to be annoyed by hackers' general attitude of disobedience. But that disobedience is a byproduct of the qualities that make them good programmers. They may laugh at the CEO when he talks in generic corporate newspeech, but they also laugh at someone who tells them a certain problem can't be solved. Suppress one, and you suppress the other."
This is more of a young person thing, and only for specific personality types.
And America is much less forgiving of disobedience today than it was, even just 20 years ago. Unless you come from a privileged group, run-ins with the authorities are not pleasant.
And America is much less forgiving of disobedience today than it was, even just 20 years ago. Unless you come from a privileged group, run-ins with the authorities are not pleasant.
Maybe that's why you see China catching up - because America is falling back and suppressing disobedience.
> America is much less forgiving of disobedience today than it was, even just 20 years ago.
Do you have any examples of this? I've always been american, but I was only 15 years old 20 years ago.
Do you have any examples of this? I've always been american, but I was only 15 years old 20 years ago.
[deleted]
Democracy naturally leads to competent and benevolent government, there are no circumstances under which human rights violations are ever acceptable, freedom of the individual takes priority over total benefit to the group, all individuals have the same intrinsic value regardless of their economic/social status, etc.
> Democracy naturally leads to competent and benevolent government
That hasn't been an American value for quite awhile, assuming it ever was.[1] Thus Reagan's famous quote: "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help'.
[1] I'm willing to accept that it was for relatively brief but important periods, such as the 2-3 decades after WWII. The U.S. would still be a backwater were it not for moments where pragmatism and a shared sense of responsibility trumped cynicism and a reflexive fear of authority.
That hasn't been an American value for quite awhile, assuming it ever was.[1] Thus Reagan's famous quote: "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help'.
[1] I'm willing to accept that it was for relatively brief but important periods, such as the 2-3 decades after WWII. The U.S. would still be a backwater were it not for moments where pragmatism and a shared sense of responsibility trumped cynicism and a reflexive fear of authority.
Perhaps I should have worded it as Democracy is the most tolerable form of government. No matter the disillusionment with Democracy in America today, the idea of adopting China's government is completely outside the Overton window in America. In other parts of the world, I'm not so sure.
Jared Diamond, who is much more researched than anyone else commenting here, has written a lot on this topic, and briefly stated - it has more to do with a society's capacity to receive and process outside ideas. It's less about American culture and more about the fact that America has been for the most part an open society, but more so American metropolitan society and not America as a whole.
These discussions never seem to mention cultural soft power. Even if China were technologically superior to the US, they simply don’t have the cultural production that the US (and broadly, English-language media) has. American television and movies are known the world over, whereas I can’t name more than a handful of (non-Hong Kong) Chinese books/movies with global reach. I also don’t see Mandarin replacing English as the global default trade language. China would need to make its own NYC and Hollywood to begin to compete with this.
Why is this relevant to tech? Because I think one could argue that many tech companies are built upon this cultural capital; it’s hard to imagine YouTube being successful globally without being the source of a ton of American-made video content.
Why is this relevant to tech? Because I think one could argue that many tech companies are built upon this cultural capital; it’s hard to imagine YouTube being successful globally without being the source of a ton of American-made video content.
TikTok would like a word.
I seriously question the idea of comparing TikTok to the entirety of the American film and media industry. A better comparison would be to SnapChat.
Serious question: is it a soft power win for China if most non-Chinese users don't think of it as a Chinese product?
I would say so. For me (in the US), the amount of TikTok reposts on platforms like Twitter and Instagram seems to grow by the day and I rarely, if ever, see the concern about it being a Chinese app raised.
Maybe there are two type of soft power. The first type is where a company makes a globally popular product. The second type is where a company makes a globally popular product that is recognizably "of its country". TikTok is the first, McDonalds/Hollywood/NBA is the second?
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned interviews as a possible problem here.
If you buy into the notion that coding interviews generate a lot of false negatives then there is a lot of talent that's underemployed. If that's the case, it wouldn't matter at the company level because they can afford false negatives, but it would matter a lot at the national level if there are a lot of people that are capable of much more than they are placed at.
And even if it doesn't generate false negatives, the current hiring practices encourage people to not switch to newer roles:
- Practicing leetcode takes a long time and you have to brush up on it every time you look for a new job
- Coding projects often take a long time, 4-8+ hours
- Multiple whiteboard interviews with the coding projects
- Getting ghosted after submitting coding projects leading to burnout
- Exclusively hiring people that know some very specific libraries or languages. It might only take a week or two to get up to speed on these. This encourages devs to devote a ton of their free time into learning new libraries that they might not even use just to land a job
All of these could also discourage smart people from joining tech, since the high salaries aren't as high as they look when you factor in all of the extra time involved here, and some people don't want to sacrifice their leisure time for higher pay. From what I understand, the tech scene in Europe is bad exactly because they're way underpaid, so Europe has trouble attracting talent and getting people to enter into tech.
China might have the same problems here, I'm not sure, but if these assumptions are true then just finding better ways to match people to jobs they'd perform the best at would give whatever nation a competitive edge.
If you buy into the notion that coding interviews generate a lot of false negatives then there is a lot of talent that's underemployed. If that's the case, it wouldn't matter at the company level because they can afford false negatives, but it would matter a lot at the national level if there are a lot of people that are capable of much more than they are placed at.
And even if it doesn't generate false negatives, the current hiring practices encourage people to not switch to newer roles:
- Practicing leetcode takes a long time and you have to brush up on it every time you look for a new job
- Coding projects often take a long time, 4-8+ hours
- Multiple whiteboard interviews with the coding projects
- Getting ghosted after submitting coding projects leading to burnout
- Exclusively hiring people that know some very specific libraries or languages. It might only take a week or two to get up to speed on these. This encourages devs to devote a ton of their free time into learning new libraries that they might not even use just to land a job
All of these could also discourage smart people from joining tech, since the high salaries aren't as high as they look when you factor in all of the extra time involved here, and some people don't want to sacrifice their leisure time for higher pay. From what I understand, the tech scene in Europe is bad exactly because they're way underpaid, so Europe has trouble attracting talent and getting people to enter into tech.
China might have the same problems here, I'm not sure, but if these assumptions are true then just finding better ways to match people to jobs they'd perform the best at would give whatever nation a competitive edge.
Pentagon jargon filled interview discussing the future of optimizing the allocation human resources. I mean interviews. It hits on many of your points.
https://warontherocks.com/2020/05/scoping-the-future-of-educ...
https://warontherocks.com/2020/05/scoping-the-future-of-educ...
I can haz transcript? Channel capacity insufficient.
What is it that china still cant do?
1. Metallurgy? Or just engines? Of all types.. Petrol diesel jet gas turbine steam turbine rocket etc
2. X86 or general computing cisc chips, maybe fpga n asics too. Maybe fab process tech as well. Or is it all silicon? Theres only licensed designs and last gen fab?
3. glass? Canon L, nikkor ed, any leica or zeiss..
4. watches? Selitta miyota ronda.. We're not even talking a lange&sohne
5. Maybe some materials that dow dupont basf bayer akzo nobel are producing? Roche novartis sanofi?
6. ???
1. Metallurgy? Or just engines? Of all types.. Petrol diesel jet gas turbine steam turbine rocket etc
2. X86 or general computing cisc chips, maybe fpga n asics too. Maybe fab process tech as well. Or is it all silicon? Theres only licensed designs and last gen fab?
3. glass? Canon L, nikkor ed, any leica or zeiss..
4. watches? Selitta miyota ronda.. We're not even talking a lange&sohne
5. Maybe some materials that dow dupont basf bayer akzo nobel are producing? Roche novartis sanofi?
6. ???
1. Apparently China can now make the balls for ballpoint pens (a metallurgical milestone, supposedly?): https://www.businessinsider.com/china-has-finally-figured-ou...
2. Fab process tech is pretty firmly in Dutch/Swiss/Japanese hands I think? In terms of fabs, SMIC is planning to start 7nm process this year, so about 3 years behind: https://www.tomshardware.com/uk/news/chinese-fab-smic-to-sta...
3. Anecdotally I visited an optics tradeshow in Shenzhen and it was pretty impressive what was available in advanced lenses for process control. But I'm no expert. Consumer camera lenses from China have been getting better and better.
4. It's not really hard to make mechanical watches if you have great CNC machines. Which are still dominated by Switzerland (Tornos), Germany (Kern), Japan (many, including Tsugami). Seagull have been making decent mechanical watches for >60 years...
5. China is pushing heavily on gene therapy which may turn out to be a big part of future medicine
2. Fab process tech is pretty firmly in Dutch/Swiss/Japanese hands I think? In terms of fabs, SMIC is planning to start 7nm process this year, so about 3 years behind: https://www.tomshardware.com/uk/news/chinese-fab-smic-to-sta...
3. Anecdotally I visited an optics tradeshow in Shenzhen and it was pretty impressive what was available in advanced lenses for process control. But I'm no expert. Consumer camera lenses from China have been getting better and better.
4. It's not really hard to make mechanical watches if you have great CNC machines. Which are still dominated by Switzerland (Tornos), Germany (Kern), Japan (many, including Tsugami). Seagull have been making decent mechanical watches for >60 years...
5. China is pushing heavily on gene therapy which may turn out to be a big part of future medicine
> 3. glass? Canon L, nikkor ed, any leica or zeiss..
A big part of lenses in lithography steppers come from China, where they managed to beat Zeiss on cost/quality n-fold.
The biggest, and most expensive lenses are still Zeiss' speciality.
A big part of lenses in lithography steppers come from China, where they managed to beat Zeiss on cost/quality n-fold.
The biggest, and most expensive lenses are still Zeiss' speciality.
The only "Chinese" factory worth talking about is TSMC. And it is not on CCP's side of China.
"...echoing objectives set forth previously in the Made in China 2025 program"
In other words, this isn't a suprise, just that this is the latest push to fulfil the existing plan.
In other words, this isn't a suprise, just that this is the latest push to fulfil the existing plan.
I think it's totally going to happen because China has the talent and scale to pull it off.I do think it'll be inferior to the open global tech ecosystem that benefits from open idea sharing
China takes the precise opposite path to the US. While the US pumps trillions into private hands to keep private enterprise afloat, China spends an equal amount on infrastructure, largely financed through debt. This is a smart move because your countries economy could collapse but the nation's financiers aren't able to repossess poured concrete, AI knowledge or wireless access points.
Concrete has poor liquidity though both literally and figuratively so when it turns out you spent way too much money on concrete instead of agricultural development you are screwed. Also, US financiers are bondholders, meaning the public. The public reposessing corporations would mean nationalization, which...Chinas economy is already far more nationalized than the US.
Apparently you’re not following the news lately.
The Fed is buying up all the corporate junk bonds.
And with all the impending bankruptcies, they’re probably a few steps away from buying company stock outright. You can sugar coat this all you want, but it is effectively nationalization.
The Fed is buying up all the corporate junk bonds.
And with all the impending bankruptcies, they’re probably a few steps away from buying company stock outright. You can sugar coat this all you want, but it is effectively nationalization.
The problem never was repossessing debt.
Fiat money, unlike gold, is all about direct resource allocation.
Pouring trillions in bad corpoarate debt is just as bad as pouring trillions in inflating the housing market -- resources are poorly allocated and capital markets are bypassed.
Bad debt is bad debt, it is equally destructive in the end.
Pouring trillions in bad corpoarate debt is just as bad as pouring trillions in inflating the housing market -- resources are poorly allocated and capital markets are bypassed.
Bad debt is bad debt, it is equally destructive in the end.
You would be surprised as to how creative the repo man can get ;)
Good article, a good call to arms.
In my fields of interest (General AI, NLP, machine learning), Chinese research papers even just 20 years ago did not impress me much. Now, it worries me that some of the best published research from China gets translated too slowly.
As a US citizen, I think that our ability vs. China’s ability to market high tech to places like Europe and the upcoming countries in Africa and elsewhere will be all important.
I don’t think that President Trump’s approach is correct, BTW. We should invest more in education, research and infrastructure. He is right to push back, but much more moderately than he is doing. If our economic and tech “war” with China badly inconveniences other countries, then there will be blowback.
In my fields of interest (General AI, NLP, machine learning), Chinese research papers even just 20 years ago did not impress me much. Now, it worries me that some of the best published research from China gets translated too slowly.
As a US citizen, I think that our ability vs. China’s ability to market high tech to places like Europe and the upcoming countries in Africa and elsewhere will be all important.
I don’t think that President Trump’s approach is correct, BTW. We should invest more in education, research and infrastructure. He is right to push back, but much more moderately than he is doing. If our economic and tech “war” with China badly inconveniences other countries, then there will be blowback.
> some of the best published research from China gets translated too slowly.
Could you give some examples of research where you had to wait a while for a translation to appear? I was under the impression that Chinese researchers still try to get their research published in international venues if they can, which means writing in English. Do they publish in Chinese somewhere else first? (Where?)
Could you give some examples of research where you had to wait a while for a translation to appear? I was under the impression that Chinese researchers still try to get their research published in international venues if they can, which means writing in English. Do they publish in Chinese somewhere else first? (Where?)
How does one go long on China if they believe this?
> This is going to answer a very important question for the future. Is American tech dominance the result of some magic cultural mojo born from American values that can't be replicated in a different cultural sphere, or is it something that can be replicated if you pump enough money into the right educational, institutional, and industrial structures while completely divorced from American culture.
My American comrades, I find you sounding rather alarmist.
While American culture has little to do with it, China doesn't benefit a single bit from that.
What matters is:
1. Rich, and talented people can afford to vote with their feet. China is not a nice place to live if you are one (and to be fair, not safe either.)
2. Deng Xiaoping has catastrophically undermined China on demography. The impact of 1 child police will be felt for many decades to come even if China will abolish demographic controls completely.
3. All rich, famous, and talented people I know in China are set to move out "someday," taking their capital, and brainshare with them. The USA is still the No. 1 destination for many Chinese.
My American comrades, I find you sounding rather alarmist.
While American culture has little to do with it, China doesn't benefit a single bit from that.
What matters is:
1. Rich, and talented people can afford to vote with their feet. China is not a nice place to live if you are one (and to be fair, not safe either.)
2. Deng Xiaoping has catastrophically undermined China on demography. The impact of 1 child police will be felt for many decades to come even if China will abolish demographic controls completely.
3. All rich, famous, and talented people I know in China are set to move out "someday," taking their capital, and brainshare with them. The USA is still the No. 1 destination for many Chinese.
Another naive anecdotal dismissal of probable geopolitical trends. There’s no escaping the fact that highly intelligent people willing to work harder than most people in this culture supported by a sufficiently developed industrial base will be formidable. Given the cultural unity and the sheer size of population I would be shocked if we didn’t become a second rate power relative to them by 2050.
I’m far from an expert on China, but I’ve been under the impression that Deng Xiaoping was a generally positive influence from an economic perspective.
I’ve kinda understood him as the one that stepped away from the planned economy of Mao (but I’m not really knowledgeable on the subject)
What am I missing here?
I’ve kinda understood him as the one that stepped away from the planned economy of Mao (but I’m not really knowledgeable on the subject)
What am I missing here?
baybal doesn’t contradict you. Deng radically westernized parts of the Chinese economy, but he also enforced the one child policy. The economic effects of a small young generation supporting a large aging population is witnessed in Japan: a slow in growth if nothing else
Thanks! I wasn’t aware
And we just decided that we'll turn away those people.
Well, there are lots of places warming up to money of rich Chinese immigrants which are still considered "the West."
Different EU countries are now competing who can sell their passport the cheapest to Chinese nouveau riches. Dubai, and the guls if exploding with immigrants. Even Latin America has set sights on them.
Different EU countries are now competing who can sell their passport the cheapest to Chinese nouveau riches. Dubai, and the guls if exploding with immigrants. Even Latin America has set sights on them.
PG wrote an essay on this in 2006:
http://paulgraham.com/siliconvalley.html
I think the summary is that SV is a unique confluence of education, freedom, commerce, funding, population, laissez-fair business, military and worker rights.
The closest I've seen to this is Toronto, though startup investment is on a miniscule scale compared to SV. Toronto may have an advantage in the future because health care is free there. (Israel also, and the town where Skype came from in Estonia?)
For those outside SV, you can talk investors into funding years of development and marketing based on just an idea. At first it seems crazy, but if the market is there, it works.
I think the summary is that SV is a unique confluence of education, freedom, commerce, funding, population, laissez-fair business, military and worker rights.
The closest I've seen to this is Toronto, though startup investment is on a miniscule scale compared to SV. Toronto may have an advantage in the future because health care is free there. (Israel also, and the town where Skype came from in Estonia?)
For those outside SV, you can talk investors into funding years of development and marketing based on just an idea. At first it seems crazy, but if the market is there, it works.
Yeah, SV had a lot of factors that needed to be just right for it to be successful.
But we only need one SV. Once the model is proved out, it will naturally spread the seeds of startup culture to other cities. Like VC's drifting in the wind.
The socio-economic soil of the transplants doesn't need to be nearly as fertile as the first location. It is taking a while, but the model is definitely spreading. Most every major city has a startup scene these days, and a government looking to nurture it.
But we only need one SV. Once the model is proved out, it will naturally spread the seeds of startup culture to other cities. Like VC's drifting in the wind.
The socio-economic soil of the transplants doesn't need to be nearly as fertile as the first location. It is taking a while, but the model is definitely spreading. Most every major city has a startup scene these days, and a government looking to nurture it.
We're not seeing that for various reasons, often insurmountable ones.
The Boston area has draconian employee IP ownership agreements, so that gives California a huge advantage.
Some European countries require pre-payment of pensions, preventing start-ups from even forming.
PG's essay was published 14 years ago, yet no city council seems to have adopted it as a checklist.
The Boston area has draconian employee IP ownership agreements, so that gives California a huge advantage.
Some European countries require pre-payment of pensions, preventing start-ups from even forming.
PG's essay was published 14 years ago, yet no city council seems to have adopted it as a checklist.
A crisis is the best time to spend a ton of money.
Fascinating. If they succeed, then China will advance into a high tech economy full of computer programmers and electrical engineers, and AI Computer Scientists.
They want to build out the future digital city, so their citizen can live and interact in it.
Fascinating. If they succeed, then China will advance into a high tech economy full of computer programmers and electrical engineers, and AI Computer Scientists.
They want to build out the future digital city, so their citizen can live and interact in it.
> They want to build out the future digital city, so their citizen can live and interact in it.
When they started Golden Shield Project they built it for monitor and surveillance iirc.
Forgive me if I'm skeptical of your view.
I do welcome more competitions between companies/countries which will hopefully lead to consumers enjoying the benefits.
When they started Golden Shield Project they built it for monitor and surveillance iirc.
Forgive me if I'm skeptical of your view.
I do welcome more competitions between companies/countries which will hopefully lead to consumers enjoying the benefits.
slumpt_(1)
China government has a much bigger problem: where their manufacturers can sell that stuff.
It's highly unlikely that developed countries will continue to welcome subsidized products, some (I'm being generous) of them based on stolen intellectual property.
It's highly unlikely that developed countries will continue to welcome subsidized products, some (I'm being generous) of them based on stolen intellectual property.
[deleted](1)
Finally, a Great Leap Forward!
I wonder how much democide this will result in.
The biggest issue moving into the future is the national government's hostility toward foreigners, even foreign professionals. Even then, though, a billion people gives you a lot to work with.