[Fasces]

China has overtaken the US as the world leader in both scientific research output and “high impact” studies, according to a report published by Japan’s science and technology ministry.

The report, which was published by Japan’s National Institute of Science and Technology Policy (NISTP) on Tuesday, found that China now publishes the highest number of scientific research papers yearly, followed by the US and Germany.

The figures were based on yearly averages between 2018 and 2020, and drawn from data compiled by the analytics firm Clarivate.

The Japanese NISTP report also found that Chinese research comprised 27.2% of the world’s top 1% most frequently cited papers. The number of citations a research paper receives is a commonly used metric in academia. The more times a study is cited in subsequent papers by other researchers, the greater its “citation impact”.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... rch-output

The 'innovation gap' frequently touted as the difference maker between American and Chinese economies is officially closed - China produces more studies, and more high-impact studies, than its rival. As education quality increases in China and India, it is expected that the US will eventually go back to third. It currently overperforms relative to its share of world population.

US researchers were more prolific in research into clinical medicine, China accounted for a high proportion of research into materials science and mathematics. Another paper, published by Wagner and others in 2020, concluded China’s research is slightly more innovative than the world average. That study tracked how often papers’ reference lists included atypical combinations of journals in disparate fields as a proxy for innovative ideas.

That being said: the study looks only at references from other papers; frequently used as a shorthand. Chinese papers may just be citing other Chinese papers in a bid to increase relative impact of their research. It also does not distinguish between papers led by Chinese researchers, or papers to which a Chinese research team contributed as a junior partner.

Nonetheless, the discussion of the 'innovation gap' is looking thinner as time goes on. Innovation can and does routinely happen in China.

[Unthinking Majority]

Lurkers, more anti-US pro-China propaganda. Be wary: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-58062630

[wat0n]

Is this based on the citizenship of the authors or where the institution they are affiliated with is?

[Fasces]

Lurkers, more anti-US pro-China propaganda.

A Japanese study using quantifiable figures which is then qualified in the submission statement is anti-US propaganda?

I know a common result of feelings of cognitive dissonance is avoidance and denial, but come on man.

Is this based on the citizenship of the authors or where the institution they are affiliated with is?

Institution. The metric does not distinguish between whether the research is led by the Chinese team or whether a Chinese team is one of (several, dozens, hundreds) of contributors on the final study - one major weakness of the metric.

Nonetheless, just two decades ago China ranked far below so the trend is toward a closing 'innovation gap'. The ranking by total number of studies was passed several years ago - this is the first study showing Chinese teams surpassing American teams in "high impact" research.

[Fasces]

One aspect of this may be growing anti-Chinese sentiment in Western institutions in Europe and North America that pushes graduates back to China. A similar thing happened with Qian Xuesen, founder of JPL, and who left the USA after being accused of Chinese sympathies during the Red Scare despite protests by himself and his colleagues. He ended up leading the Chinese nuclear and space programs.

Another aspect may be changing innovation cultures within China.

But can China innovate? Can it compete at a global level with developed nations that have built their economies on innovation for decades? Many observers are doubtful. In recent years, they note, the West has steadily produced an abundance of innovations and innovators, while China has produced relatively few. In March 2014 this magazine published “Why China Can’t Innovate,” by Regina M. Abrami, William C. Kirby, and F. Warren McFarlan, an article that captured the conventional wisdom. The authors’ arguments were sound and well supported at the time. But just two years later eight of the 10 companies that had reached a $1 billion valuation in the shortest time ever were Chinese—and six of those eight were founded the year that article was published.

Those are startling numbers for a country that in 2020 ranked only 14th on the Global Innovation Index. Something clearly propelled those Chinese companies to the top, but the metrics we use to evaluate innovation have missed it. We tend to focus on people and companies that generate big new ideas—charismatic heroes with dash, daring, and dynamic thinking. By that measure the U.S. innovation ecosystem stands apart. But in the past five years, as an “innovation cold war” has taken shape between world powers, China has achieved a kind of parity with the United States—and the driving force behind its success may not be its innovators at all.

https://hbr.org/2021/05/chinas-new-innovation-advantage

It wasn’t long ago that many U.S. government officials and China experts still clung to the idea that Chinese innovation was mostly based on copying U.S. methods and technology. To some extent, they weren’t entirely wrong.

[...]

However, the legal, illegal, and extralegal appropriation of foreign technologies and products is only one part of the story. In fact, the Chinese government has been pushing its tech industry to move beyond copycat methods. Beijing has also leveraged overseas technology and knowledge—in conjunction with supporting reforms—to bolster its own innovation capabilities and adapt them to fit within the Chinese model. In essence, Chinese technological innovation is a system of “re-innovation”, or zaichuangxin; it does not mirror other global paradigms.

[...]

Since his early days as leader, Xi Jinping has emphasized the need to “unswervingly follow the path of independent innovation with Chinese characteristics.” This push is beginning to deliver results. According to the 2020 Global Innovation Index, China is now the 14th most innovative country in the world, a major improvement on its 43rd ranking just 10 years ago. Even before Xi, the Medium- to Long-Term Plan for Science and Technology Development (MLP), released in 2006, states that building an innovation-oriented country is a “major strategic choice” for China’s future development. Other planning documents of the Xi-era, such as the 2015 Innovation-Driven Development Strategy (IDDS), describe the capability to innovate technologically as a source of national strength and links this concept to the dream of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.

https://www.brookings.edu/techstream/be ... mpetition/

Does the innovation gap still meaningfully exist?

[Unthinking Majority]

A Japanese study using quantifiable figures which is then qualified in the submission statement is anti-US propaganda?

I know a common result of feelings of cognitive dissonance is avoidance and denial, but come on man.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

Propaganda is communication that is primarily used to influence or persuade an audience to further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception

I'm more than willing to discuss topics around China or China-US relations if they're offered up in good faith. It's not going to happen here.

This thread is going to go like this: some people (like @wat0n are going to poke holes in the OP argument, and you're going to defend the conclusion of the article while pretending to be objective and throwing up occasional mild concessions/caveats to feign objectivity/good faith. This is the pattern and it's boring.

[Fasces]

I'm more than willing to discuss topics around China or China-US relations if they're offered up in good faith.

Your definition of good faith probably varies from mine.

I see China as a partner we, as Westerners, need to learn to live alongside, not combat. I see avoiding a Cold War as the number one strategic objective of the world. I see coordinated Chinese-Western action on climate change as a existential necessity, which a Cold War will prevent. I see continued US hegemony, and their resulting dismissive attitude toward the rest of the world, including Europe but especially the Global South, as contrary to the global need to avoid a Cold War between China and the West.

You will view this as not being offered in good faith, because it runs so fundamentally contrary to your own beliefs and priorities that I must be some sort of paid propogandist. Nonetheless, these are my genuine beliefs. I really am not pro-China so much as you have swallowed the chauvinist party line on the inherent 'correctness' of Western hegemony hook line and sinker to the point that any statement to the contrary must be the work of enemy propogandists.

like @wat0n are going to poke holes in the OP argument

What argument? It is a quantifiable fact, as much as the color of the sky, that Chinese teams have published more high-impact papers than any other nationality, as of 2022 - for the first time.

[wat0n]

Institution. The metric does not distinguish between whether the research is led by the Chinese team or whether a Chinese team is one of (several, dozens, hundreds) of contributors on the final study - one major weakness of the metric.

Nonetheless, just two decades ago China ranked far below so the trend is toward a closing 'innovation gap'. The ranking by total number of studies was passed several years ago - this is the first study showing Chinese teams surpassing American teams in "high impact" research.

Very interesting development, then.

Of course, as you mentioned, one would need to tell if this is due to citations by researchers affiliated to institutions located in the same country or not. Actually, that could be a fairly interesting alternative metric of impact, at least for the natural sciences (social sciences are different since much of social science research is inherently country-specific). In principle, impactful natural science research should be cited across the globe and not in a single country. You could argue much of it could be written in languages other than English, but nowadays writing in English is essential to have any global impact, and much of PhD level training requires knowing English to stay up-to-date with the global literature and even reading many textbooks.

PS: And yes, due to population size alone one would expect institutions in China and India to eventually surpass their counterparts in the US in absolute number of citations.

[Unthinking Majority]

Your definition of good faith probably varies from mine.

I see China as a partner we, as Westerners, need to learn to live alongside, not combat.

This is nonsense. If this was your position you wouldn't constantly be posting threads & posts that pushes pro-China positions while demonizing the US. This is combat via information. You are again feigning objectivity. You say one thing and then do another. This is two-faced. Do you fancy me an idiot?

I see avoiding a Cold War as the number one strategic objective of the world. I see coordinated Chinese-Western action on climate change as a existential necessity, which a Cold War will prevent. I see continued US hegemony, and their resulting dismissive attitude toward the rest of the world, including Europe but especially the Global South, as contrary to the global need to avoid a Cold War between China and the West.

Yes I think any reasonable person would like to see a Cold War avoided. Posting like a paid Chinese agent on an anglo political forum is probably not going to further that goal.

You will view this as not being offered in good faith, because it runs so fundamentally contrary to your own beliefs and priorities that I must be some sort of paid propogandist. Nonetheless, these are my genuine beliefs. I really am not pro-China so much as you have swallowed the chauvinist party line on the inherent 'correctness' of Western hegemony hook line and sinker to the point that any statement to the contrary must be the work of enemy propogandists.

This is an odd stereotyping and simplification of my positions and not accurate at all. I used to be a Marxist-sympathizing leftist, so I'm aware of the faults of the US and western hegemony. But unlike most leftists, I also am aware of the its merits. The US is far from perfect, but compared to any other hegemon or great power in human history it's far and away behaved the best towards the world and its own people. It's not the British Empire, Nazi Germany, Napoleonic France, the USSR, or any of the European colonial empires. It had a monopoly on nuclear weapons at the end of WWII and instead of going on a conquering global rampage it spearheaded the creation of the UN and turned Japan into a thriving capitalist democracy. To assume a totalitarian fascist-leaning regime like the CCP would be more benevolent in international relations as a hegemon would be foolish. The US government is at least accountable to someone (its own people).

What argument? It is a quantifiable fact, as much as the color of the sky, that Chinese teams have published more high-impact papers than any other nationality, as of 2022 - for the first time.

Ok sure. The devil is in the details. @wat0n is good investigating.

[Fasces]

This is nonsense. If this was your position you wouldn't constantly be posting threads & posts that pushes pro-China positions while demonizing the US. This is combat via information. You are again feigning objectivity. You say one thing and then do another. This is two-faced. Do you fancy me an idiot?

There are not a lot of Americans on here that live and work in China, with a Chinese partner, and a Chinese extended family, and have direct knowledge of the Chinese way of life, and which use Chinese social media and interact regularly with Chinese individuals. So yes, I post more about China. My daily life is China. I wake up in China, and go to sleep in China. I also don't have as much to say about the US that isn't already covered by other posters on here, so there's less need for me to post topics about it vs just give my two cents where I can.

I haven't lived in the US since the Obama administration, and the USA has declined considerably since then, domestically - crime is up, political polarization is up, democracy is under attack, the Supreme Court is attacking women, etc. My sister, brother, and father still live in the USA - so I do talk with them, and have some experience of what is going on in the USA. I don't like what's happening domestically in the USA since I left there and I never liked what it was up to internationally: you can dig through my posts back to 2006 when I first joined PoFo if you like.

Posting like a paid Chinese agent on an anglo political forum is probably not going to further that goal.

I'm not a paid Chinese agent.

We're even leaving China at the end of the year due to what me and my partner view as a general growth of xenophobic and patriarchal attitudes, the inability of foreigners to own property and a general uncertainty on our future here, China's own domestic war on women as its birth rate decline, poor economic outlook in the next half-decade/decade, and a general deteriorating human rights situation under Xi (minor day-to-day things that nonetheless add up to a fair bit).

I also am aware of the its merits. The US is far from perfect, but compared to any other hegemon or great power in human history it's far and away behaved the best towards the world and its own people.

Even if this was once true, which is beyond the scope of this topic, it won't be in the near future. I'll agree with you on the matter that the US and other Western states generally regard their "own people", by a very narrow definition of "own", better than many past imperial powers. Western hegemony is Western-focused. The oligarchs that govern the West are perfectly willing to use their wealth to insulate themselves and a core group of their people from the effects of a Western-led and instigated Industrial Revolution and leave billions in the Global South to bear the brunt of the costs associated with climate change, while using violence to ensure the effects remain concentrated in the Global South.

An equitable world order does not and cannot promote the interests of 1 billion over the other 7 billion.

The US government is at least accountable to someone (its own people).

I genuinely hate this fucking mindset that Americans have - that for some reason, Ahmed cares whether or not the country that bombs his village voted on whether or not to do it. I don't think the fact that the US is accountable to its people, when the victims of its global hegemony are foreigners who don't have a voice in US policy, means anything. To the victims of US hegemonic policies, whether the US is democratic or not is so completely and utterly irrelevant that bringing it up seems to me almost like rubbing salt in the wound.

Like what - would the Chinese activities in Xinjiang be more justifiable to you in some way if Shanghai got to vote on it first?

To assume a totalitarian fascist-leaning regime like the CCP would be more benevolent in international relations as a hegemon would be foolish.

My experience with the CPC is that it has zero interest in telling other countries how to live or what to do (on topics unrelated to the internal workings of China) - it is the modern US absent the ideological crusading zeal. It wants to do business and promote its own regional security.

This isn't kindness on their part. They simply do not care what non-Chinese think or want. This includes ideas of "conquering Japan" or "invading Hawaii". They have no desire to expand beyond what they view as China, circa 1895 (pre Treaty of Shimonosheki). This is at least the case in 2022. I cannot tell you what 2062 China wants, but then, neither can you.

And the Chinese may, in fact, become a bad force for the world at some point in the future (it may also develop further and become better than it is today!) - but climate change and its problems are now and I have zero confidence in the ability of the Western system to surmount these challenges for a host of reasons.

To bring this back to the topic - the innovation gap is routinely touted as a reason on here (PoFo) for why China cannot be a global leader in climate change. It is assumed as a fact that "China is less innovative than the West" or that "they can copy well, but they can't create."

This study seems to indicate that, if this is not untrue, it is at least changing. That China has recognized a problem within itself and taken steps to fix it.

[MadMonk]

This is nonsense. If this was your position you wouldn't constantly be posting threads & posts that pushes pro-China positions while demonizing the US. This is combat via information. You are again feigning objectivity. You say one thing and then do another. This is two-faced. Do you fancy me an idiot?

So, let him be subjective. Take what he says with your perception of his bias. There is an anti-China trend with a cultural misconception element across the world, in many cases deliberately inflamed for a political agenda. Unlike purely biased posters like BlutoSays, I find much of what he writes worth reading.

[Unthinking Majority]

There are not a lot of Americans on here that live and work in China, with a Chinese partner, and a Chinese extended family, and have direct knowledge of the Chinese way of life, and which use Chinese social media and interact regularly with Chinese individuals. So yes, I post more about China. My daily life is China. I wake up in China, and go to sleep in China. I also don't have as much to say about the US that isn't already covered by other posters on here, so there's less need for me to post topics about it vs just give my two cents where I can.

I haven't lived in the US since the Obama administration, and the USA has declined considerably since then, domestically - crime is up, political polarization is up, democracy is under attack, the Supreme Court is attacking women, etc. My sister, brother, and father still live in the USA - so I do talk with them, and have some experience of what is going on in the USA. I don't like what's happening domestically in the USA since I left there and I never liked what it was up to internationally: you can dig through my posts back to 2006 when I first joined PoFo if you like.

I have no issues with someone posting re: issues about China. The issue is posting almost exclusive pro-China threads/posts defending them while also posting threads/posts that are anti-American/anti-Western.

According to what you've said you seem to share the thoughts of most people of leftwing ideological persuasion who study any kind of international relations: the US and the West have abused their power as global hegemons throughout the centuries and have caused great suffering in the global south through imperialism/colonialism, war, political manipulation (supporting western-friendly dictators etc), economic exploitation etc.

Apparently you also think China rising to equal power or surpassing the US will somehow be good for the Global South. Be careful what you wish for. I doubt China aligns itself with members of the Global South in order to help them, they align with them in order to increase their power vis-a-vis the West. They align themselves with Russia, North Korea, and Iran for instance.

I'm not a paid Chinese agent.

I didn't say you were (i have no evidence either way), I said you often post like one.

Even if this was once true, which is beyond the scope of this topic, it won't be in the near future. I'll agree with you on the matter that the US and other Western states generally regard their "own people", by a very narrow definition of "own", better than many past imperial powers. Western hegemony is Western-focused. The oligarchs that govern the West are perfectly willing to use their wealth to insulate themselves and a core group of their people from the effects of a Western-led and instigated Industrial Revolution and leave billions in the Global South to bear the brunt of the costs associated with climate change, while using violence to ensure the effects remain concentrated in the Global South.

An equitable world order does not and cannot promote the interests of 1 billion over the other 7 billion.

Rich selfish people are rich selfish people. Whether they come from the US or China, I suspect they value money a lot more than how poor people deal with climate change. Would make more sense to root for poor people over rich people than China vs US/West.

I genuinely hate this fucking mindset that Americans have - that for some reason, Ahmed cares whether or not the country that bombs his village voted on whether or not to do it. I don't think the fact that the US is accountable to its people, when the victims of its global hegemony are foreigners who don't have a voice in US policy, means anything. To the victims of US hegemonic policies, whether the US is democratic or not is so completely and utterly irrelevant that bringing it up seems to me almost like rubbing salt in the wound.

I'm not American. Also, that's not what I meant. The US government will do bad things sometimes, so will China or Russia and every other government. But if you're going to have a hegemon, it's better for it to be run by a democracy because the government in a democracy is at least accountable to someone (its own people) who will put some limits on its government behaving badly, like protests around the Vietnam and Iraq War etc instead of the government being accountable to nobody and being able to do anything it wants without being fired (voted out).

My experience with the CPC is that it has zero interest in telling other countries how to live or what to do (on topics unrelated to the internal workings of China) - it is the modern US absent the ideological crusading zeal. It wants to do business and promote its own regional security.

This isn't kindness on their part. They simply do not care what non-Chinese think or want. This includes ideas of "conquering Japan" or "invading Hawaii". They have no desire to expand beyond what they view as China, circa 1895 (pre Treaty of Shimonosheki). This is at least the case in 2022. I cannot tell you what 2062 China wants, but then, neither can you.

The CCP has infiltrated foreign governments, civilian organizations, and businesses in order to persuade to further its own interests or to steal info/goods. The CCP would be very happy to control the entire IT infrastructure of the world if it could (for example), and would use it to further its own interests. It doesn't typically invade other countries because it isn't geopolitically stupid militarily, unlike the US and Russian governments. China's most effective foreign policy tool so far as been clandestine operations, political/cultural/economic/technological. As for the future, I have "low trust" towards totalitarian dictatorships based on virtually every other one ever. Even if Xi were as nice as the Dalai Lama, all it would take is Xi to pass away and a cruel bastard to take his place and keep everyone around him well-paid.

And the Chinese may, in fact, become a bad force for the world at some point in the future (it may also develop further and become better than it is today!) - but climate change and its problems are now and I have zero confidence in the ability of the Western system to surmount these challenges for a host of reasons.

I can't think of many if any governments in the Global South that aren't run by sociopathic shitbags. Imagine if they had the technology/power that European countries had in 1492. I suspect things would have gone somewhere from similar to far worse. And my confidence in the ability of any group of governments solving the climate issue is low.

You seem to also have the common leftist assumption that weak = more virtuous and powerful = less virtuous. This is IMO misguided. People are people. Give weak people lots of power and many will become cruel and selfish. Especially if they are from countries with poor respect for human rights (human rights = a western invention). Even Japan, who seem pretty non-violent now, once had a brutally violent empire pre-1946. They were simply demilitarized.

[Fasces]

At the risk of having throwaway comments be read as validating your idea that I'm blindly anti-American...

I have no issues with someone posting re: issues about China. The issue is posting almost exclusive pro-China threads/posts defending them while also posting threads/posts that are anti-American/anti-Western.

I don't see why this is an issue, except that you, on some level, expect a certain amount of blind patriotic fervor from all PoFo posters. There's plenty of pro-American rah rah rah on this forum, without me adding to it.

Apparently you also think China rising to equal power or surpassing the US will somehow be good for the Global South. Be careful what you wish for. I doubt China aligns itself with members of the Global South in order to help them, they align with them in order to increase their power vis-a-vis the West. They align themselves with Russia, North Korea, and Iran for instance.

Between the options of "status quo" and "maybe change", I'll go with "maybe change."

The hatred toward China by the West is not based on genuine concern for Chinese political systems or aspirations and would be shown to any other hegemon challenging for their rule, no matter how benevolent. It doesn't matter which country - India, Nigeria, Brazil, or the Heavenly Kingdom of Jesus Christ Himself Reborn. Any country that deigns to challenge the Western-led world order would be demonized for that reason alone.

The absolute best thing the US and EU could do is take steps to create a more equitable world order itself. Offer India permanent veto power on the Security Council. Subsidize economies of the Global South to respond to climate change and be open to economic and political refugees. Disavow regime change or ideological interference in sovereign states.

Barring that, I'll back countries of the Global South building their own parallel political and economic system - India, China, Nigeria, Egypt, Iran... the "rogue states" of the world who are rogue because they oppose a Western-led world order.

I didn't say you were (i have no evidence either way).

You posted a link to a news report about paid Chinese shills talking on Western social media. I'm not stupid and the insinuation was clear.

Rich selfish people are rich selfish people. Whether they come from the US or China, I suspect they value money a lot more than how poor people deal with climate change. Would make more sense to root for poor people over rich people than China vs US/West.

For better or worse, the Chinese state has the power and will to corral the rich oligarchs and kleptocrats and force change. I am more confident in the ability of the Chinese state to tell companies to shove it and adopt green initiatives - they just spent two years demonstrating their ability and will to tell companies to shove it for the greater good even if their zero covid policy is dumb in 2022.

But if you're going to have a hegemon, it's better for it to be run by a democracy

I do not believe that the United States is an effective democracy at this point. It is barely distinguishable from China, in that regard. A lot of my posts do relate to this point.

You may disagree. You're wrong, but it is your right to be wrong.

at least accountable

The Chinese government is not unaccountable to its own people, even if the balance of power is highly in favor of the CPC.

he CCP has infiltrated foreign governments, civilian organizations, and businesses in order to persuade to further its own interests or to steal info/goods.

Every single thing you said also applies to the United States, and they invade countries to boot. If I have to choose between a country trying to control all IT infrastructure that bombs other countries every other week, and a country that controls all IT infrastructure and doesn't bomb other countries every other week, the choice seems easy to me.

I can't think of many if any governments in the Global South that aren't run by sociopathic shitbags.

Anyone half decent gets assassinated or couped by Western oligarchic interests motivated to keep the Global South dysfunctional and peripheral.

weak = more virtuous and powerful = less virtuous

Not in the least.

human rights = a western invention

Not in the least.

[Unthinking Majority]

Between the options of "status quo" and "maybe change", I'll go with "maybe change."

Have you considered that "maybe change" could very easily turn into something less desirable than the status quo? Why would you assume that tin-pot dictators who would do almost anything to secure their own wealth and power and who have little respect for human rights for their own people would somehow respect human rights more for people in foreign countries and stop caring about wealth and power?

The hatred toward China by the West is not based on genuine concern for Chinese political systems or aspirations and would be shown to any other hegemon challenging for their rule, no matter how benevolent. It doesn't matter which country - India, Nigeria, Brazil, or the Heavenly Kingdom of Jesus Christ Himself Reborn. Any country that deigns to challenge the Western-led world order would be demonized for that reason alone.

Nobody bothered about China until they started messing with western interests inside western countries by doing all sorts of illegal things or bullying activities. Hey congrats they're the United States now.

I do not believe that the United States is an effective democracy at this point. It is barely distinguishable from China, in that regard. A lot of my posts do relate to this point.

No political scientist who is not crazy would agree with this.

The Chinese government is not unaccountable to its own people, even if the balance of power is highly in favor of the CPC.

It's a 1-party state. They can make up whatever rules they want. Xi just removed term limits for himself.

Every single thing you said also applies to the United States, and they invade countries to boot. If I have to choose between a country trying to control all IT infrastructure that bombs other countries every other week, and a country that controls all IT infrastructure and doesn't bomb other countries every other week, the choice seems easy to me.

Let China become a hegemon and be able to get away with it then get back to me on that.

Anyone half decent gets assassinated or couped by Western oligarchic interests motivated to keep the Global South dysfunctional and peripheral.

Oligarchs don't have such motivations. they just care about getting richer.

[late]

There is no innovation gap.

China has thrown a lot of money at a few disciplines, and they are making progress. Good for them.

But... they have a number of gaps of their own. Their ability to make chips is mostly low end, and even there they are mostly dependent on machines that are made outside the country.

Most manufacturers are small, and a foreigner needs an expert to negotiate the treacherous waters of Chinese manufacturing. It's a weird system, from our perspective.

Chinese manufacturing is being hit on all sides... Covid lockdowns, rising capital costs, an economy in turmoil, foreign businesses reshoring due to the problems in China and the growing tensions between China and the rest of the world.

It also doesn't help that China is micromanaging the economy, which is interfering with an overdue transition to being a mature economy.

[Fasces]

Have you considered that "maybe change" could very easily turn into something less desirable than the status quo? Why would you assume that tin-pot dictators who would do almost anything to secure their own wealth and power and who have little respect for human rights for their own people would somehow respect human rights more for people in foreign countries and stop caring about wealth and power?

It's amazing how you can hold the thought "China's military is overestimated and a joke because they haven't fought a war in 40 years" in the same head as "China will, at the first oppurtunity, wage continous aggressive war against every culture on the planet" without experiencing any cognitive dissonance.

Fundamentally, this crusading colonizing sickness is a Western innovation, or at least, is not Chinese. They have no history of it, and I see no desire for it among the contemporary CPC. I can't speak to a hypoethical China in half a century, but I can speak to now.

Nobody bothered about China until they started messing with western interests inside western countries

It would be more accurate to say that nobody bothered about China until they started messing with western interests outside of western countries. I have no earthly idea what justifiable reason the US has to have a permanent military presence outside its borders, much less in 85 different countries. A successful third world nation will, by definition, be challenging western hegemony at least within its region and thus will never be tolerated by people in power that fundamentally do not believe in equitable power structures and demand the continuation of American hegemony as a moral imperative - such as you.

At least honest and recognizing the entire argument is simply a dressed up version "I trust my tribe and don't trust other tribes." You'd rather live in a world dominated by Westerners because you are a Westerner and a beneficiary of that injustice.

No political scientist who is not crazy would agree with this

Read more, then. The US, is at best, a flawed democracy by the most generous definition.

They can make up whatever rules they want. Xi just removed term limits for himself.

No, the CPC removed term limits for Xi. The CPC is an organization of tens of millions of people.

Oligarchs don't have such motivations. they just care about getting richer.

Which is precisely why they're motivated to keep economic power concentrated in regions where they have captured regulatory institutions and politicians, rather than outside of their sphere of control. If they control the Prime Minister of London, it is in their interest that global financial power remain concentrated in London.

They won't even give back a few old bronzes or tribal headdresses, and you expect me to believe they'd stand by and let the Global South create independent economic structures not under Western control? That if Botswana started buying petrol with yuan instead of dollars, their democracy wouldn't be ended in an instant? Grow up.

[late]

10 or 15 years ago, China invaded Vietnam.

I think they just wanted to teach Vietnam a lesson, but the Vietnamese were ready and waiting. They got nowhere and lost a lot of men doing it.

You can't make a blanket statement in either direction. They have a huge army, but it's mostly defensive, and these days the discussion is mostly about projecting force.

Their navy is kinda sad.

Their air force is decades behind ours, but they have a lot of planes, and that helps. Our newest fighter carries only a small amount of bullets. Not designed to take down a lot of planes... But if we knew it was coming and could pre-position our forces... but that is unlikely.

[Fasces]

10 or 15 years ago, China invaded Vietnam.

Putting aside whether China met its goals in its invasion of Vietnam aside:

2023-1979 = 44

[Fasces]

China on track to dominate development of critical future technologies, ASPI report says

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) "critical tech tracker" found China is beating the United States in 37 of 44 technologies which are likely to propel innovation, growth and military power in coming decades, including artificial intelligence, robotics, biotechnology, advanced manufacturing, and quantum technology.

The report says the US is the leading innovator in only seven technologies — including quantum computing and vaccines — and ranks second to China in most other categories.

While a "second tier" of countries — including India, the United Kingdom, South Korea, Germany and Australia — have also developed advanced research capabilities, they still lag far behind the two great powers.

ASPI's Jamie Gaida, who co-authored the report, said while China's research edge did not translate into technological superiority right now, Beijing had built the foundations to position itself as the world's leading science and technology power.

"In some of these technologies we are seeing China is publishing approximately 65 per cent of the world's top research within that technology area.

"It's striking. It's really profound.

"Current research doesn't directly translate to current defence capability or manufacturing capability, but surely if you want to be in the best position to be in the lead in say five years' time — well, of course you want to be in the forefront of innovation and breakthrough research."

https://web.archive.org/web/20230302110 ... /102041318

[late]

Putting aside whether China met its goals in its invasion of Vietnam aside:

2023-1979 = 44

Zeihan makes a good point. Tech is a pyramid. If you are missing layers, it's a serious problem. For example, China produces a lot of low end chips. They don't produce any high end chips commercially. The midrange chips, the sort that goes in phones and cars is mostly done outside China. China assembles Apple phones, they don't make the chips.

China has made bold claims about AI research. But the chips they say they have are decades more advanced than what China does commercially. It's possible they do make them, but have to make a thousand wafers to get one good one. Hard to say, since China is so secretive. TSMC and Intel have both struggled with producing 5nm chips. I am intensely curious how thick Chinese research chips are, but I'd bet good money they are 7nm or more.

This is not to say they aren't progressing. Their EV vehicles are coming along nicely. But you know vast sums of money is being thrown at it.

Which means innovation will be limited by the levels of debt the country has.

Lastly, the way China does most of it's innovation is theft. This works, Russia did it to us long before China did. But Russia works just fine at demonstrating the limits of doing that.

Intel agencies typically pad their estimates. The CIA adds at least 10%. There was a time during the Nixon years, hacks Nixon installed bumped the inflation to a min of 30%. Every Russian was 10 feet tall, ate steel and shat bullets.

They would freak out over the latest Russian super plane, then a pilot would defect in one, and we would get a close look. They were crap. Spend much time over 60% throttle and you didn't need an enemy to die. They were still using tubes. We switched to transistors years earlier.

If you want to see an innovation gap, buy a Lexus.