[foodislove]

People see a cold war as a rivalry between equals. That's not the case. The Chinese are more adept at adopting existing tech and adding scale than creating it. This cold war is mostly one way. Their tech champions' strengths come from a potent mix of state-funded and support with local business acumen.

The attempts by the government to shift growth away from low-level manufacturing towards tech requires tech and innovation. Things that require the sort of the people the rigid propoganda infused education system is ill-equipped to produce.

The shortcut is to simply to let others develop tech, then copy. That's the essence of the forced technology transfers.

20 years ago, companies and governments believed them that the forced transfers is purely for the Chinese market and a fair deal. After that turned not to be true (read: forced tech transfers for the bullet train that China now uses to undercut the original in foreign markets), but that's not the case today.

If Trump, who I detest, can get the key European tech countries + Japan on board, they can dramatically increase the time and cost for the Chinese to pivot their economy. Delay enough and China's demographic time bomb of rapidly ageing people plus Xi Jinping's Maoist madness could well result in the Chinese economy stalling similar to the Japanese circa 1980s or worse. We'll have to wait and see it all turns out

[nopinsight]

I believe you underestimate the Chinese. The biggest advantage the US, Europe, and Japan have is the long lead time to develop and refine existing technologies. However, the landscape of advanced technologies is changing more rapidly than ever.

For example, the Chinese lags in traditional car manufacturing techniques because they only have a few decades to accumulate experience on that front, but they are spearheading mass manufacturing electric vehicles at scale with efficiency rivalling anyone in the world.

DJI is the leading drone company globally. Chinese carmakers manufactured 47% of all plug-in EVs sold worldwide in 2017. [1] (Yes, with solid government support, but they are part of the system we're considering.)

They developed the first (and only, so far) AI to pass a medical licensing exam human doctors need to take. (If you thought it's just rote learning, it's not. Analysis is required.) [2]

Regarding creativity, please see the replies to this comment by people with first-hand experience in China. [3]

Blocking tech transfer will prompt China to intensify their efforts to develop their own technologies. With their scale, ambition, and work culture, it's not clear at all that technologies they develop in new fields, where no one has a head start, will be inferior to those created elsewhere in the world. The evidence so far largely refutes this hypothesis.

[1] https://cleantechnica.com/2018/01/29/2017-china-electric-car...

[2] http://sites.ieee.org/futuredirections/2017/12/02/congrats-x...

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16612175

[foodislove]

Your last paragraph "blocking tech will prompt China to intensify their efforts to develop their own technologies" is exactly my point. It's much easier and less time consuming to have someone give it to you than to develop it from scratch :)

I can tell you are Chinese and extremely proud of her achievements. Saying as a whole, the education system in China produces less on creativity should not be viewed as an insult to national honor. There's nothing wrong with admitting that things are not the best. Otherwise, how can you improve?

[nopinsight]

I have never lived nor been educated in China. :) I do take interest in global affairs and enjoy developing big picture analysis esp about the future.

I feel like I can agree that the education system, based on observation from afar, could possibly be weak on "creativity" as traditionally defined.

However, if you look at their Gaokao math questions, it requires much more creativity to solve than SAT Quantitative. For example, https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-examples-of-hard-Chinese...

Creativity has broad meanings, and each culture may value and support its expression in different terms.

[foodislove]

Agreed

The Gaokao reference you make is interesting. One of the biggest complains about standardized testing in the States is that it pushes teachers to "teach to the test". The Gaokao takes that to the extreme. It's much harder than the SAT quant, but the way my cousin and her class prepped for years is literally prepping for the test.

Imagine the SAT quant prep book with its "These are they types of questions you will encounter in the test" and take that a few steps further. Wayy higher level maths and more, but not infinite, models of questions on which they prep for every day and night for years.

[nopinsight]

By extension of your statement, would solving International Math Olympiad questions only require intensive preparation and not creativity as well? (IMO topics are limited by design.)

How about writing programs to solve problems someone else has solved elsewhere (and you are not privy to the solution)?

[foodislove]

Exactly. That's how we prepped for Putnam

That writing programs to solve problems that someone else has solved elsewhere? That's called IBM Watson and Jeopardy.

[ageofwant]

I see this 'Chinese people are to indoctrinated to be innovate' nonsense bandied on quite often. Huawei's technology is simply superior to American or any else's, and they developed that themselves. Yes of course they have no regard for imaginary property, the resolution to that is trivial: have no regard for theirs. This way humanity is propelled forward as the species benefits from all innovation.

"The move is fuelling claims that consumers will pay a higher cost for the 5G services if Australian companies are forced to turn away Chinese equipment suppliers such as Huawei, given estimates the company is a step ahead of its US and European rivals on price and performance.

Fairfax Media can reveal that US President Donald Trump raised the US concerns about Huawei directly with Mr Turnbull and other officials, but those aware of the talks said this did not mean Australia had decided to ban the company.

The Turnbull government’s message to the US was that the Trump administration must do more to prevent Chinese companies leapfrogging their American competitors and offering cheaper and better technology."

http://www.watoday.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/ph...

[vamur]

China is already the world's largest economy by PPP. It is also #1 trade partner for many nations. On top of that it has its own processors, and is building fabs as well to compete with Taiwan and SK. It is also leading in solar panels, electric cars, trains etc. At this stage, there is little it needs from the rest of the world in terms of tech that it can't acquire.

So thinking that Chinese economy will stall similar to Japan is wishfull thinking and denial at this stage. And China's large population and huge effective territory allows it to handle both low-value and high value manufacturing. Which means that there is no pivot that someone can stop.

[kore]

If we're talking about 1980s Japan, all of the talk about trade war could be a greater risk to Chinese stability. As with Japan back then, China's growth has been breathtaking, but it's also awash with bad debt from a banking environment where social relationships are more important than economic discipline. The weak links in their economy just haven't been culled.

If growth slows, reduced cash flow could put some immense pressure on their banking system as loans fail. Their bad debt rate was already thought to exceed Japan's at its worst years ago.

Then again, people have been predicting Chinese growth can't continue for years.

[madez]

Why is the economic and technological rise of China a problem?

[foodislove]

It's not.

It's the zero-sum thinking of a totalitarian dictatorship that's a problem. For example, simply letting the Taiwanese live their own free and happy lives is too much of "a problem" to let go without threatening invasion on a weekly basis :)

Also, there is geopolitics at play. The Thucydides Trap is real.

[wyattpeak]

While I agree that their attitudes towards Taiwan are inappropriate, it's a stretch to suggest that this is an issue of totalitarian government. There's not a major government on earth (and probably not a minor one), of any political persuasion, which hasn't faced and rejected an attempt at secession.

[factsaresacred]

> an attempt at secession.

Please. Taiwan is not a part of the PRC. What would they be seceding from? They're a sovereign State founded by the losers of China's civil war. (That the Nationalists lost is one of China's great tragedies given the horrors that Mao and the ruling party inflicted on the Chinese people and their traditions).

Anyway, take Japan and the Senkaku islands as another example of Chinese bellicose jingoism fueled by a policy of nationalism designed to detract from threats to its legitimacy.

[wyattpeak]

> Taiwan is not a part of the PRC

According to Taiwan. How does this theory play with the American civil war? The confederate states didn't consider themselves part of the union. Was the North therefore imposing sovereignty on a foreign nation?

They were both fighting for sovereignty of all of China. After the war they both continued to consider themselves to be sovereign to all China. Indeed, to this day they both make that claim.

For what it's worth, I agree that to all practical intents they are separate nations and should be such. I think both nations should drop their claims on each other. But only due to the fact that it's been the de facto situation for seventy years. I see no reason why the losing side of a civil war is instantly granted nationhood on cessation of fighting.

[mafribe]

The ROC is doing itself no favours by sticking to its interpretation of the One China Policy which entails that the ROC leadership is the solve legitimate ruler of the mainland, too! When the PRC was weak, there was probably an opening where the ROC could have dropped its pretensions towards ruling the mainland, in exchange for PRC acceptance of ROC nationhood. But I suspect its too late now, since the PRC is so powerful now.

I also think the real reason why the PRC leadership is bullying the ROC is that the ROC is a clear example that democracy, wealth and Chinese culture are perfectly compatible -- thus falsifying the communist's party's justification of its claim to power.

[mafribe]

Taiwan did not seceed (or has been trying to seceed) from the mainland in any meaningful sense. It is questionable if Taiwan was ever legitimately governed by the mainland.

Moreover, there are plenty of examples of a peaceful handling of secession, the most famous recent example being Page move-protected the Scottish independence referendum of 2014 [1]. Here are some other examples:

- Saar Statute referendum 1955 [2]

- Gibraltar sovereignty referenda in 1967 [3] and 2002 [4]

- Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum 2013 [5]

- Velvet Divorce of Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia [6]

- Brexit vote [7]

- The Catalan independence referendum of 2017 [8] is an interesting edge case: it was conducted peacefully, albeit without active support from the Spanish government.

In the 21 century, China should be leading by example, and demonstrate the ability for peaceful conflict resolution, rather than fall back into 19th century power politics.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence_referend...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saar_Statute_referendum,_1955

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltar_sovereignty_referend...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltar_sovereignty_referend...

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_r...

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_Czechoslovakia

[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit

[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_independence_referendu...

[coupdetaco]

Do you think there is reason to believe that the thucydides trap would be either mitigated or amplified by global connectivity.

[foodislove]

Historically speaking, the only significant peaceful comparison would be the British -> US circa 1950s.

To be fair, people asked the same question in the 1900s. With the world getting so interconnected thanks to steamships and telegraphs, perhaps the age of major conflict had passed (this was right before ww1).

Also, global connectivity doesn't mean much when the great firewall creates 2 distinctly different internets. If you take Chinese state media as a barometer of public opinion, you clearly see there is very little affinity towards the rest of the world. The xenophobia and nationalism, if anything, is more likely to lead to conflict because nationalism is a double edged sword.

Best case scenario is the status quo. Even though China wants a bigger say in global affairs, they realize they have benefited from a peaceful international system over the last half-century and it's in their interest to preserve it largely intact. They have some long-term plays like "one belt" infrastructure, but that's something to supplement the existing system rather than to replace.

Personally I think the most likely risk is economic. No country can escape the laws of economics forever. At some point, the economy will have a downturn. Like with Putins Russia, when things are bad domestically, there is pressure to create conflict abroad (aka Ukraine) to distract their people which if managed badly, could turn out quite ugly

[adinobro]

Which is completely different to the US and Cuba...

[adventured]

Indeed it is entirely different.

The US isn't seeking to annex Cuba, and Cuba is entirely free to trade with the rest of the world.

China threatens and throws tantrums if Taiwan so much as gets any recognition from other nations. China doesn't even want Taiwan's leader to be able to directly speak to the US, or for their politicians to be able to visit the US.

If Raul Castro gets on a plane and goes to France or South Africa, the US doesn't threaten unspecified severe consequences for just talking to or meeting with Casto.

[dnomad]

Yeah, this is dumb. From China's perspective Taiwan is as much a part of China as Florida is part of the US. How would the US react if Florida declared itself independent and began negotiating treaties with foreign governments?

In fact we have good precedent for how the US deals with breakaway states. From that point of view China has shown remarkable constraint when dealing with what most people, including the Tawainese themselves, agree is a part of China.

[westiseast]

The Florida comparison isn’t really apt - indeed a lot of the comparisons/equivalents being drawn in this thread conveniently ignore key elements.

* PRC (the CCP) considers Taiwan to be part of the PRC (and part of ‘China’ the country). At best it’s referred to as a breakaway province.

* The ROC considers themselves to be ‘China’, and part of ‘China’, but not subject to CCP rule or a province of the PRC.

* The CCP has no actual direct rule over Taiwan in practice. Taiwanese people vote for their leaders, have their own laws, don’t follow PRC laws in any sense, hold separate Taiwanese currency and passports, require mainland visitors to acquire a visa, have independent trade deals and defense treaties with other sovereign nations etc etc.

Regardless of what you think should happen, anyone suggesting comparisons with Cuba/USA, Scotland/UK, Florida/USA etc is either ignorant, or deliberately muddying the waters to score an ideological point.

[whatyoucantsay]

> what most people, including the Tawainese themselves, agree is a part of China.

I truly cannot distinguish if you're trolling or serious. You continue repeating the same points throughout this thread and they are not true. Taiwan has never been part of the PRC. Before the KMT invaded, Taiwan was part of the Japanese Empire. Claiming the PRC gets all territory once owned by the Qing Dynasty is roughly equivalent to Germany claiming all territory once owned by Prussia. It doesn't lead anywhere pleasant.

Your comments are reprehensible and I wish for you never have the experience of your home being under constant threat from an increasingly wealthy and aggressive neighbor.

[mafribe]

If it was true that "most people, including the Tawainese themselves, agree is a part of China", then mainland China would/should have no problem whatsoever with a binding Taiwanese independence referendum.

It is precisely because mainland China knows very well that the majority of Taiwanese want independence, that the mainland objects to free and fair independence referendum. The mainland assumes they would loose.

   * * *

The secession of US states is clarified in the US constitution [1], and the US Supreme Court, in Texas v. White [2], ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional, while commenting that revolution or consent of the States could lead to a successful secession. Note that Texas v. White happened over a century ago.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

[sremani]

Geopolitically U.S. sees China as a potential challenger but that is not the main problem, an emerging China will make Japan militarize. While the world is focused on Xi's power grab, Abe is taking steps for militarizing Japan.

Its too early to say they are in collision course, but lets put it this way, if the balance of power tilts too fast .. some one will "push the button" of war.

[wyattpeak]

What? America's been trying to get Japan to militarise for years. Their reticence thus far is generally described as free-riding, not some move for the common good.