back
100 comments
Well, one thing that is mentioned in the article, but deserves a lot more attention is IP theft. You should read about the chilling IP theft case of the bullet train where China pretended to contract Japan for the bullet train, but used it to steal their IP, patent it all and screw them over.

Here's a really good documentary on how much engineering went into Japan's bullet trains.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xA4aaSzqT9s

To see all this being stolen by someone who just walked in, pretending to make a deal, is so painful.

IP theft is an important part of the Chinese "Miracle" but it is short-sighted to focus too much on that...If IP access is all it took, I think we would have seen the Chinese achievement replicated in many other places.
Exactly. You need process knowledge in addition to IP in order to make innovation and manufacturing happen. And China is really good at cultivating process knowledge, something the US is slowly ceding to them.
Japan’s KHI licensed their technology to China’s CSR. Japan was never going to have the Chinese market to itself because it has competition: in addition to indigenous competitors Europe was competing for contracts as well. The dispute was over CSR’s redevelopment of licensed technology and attempts at export of the new package overseas. As it turns out there is not much of a market for HSR outside of China, Japan and Europe after all. Still it is weird to keep on calling licensed technology “theft”, when blueprints were actually sold. It’s also weird to have this fetish of how superior Japanese technology is (so China must have stolen theirs from Japan) while ignoring evidence to the contrary as revealed by the recent Taiwan rail disaster.
Most countries don’t have the military or self-sufficient economics of China though.

French Polynesia could probably never do this kind of thing to Japan for example.

America owes its very existence to the land it stole from Native Americans. It owes a huge part of its prosperity to the entire lives it stole from generations of black people by using them as draft animal (hence freeing the white man to think about science, mathematics, whatever). The entire material infrastructure that enabled the production of these fruits of the intellect is stolen, with direct violent human consequences (by comparison, the consequence of "IP theft" is that certain already well-to-do entrepreneurs make less money than they think they are entitled to). It's like if I kicked someone out of their house, adducted someone else, put them in my basement in chains to work for me. I then did a bunch of experiments and came up with some nice designs. But as I was the process of monetizing them I realize someone else stole the design for me, and now I suddenly feel morally outraged. How can he do that to me? The injustice!!

(To anyone who's prepared to invoke 'whataboutism' or whatever, note that my point is that the US's moral outrage is hypocritical, given its extensive history of (much more violent) theft. It's not about whether "IP theft" is morally permissible.)

They stole the idea from the US: https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/12/06/we-were-pirates-too/
In the 18th and 19th centuries, infringement of British patents was stated U.S. policy. In contrast, China keeps saying one thing and doing another. For example: they deny any involvement in industrial espionage, yet keep doing it. They are a member of the WTO, yet they consistently flout its rules. Then they have the chutzpah to complain about U.S. tariffs. If you ask me, it's the malicious and persistent dishonesty that irks other countries almost more than economic competition.

https://www.itif.org/publications/2015/09/17/false-promises-...

Wow.

So they steal bullet trains etc and we stole steam tech etc. I guess it just indicates that it's foolish for a nation to pay for technology if it's poor.

I wonder are there any examples of poor nations in history that actually paid market prices for technology, and became super powers? (Or at least maybe regional powers?)

Any experienced businessman understands that there's a risk of being duped. Like you imply, the risk depends on the country of origin of your business partner: China is worse than the US; the US is worse than Scandinavia; etc. It also depends on the industry, the reputation and history of the company and its owners, the nature of the deal, and many other factors. It's just part of doing business.

If IP theft (or other dishonest behavior) is too extreme, eventually that country would lose foreign business. This is what happened in Russia soon after Gorbachev opened it up: many foreign companies and investors gave up their attempts to enter Russia because they could not handle the amount of trickery being done to them. It took many years for Russia to fix that to some extent.

The fact that foreign businesses are still very much present and expand in China means that IP theft and other deceitful practices are within the limits of accepted business risks.

According to Mark Goodman "Future Crimes", it amounts to over 1 trillion USD over the last 10 years.

Micron being the latest victim.

https://www.wired.com/story/us-accuses-chinese-stealing-micr...

It is interesting that an agrarian society can transform and innovate itself in approx 10-15 years to become the world leader in Technology, etc. They also never seem to run out of funds to drive anything they do?

Not that remarkable: the USSR had done it before China, and Japan had a similar big push in the Meiji era, in similarly short timeframes (taking into consideration the communication and transportation technology available at the time).
You could argue that stealing IP is necessary fuel for any striving world power. As bad as China is with respect to IP abuse we need to realize that they are ready to turn the corner and start developing IP of their own. China is too self-reliant to continue to rely on US/EU based semiconductors and aerospace technology for long. I honestly think it's too late to halt China's growth from the outside.
I was going to go to bed (it's 2:29 AM here), but Richard Hammond is a fantastic orator and a delight to listen to

Also he looks so YOUNG in that video

China has also totally rejected environmentalism and monetary discipline. Need energy? Burn coal with no scrubbers and fake the air quality data. Have waste? Dump it in rivers and bribe local officials. Economy slowing? Print money. Need infrastructure? Print the money to pay for it.

Western liberals say ignoring the environment will catch up to them. Western conservatives say you can't ignore fiscal discipline forever. So far both are wrong.

These go along with IP as things China is ignoring. They seem to be calling BS on all forms of large scale socioeconomic restraint that might restrain GDP growth. Strap a brick to the accelerator and go.

It's an interesting experiment and as others have pointed out not that different from America in the 19th century.

The USSR looked similarly all-powerful between ‘45 and ‘78, roughly. If we say “new China” started its rise in the late ‘80s/ early ‘90s, we should expect another decade or so of its power looking “inevitable” before cracks start to be a bit too big to ignore - possibly longer, considering their superior scale.
They're working on the enviro bit:

> China is the world's leading country in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over double the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States.

All great nations are built by theft of a valuable resource.

It's the sure fire way to get ahead in any game.

well okay guys, after a cumulative -2 on the above, I want to disclose that I'm open to counterpoints if you have a compelling one!

Just because an ego is bruised or you want a better world doesn't mean you need to project that through downvoting, it is effectively censorship when you do that

> To see all this being stolen by someone who just walked in, pretending to make a deal, is so painful.

I mean, if you want to talk about pain, a lot of Chinese people see Japan primarily as the country responsible for the Rape of Nanking [0], among other atrocities. It doesn't make IP theft justified, but it probably puts it into context for why the Chinese government, people, or companies would have very little compunction against doing it.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing_Massacre

EDIT - wow, people here really hate China. Is it so hard to see human factors affecting behaviors?

Oh come on. Chinese are known for stealing IP from everyone including other Chinese. They consider this an achievment.

They would have stolen the tech from anyone else, Japanese or not.

But most of the atrocities in china in the 20th century were committed by the chinese against other chinese? And most of the atrocities in the 19th century were by european imperialists. Also, everyone committed atrocities against everyone else. Using your logic, we should all be stealing from each other since it is all justified because of historical wrongs. Sure you can't be arguing that?
"A little bit of slope makes up for a lot of y-intercept" — China seems to have taken this to heart.

- The amount spend by gov and private sector on education is insane; high literacy rate is an amazing accomplishment.

- Requiring foreign firms to give up technologies for market access is more or less the embodiment of this idea.

- IP theft is similar, you're trading a reputational hit for the means of growth.

China has mastered the balancing act between authoritarian and free market policies. In a way, the West's persistence that eventually prosperity would lead to Democratic policies always seemed a bit condescending and short sighted to me, democracy is a strong form of government, but why does it have to be the only one?

The big variable here is growth, the social contract between China and it's citizens seems to be one of: we'll provide you with massive growth in exchange for privacy and lack of control. There was plenty of space for growth and millions of Chinese moved to the middle class, but once growth slows will they demand more? Has the government clamped down on speech already been too effective to derail a liberalization movement?

At the end of the day, I think China is just too large to not outpace the United States as a global leader. China has learned how to grow from all the Western Powers and has an incredible amount of greenfield to keep going.

Mastered? Far too soon to say that. Within the span of a few decades they moved from party rule where there seemed to be a meritocracy in place, to authoritarian rule by their president, which included an "anti-corruption" campaign that conveniently consolidated power and removed other power blocs. Doesn't sound like they are maintaining the balance you extol
I would counter this by saying China has been and will always be an inward looking country. This alone limits its ability to be a global leader.
I think it is still too soon to blow the horn on China's model. Yes, China has become successful through authoritarianism, but it has only had 2 successful authoritarian leaders, both of whom were competent and benevolent. History shows that, on longer time scales, it is difficult to continuously install competent and benevolent leaders, and when a leader comes along that is not competent or benevolent, authoritarianism makes it difficult to remove them. This is why the American system is superior: if you have a bad leader, they can only do 4 years of damage and can be removed if they are truly awful. China has no such safety, which makes its system fragile in the long term.
> but it has only had 2 successful authoritarian leaders, both of whom were competent and benevolent.

Which ones were benevolent?

Don't be ridiculous. They have put their country first. You don't have to conform to the Western ideals of democracy and freedom to be benevolent. And compared to the historical record of monarchs putting their country first, China has done very well so far.
I think China "scaled" really fast and they're too big to fail. But as an asian foreigner non-ml tech guy, I don't plan to stay here. Things look good on paper, but the working condition, environtment is not the best in the world and i don't think it is ideal place to start everything from scratch as there are big class gap and the need of guanxi.
Although China is a vibrant place it is still a developing country. not on par with stable developed countries. Speaking of guanxi, many new rich had gotten almost none but their tech talent.
"The West was sure the Chinese approach would not work. It just had to wait. It’s still waiting."

Waiting, crossing fingers, thinking wishfully, hoping, and acting upon it. China is doing something right..

or maybe West is indeed helping the Chinese success?

Or maybe in the short term China will "win" (America declines, Chine's influence rises). Only to find that they are unable to develop their own tech, come up to solutions to keeping said tech running 10-20 years down the line, etc etc.

I could totally see a future where America gets embroiled in a civil war and China's experiencing a sort of "island syndrome" ala Japan where all their tech was advanced at one point and now is stuck in time.

"The west was sure the chinese approach would not work"?

Is that why the west invested trillions of dollars in china over the past 4 decades? I expect very little from the nytimes, but this is a new low for them.

Did the nytimes assume Gordon Chang is "the west" and then run with that false premise?

If anything, we have gambled our future and put all our eggs in one basket - china. We looked to china to be the manufacturer of the world. Then during the financial crisis, we looked to china to increase debt to save the world economy from collapse. Now we are looking to china to be the consumer of the world to boost the world economy.

The west helped create modern china. It was our money, resources, expertise, technology and markets that helped create modern china. Why would we invest trillions in a country expecting it to fail?

From hollywood to the NBA to silicon valley to wall street to agriculture, "the west" is looking to china to be the source of growth for decades to come. Or maybe I'm missing something?

I am currently reading AI Superpowers https://www.amazon.com/AI-Superpowers-China-Silicon-Valley/d...

which I can really recommend it has given me a completely new appreciation for the term competition.

Western economists doubted that innovation could take place under China’s rigid bureaucracy. They were proved wrong.

Western economists, politicians, and citizens are having a hard time realizing that the bigger rigid bureaucracy is in the west. Whether you are trying to develop housing in the bay area, or set up a new factory, or build mass transit, the bureaucracy tax of time and dollars is our biggest handicap. Things end up costing too much, taking to long, and being inferior.

California passed the high speed rail proposition ten years ago in 2008, we have spent billions, and have zero working miles of rail complete. Since 2008, China has built 15,500 miles of high speed rail.

Very optimistic piece about the Chinese economy from a Chinese American who now resides in China. The author works for Washington Post, which is owned by Jeff Bezos, whose company Amazon greatly benefits from China.

There is no doubt this is a piece that is trying to rally around a very unlikely scenario where the US administration will give into Chinese belligerence and back off on trade tariffs at the end of November when Trump and Xi meets - despite Trump, Pence, the current Trump administration, and even prominent Democrats' hardline against China. A trade war which the US is winning strongly.

A couple of things stands out from the article: reminiscience about the great Chinese growth in the last 30 years, and "The party appears to enjoy broad public support, and many around the world are convinced that Mr. Trump’s America is in retreat while China’s moment is just beginning." That last thing is the conclusion drawn out of nowhere, and very incorrect. US has been growing 4% this year, while every other major economies around the world has suffered. https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/14/economy/economy-global-slowdo...

The author cleverly avoids talking about China's now: slumping economy, the ever increasing local government/corporate/personal debt, export falling 30% year-over-year in Guangdong, the top exporting province https://sinoinsider.com/2018/10/risk-watch-declining-export-..., potential tariff on all of China's import into US, the great military alliance between US, Japan, Australia, India and several other Southeast Asian countries against China in South Asia Sea, western ambassadors demanding answers to China's imprisonment of Muslim minority https://www.businessinsider.com/china-slams-western-ambassad..., and last, how private companies which drove the innovations in china are dying out to state enterprises https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-24/china-s-s....

EDIT: clarified author

> A trade war which the US is winning strongly.

If you're wondering about the American soybean farmers that China has targeted as a response, you'll see that they are... simply looking at the commodities futures markets and making rational economic decisions [1]. I'm sure that this is not at all what China was hoping to accomplish.

[1] https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-soybeans-chin...

The bags farmers are using are not new technology, they have been around since the 1990s: https://extension.purdue.edu/article/6963

It's NYTimes, not WaPo. And it's not a single author, there are 5 bylines

Jonathan Ansfield and Keith Bradsher contributed reporting from Beijing. Claire Fu and Iris Zhao contributed research from Beijing, and Carolyn Zhang from Shanghai.

So any positive things said about China from a Chinese American should be discounted?
> export falling 30% year-over-year in Guangdong

Export surplus is falling... that's a very different animal.

I didn’t read optimism at all. Look at the very next line after that quote.

> The party appears to enjoy broad public support, and many around the world are convinced that Mr. Trump’s America is in retreat while China’s moment is just beginning.

> Then again, China has a way of defying expectations.

In other words: China seems to be doing well but then again they could totally fail

The author is clearly uncertain of China’s future, not too bearish but clearly not bullish either. He even makes reference to Xi’s crackdowns and return to autocracy as being troubling signs, not sure signs of success.

“It’s different this time”.