
America’s technological hegemony is under threat from China - martincmartin
https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21738883-americas-technological-hegemony-under-threat-china-battle-digital-supremacy
======
imglorp
I would suggest more accurately that America has gifted it to China, through:

* Systematic attack on education and knowledge at all levels, from cutting funding, bludgeoning it with standardized testing, taxing grad students and cutting financial aid, and creating a culture where superstition and idiocy is rewarded instead of knowledge for its own sake.

* Cost accounting has wiped out basic research

* Offshoring and outsourcing have moved core competencies to others who have improved on them and made newer products. I think there are few or no LCD panels made domestically any more. How about hard drives? Chip fabs?

~~~
echevil
As an immigrant in America, one of the most jaw-dropping fact I learned about
American culture is that kids getting best grades in school are often tagged
as "geeks" and often get bullied, and kids all want to be "cool". Well, though
it might be common sense in America, in China and other east Asian countries,
if you can't get good grades, you won't get much respect from anybody.

~~~
Karrot_Kream
Speaking specifically on the point of education, when I went to college I came
from a backwater US school. A lot of my classmates came from elite schools
from all over the world. The thing I noticed among a lot of the Indian and
Chinese students is that, while they could regurgitate equations and solve
problems very quickly, a lot of them would copy solutions or would have a hard
time learning new concepts without massive problem sets to study patterns
from.

While the US K-12 system does sucks, I don't really want to see it turn into a
memorization race the way the Indian and Chinese systems seem.

~~~
candiodari
I always found that a "memorization race" is table stakes. Without going
through that first, there is no way you can participate meaningfully at the
higher levels.

And this is true even in cases where most of the actual research is done by
computers/algorithms. Being able to quickly identify impossibilities or how to
solve parts of the problem, because you effectively memorized thousands of
pages of maths theory is invaluable and irreplaceable.

~~~
Karrot_Kream
Oh I agree, but I think memorization is necessary but not sufficient for
educational success.

------
sqdbps
Journalists cannot keep profiling the rise of the Chinese tech industry or its
supposed move from "imitation to innovation” without focusing on how Chinese
companies are entirely protected from foreign competition in their domestic
market and that the Chinese government is forcing foreign companies wanting to
do business there to share intellectual property with Chinese competitors.

The fact that none of that triggered WTO action points to just how broken that
organization is.

~~~
coldtea
> _without focusing on how Chinese companies are entirely protected from
> foreign competition in their domestic market and that the Chinese government
> is forcing foreign companies wanting to do business there to share
> intellectual property with Chinese competitors._

The US had the same advantages early on when it was at its own growth stage to
superpower, copying European inventions to bootstrap at first, and using
tariffs, subsidies and such to protect the local economy, and using their
diplomatic/military might later on to ensure favorable deals for their
companies (even now, countries and leaders e.g. that think of trading their
oil in other currencies are not staying around for long to do it).

e.g:

"[protectionist] policy was most prevalent in the 19th century. It attempted
to restrain imports to protect Northern industries. It was opposed by Southern
states that wanted free trade to expand cotton and other agricultural exports.
Protectionist measures included tariffs and quotas on imported goods, along
with subsidies and other means, to ensure fair competition between imported
goods and local goods. In today's age the US is still highly protectionist,
according to Global Trade Alert the US has adopted over 1000 protectionist
measures since the Global Economic Crisis in 2008, more than any other country
since"

[https://www.bna.com/amazon-close-
breaking-n57982085432/](https://www.bna.com/amazon-close-
breaking-n57982085432/)

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-14/your-
tax-...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-14/your-tax-dollars-
subsidize-amazon-are-the-jobs-worth-it)

> _The fact that none of that triggered WTO action points to just how broken
> that orginization is._

Or that the power relations have changed, and its old masters are somewhat
toothless.

~~~
sqdbps
What you're refrencing is a pactice by emerging or developing nations to
protect what economists call "infant industries". None of that is applicable
to China.

They don't even brother with tariffs they prohibit all competition and coerce
rivals to hand over the fruits of their research. It's diabolical.

~~~
jonathanyc
No, protectionism is not associated exclusively or even primarily with
emerging or developing countries. The GP’s comment talks about 19th and 20th
century history, during which time Europe and America industrialized and
protectionism was practically the default.

~~~
sqdbps
That's neither here nor there, we're discussing China's actions in the context
of free trade being the global norm and having established organization like
the WTO to ensure a certain level of reciprocity.

The larger point is that China is practicing extreme protectionism while
benefitting greatly from free trade.

~~~
coldtea
> _The larger point is that China is practicing extreme protectionism while
> benefitting greatly from free trade._

More power to them, then? Sounds like a good way benefit their country.

------
shadowtree
Key quote:

"The most important part of the answer is to remember the reasons for
America’s success in the 1950s and 1960s. Government programmes, intended to
surpass the Soviet Union in space and weapons systems, galvanised investment
in education, research and engineering across a broad range of technologies.
This ultimately gave rise to Silicon Valley, where it was infused by a spirit
of free inquiry, vigorous competition and a healthy capitalist incentive to
make money. It was supercharged by an immigration system that welcomed
promising minds from every corner of the planet."

Even as local youth education was bungled, the flow of highly skilled
immigrants and top-notch universities for wealthy and/or foreign students,
helped maintain the lead.

Just look at the founders, key techies and CEOs - rare to find a WASP.

One key issue for China is that despite laxer immigration policies it is not
an inclusive culture, it is very hard for foreigners to snap into a Chinese
company. Language being the first obvious block. Environmental problems, free
speech add to the mix - but, again, the US is hellbent on destroying those
USPs (EPA under threat, ...).

~~~
refurb
Does anybody do any fact checking anymore? The claim is that the 1950's and
1960's success was due to a immigration system that "welcomed promising minds
from every corner of the planet".

Bullshit.

Look at the percentage of Americans who were immigrants in the 1950-60's -
5-6%. What is it now? 12-14%?[1]

So in fact, there are more immigrants in the US than back in the utopia of the
'50-60's.

Once again, a nice theory, but absolutely false.

[1][https://www.capsweb.org/todays-news/record-51-million-
immigr...](https://www.capsweb.org/todays-news/record-51-million-
immigrants-8-years-will-account-82-us-growth)

~~~
graeme
You actually didn’t address the theory. The claim was about welcoming
“promising minds”. Presumably that means top acientists, engineers, etc

The current systme in America is renowned for being very difficult to get in
to on a merit basis. Was this different in the 1950s? Perhaps.

Also note thatbwhen considering america in the 1950’s, you’d need to look at
immigration levels in prior decades. There’s a lag time for kids to grow up.

I don’t know if the theory is right or not. And you,ve certainly provided some
data to show it *mayg be wrong. But it’s far from conclusive.

~~~
refurb
I would point you towards the "Immigration Act of 1990", which created a
number of ways for highly skilled workers to immigrate to the US.

Before that, a lot of the US immigration was based on family reunification.

------
tribune
The speed at which this has happened was essentially a gift from Western
companies and governments either asleep or deliberately ignorant at the wheel.
It seems incredibly short-sighted to have sold a hard-earned technological
edge for a quick buck. Huawei, for instance, was essentially a Chinese
government program to illegally reverse-engineer tech from American companies.
And now they cry foul when their smartphones are kept out of Western markets!
The nerve!

Still, it seems naïve to think the West's technological edge could be
maintained forever, especially given China's massive population and penchant
for being the global leader in scholarship from time to time throughout
history. It's an interesting time in The West and hard not to be pessimistic
about it. One specific concern I have about tech in China is the impunity with
which they may pursue Eugenic human gene editing in the near future. Given The
West's, uh, problematic, history with Eugenics, it's unlikely these pursuits
would happen at scale again here. I doubt China would be constrained by the
same concerns. And what if it... works?

~~~
mavendependency
Reverse engineering has never been illegal.

~~~
tribune
It went beyond just "reverse engineering", I didn't really phrase that right.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huawei#Controversies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huawei#Controversies)

------
nerfhammer
Also the West has decided that cities were basically a bad idea and they
should stop dead in their tracks at about 1960. Instead our productivity
should be spent on artificially expensive housing costs because we can never
build anything ever again.

------
zekevermillion
It is a logical fallacy to think of America as in competition with China for
"technological hegemony". We are all humans, and should work to share
knowledge with each other. It is true that manufacturing has become cheaper to
do in China. This may or may not be a passing phase, just as manufacturing
used to be done in Japan in the 80's. To think that we as a continent need to
be "better" than China in some competitive respect, or worse still, "hold
back" China, is utterly stupid. This view creates a notion of a zero-sum game
out of something that clearly benefits everyone, has positive externalities.
Who among us has not ordered a component from alibaba? And many of us hold
Chinese equities in ADRs, or vice-versa.

~~~
siruncledrew
Yea, I hate the "hegemony" part of this. It seems very childish and
egotistical to take a stance of "We have to be #1 or else we won't be happy or
let anyone else succeed". I understand there's sentiments of politics at play,
but purposely trying to hold someone back or undermine them to maintain a
position of being able to look down on others is damn petty.

------
harlanji
It’s because silicon valley is stuck in ego battles and fear and risk
aversion, eyes on world domination or bust, while China is a scrappy underdog
not worried about pixel perfect proof of concepts. I like their style, like
smaller US markets as I remember them. Yet to visit, but the Chinese I’ve
worked with remotely and as students/colleagues are pragmatic and dedicated.

------
crdoconnor
Over the course of three decades, by repetitively touting the benefits of
offshoring, outsourcing and reducing all trade barriers - the policies favored
by its 'executive' readership, the Economist has essentially been advocating
for exactly this to happen while acting like it wouldn't.

~~~
tdb7893
The low trade barriers seems to have led to many US tech companies becoming
dominant globally in their fields. It seems like if there were more trade
barriers it would've been harder for those companies to expand in the first
place.

~~~
crdoconnor
Is the economic goal of a country to create a series of very profitable
corporations?

~~~
tdb7893
No, obviously not but this article isn't talking about overarching economic
goals. It's talking about losing technical dominance to China and my point was
that the dominance seemed to have been helped by the trade practices, not hurt
by them.

~~~
crdoconnor
Except a lot of those dominant companies either A) conspicuously absent from
China (e.g. Google) or B) China can sever their supply chain (e.g. Apple)

------
urlwolf
FWIW, I don't think the US has much to fear. I'm working under the assumption
that the US will keep their dominant position in tech, culture, and economy
for at least the next 5 years. I have followed CN's gov dropping 340 BN into
ML, robotics. Not worried.

For an orthogonal set of arguments that benefit the US, check 'the accidental
superpower' (Geopolitics and demography make the EU and CN not likely to outdo
the US all things considered; unless the US shoots itself in the foot with say
a civil war)

------
11thEarlOfMar
From this viewpoint, how is China in the 2010s different from Japan in the
1970s? I'm not implying that Japan executed corporate espionage to the same
degree, but there was quite a bit of hand wringing, particularly when DRAM
production moved almost entirely out of the US and into Japan.

It is still the case, in my view, that there is an edge granted to the actual
inventors. They get first crack at monetizing their invention. Both Japan in
the 70s and China today are presented as threats, not through innovation, but
assimilation of others' innovation.

I'd be interested in seeing some indication that the US position in innovation
is being credibly threatened. One area that does seem at risk is genetic
research involving human genome. China does not seem to have the same queasy
reaction that the US does to genomic experimentation on humans.

~~~
lainga
Much of the technology that kickstarted the Japanese economy's recovery was
freely sold to them by American companies in the 1950s-60s, who were delighted
to make back R&D costs by licensing their ideas to Japan's then-puny economy.
It came back to bite them a decade later, but they had no idea that would
happen.

This is different from (as another poster has mentioned) keeping your domestic
market walled-off unless companies agree to share their technology with you
for free. They (American firms) are making this choice in full knowledge of
how competitive China is with the US right now.

------
panic
There's more to the "hegemony" than just pure tech. Tight government control
may be good for keeping the party in power, but it's not great for building
trust with people outside the Great Firewall.

------
codebook
But I don't think they are going to be next Silicon Valley soon. Their wages
are skyrocketing now. Average salaries of engineers in Beijing is around $50k
now. (Maybe Shanghai be similar?) This might hold them back in my opinion.

------
Gys
Nothing wrong with a bit of competition, right ;-)

------
model_m_warrior
Again?

------
mozumder
I'll worry when Chinese universities surpass America's in all fields - not
just STEM, but in the arts and humanities as well.

Until then, America will be the leader of technological progress.

Given that, it may be entirely possible for conservatives to destroy America's
institutions of higher learning, if they had their way. We need to be
proactive in protecting our universities in the face of constant attacks by
the backwards conservatives that seek to regress society.

The conservative goal is to transform our economy into mindless workers that
sell things they find on the ground, instead of creating an economy of
engineers, designers, artists, and other free thinkers.

American universities are the central identity of America. You destroy the
universities, you destroy the country.

~~~
rwcarlsen
I know lots of conservatives whose desires are quite antithetical to what you
ascribe to them. I'm more concerned about divisive moral high grounders.

~~~
mozumder
Sucks that they don't have a voice in any political party, then.

