While historically this has been difficult to achieve, when innovation cycles shift there is an opportunity to shift ingrained practices too.
I don't have the data to back it up, but I think that there is actually the same amount of will and talent in China as in the West
https://reclaimthenet.org/china-man-chair-interrogation-soci...
Or even worse, do you actually support their views on human rights?
ICE/BP was looking for someone else, but saw another brown person while waiting, and took the opportunity to grab him, too.
He was imprisoned for more than a month and shuffled around the country before anyone bothered to look at his identification or acknowledge their validity.
Are you aware of what's going on in the US right now?
NYT: Those Deported to El Salvador Were Shackled, Beaten, and Sexually Assaulted[1]
And if you're saying to yourself, "what do I have to worry about, I'm not brown", well, do you have kids who you don't want to have abducted and zip-tied naked in the middle of the night by paramilitaries using grenades and rappelling from helicopters into your home[2][3]?
> Neighbors like Eboni Watson say they ducked for cover as they heard several flash bangs.
> "They was terrified. The kids was crying. People was screaming. They looked very distraught. I was out there crying when I seen the little girl come around the corner, because they was bringing the kids down, too, had them zip tied to each other," Watson said. "That's all I kept asking. What is the morality? Where's the human? One of them literally laughed. He was standing right here. He said, 'fuck them kids.'"
> “It was heartbreaking to watch,” she said. “Even if you’re not a mother, seeing kids coming out buck naked and taken from their mothers, it was horrible.”
> "They just treated us like we were nothing," Fisher said.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/08/world/americas/el-salvado...
[2] https://www.rawstory.com/it-was-heartbreaking-naked-zip-tied...
[3] https://abc7chicago.com/post/ice-chicago-federal-agents-surr...
There is not much left of communism in China besides the name, it's more akin to a government steered economy, which arguably is very similar to what the west had when we moved at our peak speed, albeit more authoritarian. They still have what we mostly lost: a long term historical view of geopolitic.
After living 2 years in China and visiting the country every year for the last 12 years, I disagree with you.
Many not minor things in China are still very aligned with communism.
How the university system works, land property, production in unpopulated areas and small towns, participation of the government in industry, etc…
New things deserve new definitions, we have to get out of the ww2 lingo where everyone is a nazi, a fascist, a communist or a capitalist, it's overly simplistic and muddies the water. 2025 China is completely different than 2000 China which itself is completely different than 1980 China.
This implies copying what someone else did. Rather than inventing something new. I know it's not what you meant but if it wasn't made by God it's because it's already made by someone else. The sentence says to me more about copying than some relentless pursuit. The people who invented the thing to copy, those were more relentless presumably.
And then again the Chinese invented plenty over the years. These generalizations are bit meh.
Perhaps the real question is this: why is it that places that used to be technologically advanced no longer produce new, original inventions? Is it fear of China copying them? Did the U.S. decide not to develop a sixth-generation fighter jet because it was afraid China would copy it? Did it stop working on battery technology because it feared China would copy that too?
What I would consider as the most impactful inventions of the last decade would be things like mRNA, Generative AI, and reusable rockets - all came from the US and the US is maintaining the lead in them.
So you think that, as an advanced military project that should have been kept under the strictest secrecy, the Chinese somehow obtained it and, based on that, developed their own sixth-generation fighter—and even managed a successful test flight while the U.S. is still at the PowerPoint stage? I don’t know which scenario would be worse for the United States.
If they want to attack by air - drones and missiles rather than planes appear to be the way to go.
Similarly aircraft carriers - they can only really be used now to bully small countries. To anybody with significant missile/drone tech they are just massive, slow, sitting ducks.
What matters is drones and missiles etc and how fast you can churn them out. Who would win that?
The US is going to have to find a way to live with countries like China and India, rather than trying to suppress them.
The current US policy of trying to dismant all the organisations that were set up post world war II in order to keep the peace is madness.
No, no they do not. Russia has more fighter jets than Ukraine yes but that's not what "Air superiority" is, let alone "Air supremacy" which is what the USA designs for.
If you cannot suppress air defense networks, you do not have anything close to air superiority. If you cannot fly missions in an airspace, you do not have superiority.
>What matters is drones and missiles etc and how fast you can churn them out. Who would win that?
Drones and missiles still don't replace airframes. Do not mistake "Is new and the battlefield is still teasing things out" with "Is dominant forever". China definitely doesn't seem to think they are replacing airframes, and in fact is doubling down on making platforms that are aligned with US doctrine, like modern stealth fighters, carriers, and networked battlespace management.
Torpedo boats did not kill Battleships. Battleships were only replaced when their job could be done from longer range by an Aircraft carrier.
>To anybody with significant missile/drone tech they are just massive, slow, sitting ducks.
Only China with their legit Hypersonic weapons has a strong case for nullifying the carriers. US doctrine has included "Defend from 200 incoming weapons targeting the carrier" since the 60s when the Navy first built an entirely automated and networked fleet system to ensure that those incoming get tasked appropriately, and anti-missile defense is never a guarantee, but it works well enough that the sinking of the Moskva was utterly shocking to those familiar with it, and implies terrible things about Russian naval readiness.
The previous threat model of these carriers was supersonic bombers launching high speed cruise missiles 200 at a time from 100 miles out. Shaheds are not a threat. That's why the Navy started running primary 5inch gun practice against them. They are the same threat model as a helicopter because they are slow.
>The current US policy of trying to dismant all the organisations that were set up post world war II
Agree
>in order to keep the peace is madness.
What? That's uh, not what they are doing. See Venezuela.
Isn't that my point? The balance has shifted.
BTW I did't say planes or aircraft carriers are not useful - just that they are not useful for the political reasons that are given. ie they are useful in bullying second rate countries - however that's not how defence spending is justified - it's all about existential threat of Russia/China etc.
>in order to keep the peace is madness.
Sorry that sentence was unclear - I didn't mean they are dismantling to keep the peace, I'm saying the organisation were set up to keep the peace post WWII.
My reading of why they are dismantling them is because they think these organisations and treaties constrain them - which is of course true - and by and large a good idea.
Bottom line if you build up weapons because you fear somebody, you create fear in the other and create a vicious cycle - good for the arms industry - no good for anybody else. The only way to break that is to talk, do deals, build trust.
- stealth (not really) - aliens (sure....) - 6th gen jets (where are the jets?)
The reality is that everything that you do in peacetime is just to scare the enemy and will have very little effect in war. Since the US doesn't have as much industrial capacity the only winning war is nuke from space first or learn to get along
This so myopic. The covid mRNA vaccine that Pfizer made billions from was done by BionTech a company in Germany led by immigrant turks.
Sure some American's recently got the Nobel prize for the pseudouridine modification - and whiles that's enabling it's not sufficient - you also need LNPs and a whole bunch of other stuff to make it all work - some of which was invented in America and some of which wasn't.
The nature of international science is collaboration.
The danger the for the US right now is it's cutting itself off from one of the biggest sources of innovation right now - China.
Nobody disputed that mRNA, like all science, has many inventors. And that many people in the west as a whole has worked on the technology. Everything you said about the contributions to mRNA is correct, and doesn’t diminish US’s critical part in it.
The point was, and remains, that saying that the US has stopped becoming innovative, is just nonsense.
Of course the US is still innovative - I think the question is whether countries like China are simply copying or now out innovating in some areas.
Their appears to be a lack of acknowledgement in the US about the current rate of innovation coming out of China these days - the days of only cheap knock-offs ( as with Japan before them ) is largely over.
In the areas I know - I see increasingly impressive innovation coming out of China right now.
The way the US is treating China right now is counter productive in my view. The biggest risk isn't the Chinese stealing US innovation - the biggest risk is the US cutting itself off from a key source of new ideas.
In my view the next Biontech is more likely to come from China than Germany.
I don't know why the US is treating it as a zero-sum game.
Working in academia, the rise of China academically is palpable. There's an avalance of Chinese research published, and a reasonable chunk of it very high quality, and getting better.
https://www.statista.com/chart/20553/gross-domestic-expendit...
https://itif.org/publications/2025/06/30/china-outpacing-us-...
And the economics prize, though it's not officially really a Nobel prize.
But the core science prizes, AFAICT, are pretty spot on. Of course there are always many worthy contenders of a prize and one can quibble should this or that person really deserve to get it instead of another person, but I haven't heard of any outright frauds or some trivial advancement getting the prize.
For example the recent nobel prize for Chemistry being awarded to David Baker, Dennis Hassabis and John Jumper.
Why the hell is David Baker on that list? He was just the head of a very big lab that was working in the traditional way using largely physics based approaches, making incremental progress.
AlphaFold blew that whole approach out of the water.
They cite the design of Top7 back in 2003 - it's not at the level of impact as Alphafold.
The impact of Alphafold is obvious to all - the importance of the 2003 Baker paper doesn't stand out to me from 1000's of other possible candidates - that's where self-promotion, visibility and politics plays a part.
The 2003 Baker paper has 2249 citations over 22 years. The 2021 AlphaFold paper has had 43876 citations in 4 years..........
And in fact this meme Chinese only copy is crap as I point out in my last paragraph. Over the centuries the Chinese were the first at quite a few things.
But the sentence says what it says.
The "bean counters" are under pressure just like everybody else. They didn't come up with their targets and incentives out of nowhere.
This was the role of government to manage but there weren’t enough non-lawyers at positions of power to understand fixes.
Now with the massive fraud seen in local states, civilians will rightfully trust institutions less and the downward trend will continue.
But in the global context, between adversarial nations, or even countries that don't see each other as equal, it is absolutely foolish not to copy. Since everything is framed in terms of game theories, what is even the benefit of not copying and being a "good boy" country?
In fact in this situation a country's IP is almost its liability and not its asset. Because it should cost the holding country money and resources so their citizens' IP is protected. And these resources are better off preserved for more crucial knowledge.
None of this even makes the copier's actions bad or immoral. They have a moral imperative to succeed.
What are possible problems you can imagine a copyer having?
A downside is that their consumption economy is low, all their geo neighbors view them as a threat (reducing exports long term), and this contributes to high unemployment as productivity increases.
I can't imagine why China is so dominant in so many areas when they explicitly plan and invest in capabilities they want to have instead of just relying on the market to "naturally" provide these capabilities or constantly relying on the same handful of inept and corrupt companies to deliver on national needs.
> This is because it is not only a government policy, but also a Chinese way of thinking. Nothing can interrupt this process.
Is there any evidence that this kind of homogeneous "national character" is objectively real? Or is it just another story that people tell themselves?
Americas technological domination was based in the fact it was the largest rich country for the last hundred years. That’s it. Just raw statistics.
Now China has a middle class as large as the US population, and continues to bring people into that class.
With triple the US population Chinese dominance is certain. Not by nefarious means, it’s just statistics. There is nothing special about Americans. There is nothing special about the Chinese. It’s just the more well educated people you have the better you will do.
China also benefits from efficiency. America wastes people and resources duplicating work and trying to protect companies from competition. Just the excess of lawyers can be considered a drain on the country. So many could contribute more in other fields.
As long as China keeps trying they will win. Big beats small.
Germany was the intellectual world leader until WW2 and the US only outperformed Germany in terms of Nobel Prizes in the 21st century. Many of Americas flagship technologies were built by German born and educated immigrants.
Americas anti immigration stance is accelerating American decline. The US has always drawn the world’s best via access and funding. Without that America can only rely on home grown talent and that is a huge disadvantage due to the way American schools are structured.
America blows a significant amount of its money by having its citizens drive everywhere with no option to take a train, bus, bicycle, or low-speed e-scooter. Americans take a crazy percentage of their income and just dump it into the stagnant automotive industry. Americans blow between $5,000-10,000 a year on transportation. It’s so crazy that there is a pretty long list of American cities where moving from the suburbs to the most walkable part of the metro area of that city will net you more square footage in your dwelling after removing the $750/month expense of owning a personal vehicle.
Then you can’t even really fix this problem in America because construction costs are wildly inflated. China can build a high speed rail network for the entire country for the price of a handful of miles of subway in manhattan. Projects take an insanely long time, e.g., California high speed rail. Multiple US cities have a housing cost crisis because houses aren’t being built fast enough, and that’s more money in the economy being blown on rent and financial products rather than productive endeavors.
Hangzhou metro has 12 subway lines. In 2014 they only had one.
Finally, healthcare. America just blows double the amount of money on healthcare of the next most expensive country, with worse outcomes in part because they sit in their cars all day.
I don’t even think some of the problems you’ve brought up with America like the school system are as big of problems. America has really good public schools and universities, so good that Chinese people still come to the US to get educated en masse, even at pretty standard and average state schools.
The current government doing stupid shit like discouraging research and immigration is certainly not helping though.
I think a streamlined path to real citizenship would be an incredible incentive for a lot of people.
I think the current logic is that foreign students pay the full unsubsidized sticker price, so it’s basically a profitable transaction.
The top 5 or 10 of these you’re basically getting close to equivalent square footage or better once you replace your vehicle spending with housing spend.
"Here's my wild claim, to verify it go spend your time watching a video!"
The videos he makes do sometimes use napkin math but in the way a city planner does napkin math - with data.
They also don’t claim to be a comprehensive study and each video is accompanied by a pretty thorough disclaimer on what methods are being used.
Odd and unfortunate that this one was taken down.
Criticizing a source for being in video format and therefore taking time to digest is an invalid criticism. If I linked you a scientific study you’d still have to take time to read it to properly evaluate it. Just because a source in video form doesn’t make it not a source, and it’s not asymmetric trolling warfare. I’m literally just providing a source that aligns with my perspective and opinion, and trying to have a good faith discussion.
I will also point out that every YouTube video provides a full automated transcript on the desktop version of YouTube.
The gist of the video was that some selected American cities presented in a “worst to best” list have an interesting effect going on where people who live in suburban car-dependent areas can potentially live in their metro area’s most walkable neighborhoods with rich urban fabric without sacrificing a lot of square feet or potentially even gaining more space in their home by removing the cost of owning a car and putting that into their rent instead. Ray Delahanty, a (former?) professional city planner, ran through some data on this based on median rent in various neighborhoods and an assumed TCO of personal vehicle ownership of around $750 a month. Metro areas like New York City fared poorly but others presented an interesting trade-off potential.
Obviously, it was something of a simplified discussion that doesn’t take into account every life factor that determines whether car ownership is a requirement, but he is a guy who lived without a car in Las Vegas of all places, so I think the general point was to present a thought experiment on what kind of lifestyle you can get if you change your perspective to consider the idea of ditching your car entirely and no longer pay the very high average costs that Americans incur to own, operate, store, and maintain their vehicles.
I guess that the more focused question is whether China needs to import some amount of tech talent to succeed, at least temporarily. The reporting on this EUV prototype does suggest that that is what they did, giving foreign researchers special visas and whatnot.
It's rooted in neither. Care to explain why you came to that conclusion? Fyi I'm neither American nor Chinese.
I was replying to a commenter who used "how we approach everything" and "Chinese way of thinking" when explaining China's economic dominance. I was questioning whether there is any such "national thinking" in any society, still less in a society of ~1.4bn people.
Fwiw I think that China's achievement, since the mid 20th century, of lifting so many people out of extreme poverty in such a short time is extremely creditable. As is its recent action on deploying clean energy technology. I'm much less impressed with its authoritarian political system. And of course I worry about military conflict.
The bigger undercurrent is divide between faction of people who think EUV impossible or possible. Between boomer/doomers (older, never do better than west types) and young techno-optimists, faction generation/education divided. TLDR PRC technical talent skews young, and techwar as spurned wave of scifi optimists, techno nationalists and industrialist party way of thinking. It's not homogeneous but it's dominant, especially in S&T after quick ascendancy.
I am not saying that one culture is better than another, but I think the American way is particularly productive, particularly stressful too.
The American experience is of triumphing with audacious, go big or go home schemes that others wouldn't or couldn't attempt.
To cherry pick one example, during WWII the US created airstrips on tiny pacific islands to fight the Japanese. Few people imagined it was possible to freight in the bulldozers, machines and materials to accomplish this, and it was game changing.
And of course we have the Manhattan project. Railroads. Gigantic IT companies like Oracle, IBM, Apple and more lately Google.
These successes fed into American exceptionalism.
This has its pros and cons.
In a world on the cusp of incredible discoveries, it let audacious American megacorps capture the high ground.
But explosive capitalist success has costs and masks underlying issues. Many people have had the experience of starting work at US Megacorp and being astonished at the waste, ineptitude and back stabbing that happens - yet somehow the corporate continues to thrive and throw off mountains of money.
The experience of that easy money breeds an unhealthy version of American exceptionalism where people start to believe they will and should succeed - just because American.
Things are different elsewhere in the world.
Up and comers make do with what they have and struggle upwards while the USA cruises.
Just one example are the thriving Chinese fabbing companies like JLCPCB. Every tech product contains a PCB. It's pretty obvious now that PCB manufacture is an absolute core competency in tech going forward.
Any two man upstart tech company can use JLCPCB's free online tools to design a PCB, then click to have the factory fabricate the board, solder on all the components and connectors, and have it in the customer's hands a few days later. True on demand manufacturing.
What would have cost thousands of dollars, taken months and required a team of experts a few years ago now takes days and costs a few bucks.
The US is nowhere in this relatively new but critical industry. The only US competitors are stuck in a local minimum where they get assured business at generous prices from security-sensitive govt agencies who can't outsource to China, but they can't remotely compete on price with their Chinese competitors on price or even quality and timeliness.
But when the fondue "decides" to melt in a certain way, you get the unified ideas which seem impossible (like your airstrip example). Perspectives from all cultures aligned under one roof, while also aligned in direction.
You outline Jack Welch style American business, but that was a reinventing of American business to 'save it' (stock market 'keep the line going up' saving it, not actual saving it as long term GE was left worse off). This isn't the successful American business style that built the country originally.
Your airstrip to me sounds like basically what any American agriculture guy would have done, and in fact probably did do, all the time. My 2002 white Chevy pickup driving 70s millionaire neighbor does this sort of thing all the time in the forest he manages. He does more road work than the local government in crazy remote forrest
The grass is greener though. Europe's work to live, not live to work aligns more with my sensibilities.
Small to tiny, highly cohesive, dont shy hard work and dont have unsustainable social utopias
It doesn't mean absolutely everyone takes part, of course, but it does mean it's a 'thing' that people may take part in with support from many of those around them if they choose.
Looking at the inverse: If you're going against the cultural wind, you're just going to have a much harder time doing whatever it is.
It just seems like this must show up in outcomes, it would be strange if it didn't.
Your going to feel humbled.
- "world-wide coal consumption by country"
- "countries with the most executions in 2024"
- "freedom in the world report"
- "world press freedom index"
- "climate change performance by country"
Enjoy.
Material conditions shape history
It's the Schrodinger's cat of cultures. Or maybe generalities about culture aren't to explain for economic and political velocity.
Considering that north and south korea share the same "culture", wouldn't they be an example against your assertion?
Isn't the bigger impact that one is sanctioned by the world's sole superpower and the other is not?
In the immediate aftermath of the Korean war, the North was actually more prosperous than the South. That changed with time, dramatically so, but initially it'd be reasonable to see the north as having better economic prospects.
I don't know that it's a fairy tale. Certainly, it helps nations project more influence than they really have. But it's not nothing, commonly-shared philosophy is useful. It matters, because it differs, and that impacts things.
(as an American) America definitely does not share this philosophy. The idea that "Corruption and fraud can slow China’s progress, but they will not affect the final outcome." is not something most Americans would ever say about America as we struggle with mostly-unchecked corruption and fraud, and have zero enforcement over the consequences of such. It is absolutely effecting the final outcomes of the US, and in a massively negative way.
> Material conditions shape history
Sure, but not just material conditions. "Hope for the future" plays a bigger role than many people give it credit for.
At the risk of starting a fight... I would point at America's religious history, and the continuing threads of that today that increasingly see scientific/materialist thought as a direct threat to their ideas of how a society ought to be organized.
YC sets the prime examples. It is never product at the expense of who the team is and in what proven way they have worked together and plan to execute at scale.
Or do you yourself have a religious belief in strict human blank slate equality?
The world is shaped by psychology and the actions of a very very few individuals at the peak of their respective societies. Material conditions merely enable success brought by cultural motivation.
Your argument really only holds water if you consider all humans to be fungible worker drones and that culture doesn't exist. The human factor is the critical factor in all of history. Material wealth does not magically produce innovation. The Romans could have started the industrial revolution a thousand years earlier, they had effectively unlimited resources. They simply lacked the cultural spark to pursue that line of research and industry. They even literally invented a steam engine a thousand years before modern times.
They are made so in the Angloamerican West. The establishment wants them to focus on 'values' instead. Because if the people started thinking about material conditions, they would topple the system that concentrates 99% of the wealth in the hands of the 0.1%.
You should know that what China is doing was tried in the past. It is an old story. When the microchip was brand new (invented in the USA) the Soviets realized they needed the tech for military purposes. So they built a closed city devoted to silicon research called Zelenograd. It was staffed with very bright physicists and engineers.
But Zelenograd didn't make the Soviets a computing superpower. In fact they were always behind and fell further and further as time went on. The reason is that the Zelenograd scientists were given copies of US chips and told to clone them. By the time they finished cloning one chip the US had already invented several that were much more advanced. Unable or unwilling to forge their own path, even though they were smart enough to do so, they could not truly develop the in-house expertise needed to match the ever accelerating pace of innovation.
The Soviets never did catch up. Americans tightened security and they just fell ever further behind. By the 1980s they did not even have any attempt to develop an internal internet.
That China is running secret projects to try and clone ASML's machines isn't surprising because for all it has changed, it's still a communist state and its leaders still think in communist ways. They don't understand or appreciate distributed wisdom, so are mentally unable to truly understand how innovation works. Government projects like that are destined to fail - they will clone yesterday's machines tomorrow, and just like the Soviets, will fall further and further behind.
The thing that saves China is that its private sector actually does exist and is much more developed, so the Chinese government projects aren't the only way it can make progress.
That said, the U.S., if it wants to stay ahead, also needs to fight trends toward reducing competition via de facto monopolistic behaviors by mega corporations with co-opted governmental protections.
Modern PRC and USSR aren't exact analogues, but the approach of their governments is clearly similar in this case.
Soviet tech was sturdy and more primitive (thus more sturdy), much cheaper and they were willing to deliver it to anybody.
The other difference - which is even more significant - is that China is already far ahead in advanced manufacturing. The US was lightyears ahead of the Soviets in advanced manufacturing, which is what allowed us to win in the 70s and 80s. Now, we're so far behind it's not even funny. Sure, the West still makes some ultra-precise machines for EUV, but look where most of the components in those machines are made...
The reality is that the Soviets never really managed cutting-edge mass manufacturing. There are only a few countries that have: first Britain from the screw-cutting lathe in 1800, then the US, then later Japan, Germany, China, Taiwan and South Korea. In 225 years it's a fairly short list of countries, and most only made the list for a few decades!
The closest the Soviets ever came, of course, was aerospace, but to use that as an example of advanced manufacturing leadership would be a stretch. Sputnik was impressive, but advanced manufacturing it was certainly not; it was a simple sphere with a simple radio transmitter. Look at the tolerances, finishes, materials, manufacturing methods, etc of N1 vs Saturn V, Buran vs the Space Shuttle, TU-144 vs the Concorde.
[1] https://www.hrono.info/libris/stalin/13-18.php - fascinating speech by Stalin on industrialization in 1931
They would be less successful?
China is very good at industrialising stuff because they are very obedient and efficient on matters that are already known. Once the west has identified a worthwhile endeavor, they are quite quick at reproducing and churning out copies efficiently. Sometimes they improve on it slightly but their game is mostly about making it cheaper.
This can readily be seen in the smartphone market. They have all the industrial base, large supply of engineers and large amount of cash. Yet they are unable to make a truly defining product once you remove the price out of the equation. The first reason to buy a Chinese smartphone is lower price otherwise people still prefer to go with Apple, Google or Samsung. There are small details that make those devices generally just better; even when the Chinese manage to do better in a particular dimension, overall the western designed devices are just better. They have tried increasing price (at least MSRP, to make their devices look more expensive) but there is no way one would pay Apple/Samsung prices for their smartphone. I actually think this is why smartphone haven't trended down on price much lately, the Chinese are trying to capture the design/engineering part of the pie but with limited success. Meanwhile, since competiton has reduced, the major western player can feel content selling the same stuff without reducing price.
And yes the private sector is quite developed but to me it seems like it is largely devoted to fulfill western needs because that's were the real money is. When they manage to do something special, there is always an enormous western influence, either through education (chinese who studied abroad) or via direct involvement of western people inside their business.
For the big projects, they are relying a lot on technology transfer from the west, buying the IP with consulting from western companies and then copying what they learned at scale.
I think a lot of people still don't understand what a profond influence having a communist mindset has. It looks successfull to them because they manage to afford a good lifestyle thanks to their massive industries but that is downstream of all their copying/mimicking the western inventions.
Western societies should think about what they are doing when they transfer their knowledge to this country on the cheap, because it strenghten them and China isn't a nice player in general.
That's how everyone who industrialized/advanced approaches everything. China isn't the only country with the "can do" or "if you can do it, we can do it" attitude. The US is a prime example of the "can do" attitude. Do you think when britain industrialized, the US decided only britain is capable of industrializing and gave up? Of course not. Heck, china isn't even the first asian country with the "can do" attitude. The japanese, during the 1800s, decided that if europeans can industrialize, so can they. So on and so forth.
> Corruption and fraud can slow China’s progress, but they will not affect the final outcome. This is because it is not only a government policy, but also a Chinese way of thinking. Nothing can interrupt this process.
It isn't a "chinese way of thinking". It is assumed everywhere that some level "corruption and fraud" is baked into any large scale investment or endeavor. It's simply a matter of managing it so as not to consume the whole project.
Ignoring the practical reality that you need resources, capacity, good planning, and so on to actually do something. I understood OP as saying the mindset in China is that they want to do it all. They are willing to invest even in things that would have poor ROI, if they can come into an industry and undercut by taking a smaller margin they will.
If so, that is a difference in attitude. In the west, we are only interested in returns that beat our alternatives. Capital is divested based on maximizing return on investment. This is why we even allowed many industries in the first place to move to China and we exited those segments domestically.
That's really the crux behind the original statement, there are not many (really currently any) country in the world other than PRC who has the complete industrial chains and workforce numbers to build anything that already exist if they pour enough resources into it. They're the only country whose manufacturing sector has every industrial category classified by UN. That's the context behind the quote (directed at domestic doubters), every other country in the world has to pick and choose what to specialize in, PRC doesn't, so as long as item is not made by god, PRC can figure out how to build it.
The geopolitical reality today (i.e. the amount aggregate S&T complexity that has accumulated from past 100 years) is there may not be anything others can build that PRC eventually can't due to size of PRC talent and industrial base, the reverse is not necessarily true. There's a shit load of advanced industries that are simply out of most small/medium even large countries reach because their size precludes them from coordinating enough people or industrial resources for undertaking.
Who cares? "Can do" assumes "able to do".
> Can Palau build a commercial airliner when Boeing and Airbus workforce is 10x their population? No that's simply out of their reach.
That's why I limited it to : "That's how everyone who industrialized/advanced approaches everything.".
> That's really the crux behind the original statement, there are not many (really currently any) country in the world other than PRC who has the complete industrial chains and workforce numbers to build anything that already exist if they pour enough resources into it.
China is a subset of the american world order. The PRC's industrialization is a creation of the US/Japan/EU.
> PRC can figure out how to build it.
So can the US. Are you saying china can create something we can't figure out?
> The geopolitical reality today (i.e. the amount aggregate S&T complexity that has accumulated from past 100 years) is there may not be anything others can build that PRC eventually can't due to size of PRC talent and industrial base, the reverse is not necessarily true
I'd say there is nothing that china cannot build.
> There's a shit load of advanced industries that are simply out of most small/medium even large countries reach because their size precludes them from coordinating enough people or industrial resources for undertaking.
That just means small/medium countries will collaborate.
FYI: China is smaller than the west. China is much smaller than the west and its allies combined. There is no denying china has some advantages. But china also has disadvantages. Linguistically, politically, culturally, geographically, historically, etc. China's industrialization, just like japan's industrialization, was predicated entirely on western knowledge/tech and access to western trade routes.
> industrialized/advanced approaches everything
Can do, does not in fact translate to able to do, for advanced/industrialized economies. It takes about 150k workforce to build long body civil aviation industry. US as country can muster that critical mass. EU has to muster that as a bloc (as you recognized). Developed economy <200m pop without bloc can't. That precludes most of the world. 50 years ago, there was less complexity, and many more smaller players "can do" their way to long body civil aviation, now they can't, they are not "able to do", the scale has grown and those smaller economies don't even approach/"can do" in the first place.
>So can the US. Are you saying china can create something we can't figure out?
>small/medium countries will collaborate
US has projected technical talent shortage in semi in 100,000s. Hence US only try to reshore fabs vs PRC semi brrrting talent to execute industrial policy to indigenize entire semi supply chain i.e. it's something US maybe can figure out, but can't execute, again not able to do on it's own, so it doesn't even try. That's really the crux behind original quote, EUV is made by people... but the broader context is EUV (and supply chains) is made by consortium of countries, i.e. common rhetoric is EUV is made by the world, how can PRC replicate global effort? The answer is EUV is made by a small handful of countries with fraction of PRC population, PRC talent pool and industry large enough to single hand speed run global coordination. Hence PRC is able to do everything, even things that require others to do as bloc.
>China is a subset
>predicated entirely on western knowledge/tech >I'd say there is nothing that china cannot build.
Was a subsect. Now much of their dependencies are gone. That dependency made clear by export controls is why many PRC industry doubters existed 5-10 years ago who definitely thought there were things China could not replicate, EUV supply chain is one of these. The other is a competent national football team. But domestic industrial chain and talent generation has expanded so much so fast that much of doubt gone. The motto, was specifically made in this context. PRC techno-optimist look at all the other concurrent major indigenization projects and the underlying meaning morphed to PRC can build not just what another country can build, what another bloc can build, but everything... simultaneously, i.e. post war US hyper hegemony type of sole player. It is not your generic can do attitude, it's can do anything, and everything at the same time. Continental scale, industrial sovereignty/autarky tier of ambition.
>smaller than the west and its allies
It's roughly the same size by pop, unless you through in 3rd party India then when might as well as through in global south for PRC. But if we're talking about useful indicators, PRC produce more talent i.e. about same as OECD which is more than US+co. Industrially, PRC produce as much as core US+co block, US+co produce more by value add. Both are flow measures. But if we look in raw output / actual material production / output, PRC can be substantially larger than west combined. Many raw inputs (ree steel aluminum etc) small intermediate goods PRC make more than RoW combined. The exception is of course the pinnacle that PRC hasn't figured out, thrown industrial printing press at. But things like auto, spacelaunch, semi, civil aviation can go the way of PRC shipbuilding, one of the mature strategic industries where PRC now produces more than RoW combined.
A reminder: the difference is that Japan has already failed in areas such as mobile internet, robotics, Fifth-generation computers, and space technology....LLM and so on. Japan is still clinging to the substantial profits of its internal combustion vehicle industry, and in battery technology it has fallen far behind.
States may disappear, nations may vanish, and once-advanced countries can become backward. Most of them will never return to their former national glory. “If others can do it, we can do it” only becomes a true national characteristic if it is persistently pursued, strictly implemented, and internalized into the national mindset. Japan clearly does not fall into this category.
In fact, only China and the United States possess this mindset. Germany and Japan have small national territories, making it easy for them to fall into early industrial leadership and then rest on high-profit laurels without further ambition. Essentially, it is not a national character. Look at Japan’s reliance on fax machines and Yahoo, or the chaos in Germany’s train system—it shows that this is an advantage created by a particular population with a special disposition, useful only for a limited time. The pace of deindustrialization in these two countries is also very fast: Japan now heavily depends on tourism, and Germany has become something of a joke.
If you browse YouTube or other video platforms, you can see that the people of China and the United States have, and continue to have, the national confidence and “hands-on” culture of the world’s largest industrial powers. In the U.S., there are many farm owners and ordinary laborers who are skilled at making and producing things—they are the foundation of the country. Capitalism merely led the U.S. down a different path.
So what?
> Japan clearly does not fall into this category.
A country that rose to become a major power in the 1800s. Got destroyed during ww2. Then rose again to be a mjor power.
> In fact, only China and the United States possess this mindset.
If that was the case, post ww2 germany and japan would not exist.
> Germany and Japan have small national territories, making it easy for them to fall into early industrial leadership and then rest on high-profit laurels without further ambition.
Have you no understanding of history prior to the last 10 years?
There is a small caveat, though. China was not actually that far behind in the semiconductor field in the past. The problem was that corruption and fraudulent projects were quite serious, which undermined the Chinese government’s confidence in these efforts. A few years ago, there was even a so-called “transparent computing” scam project that was awarded a national-level prize.
Corruption and fraud can slow China’s progress, but they will not affect the final outcome. This is because it is not only a government policy, but also a Chinese way of thinking. Nothing can interrupt this process.
In fact, aside from high-end chips, China already dominates the mid- and low-end chip segments.