Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Sunday March 05, @07:33AM   Printer-friendly

China has a "stunning lead" over the US:

The Biden administration might be limiting China's ability to manufacture advanced chips, but according to an independent think tank, the Asian nation is still ahead of the US when it comes to research in 37 out of 44 crucial and emerging technologies, including AI, defense, and key quantum tech areas.

Insider reports that the Canberra-based Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) believes China has a "stunning lead" over the US when it comes to high-impact research across the majority of critical and emerging technology domains.

[...] The think tank notes that for some of these technologies, the ten leading research institutions are based in China and are collectively generating nine times more high-impact research papers than the second-ranked country, which is usually the US. What could be especially worrying for America is that two areas where China really excels are Defense and space-related technologies. ASPI writes that China's advancements in nuclear-capable hypersonic missiles took the US by surprise in 2021.

How is China so far ahead? Some of it is down to imported talent. The report notes that one-fifth of its high-impact papers are being authored by researchers with postgraduate training in a Five-Eyes country (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States). However, most of China's progress comes from deliberate design and long-term policy planning by President Xi Jinping and his predecessors.

The near-term effects of China's lead could see it gaining a stranglehold on the global supply of certain critical technologies, while the long-term impact could result in the authoritarian state gaining more global influence and power.


Original Submission

 
This discussion was created by janrinok (52) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday March 07, @10:57PM (6 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 07, @10:57PM (#1295027) Journal

    You do realize that the Industrial Revolution first took hold in those places where wage costs were highest, don't you?

    Nope, and I doubt you realize that either! I'll note, for example, that the poorest tended to be the people employed in factories and mines.

    Moving on, we see today a very high sensitivity to labor costs. They certainly aren't flocking to high wage cost locations today!

  • (Score: 2) by quietus on Wednesday March 08, @11:04AM (5 children)

    by quietus (6328) on Wednesday March 08, @11:04AM (#1295096) Journal

    Mmmm. If you really are interested in economic history, try to get hold of Fernand Braudel's books -- they're not in print anymore, but you can still find them in antique shops. He's a giant in the field, and his books are well worth the investment. Specifically, for industrial revolutions, read Civilization and Capitalism (it's a trilogy, like his other work, The Mediterranean).

    For now, you'll have to contend with a 2015 article from The Economic History Review, The high wage economy and the industrial revolution: a restatement [sci-hub.st].

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 08, @03:36PM (4 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday March 08, @03:36PM (#1295122) Journal
      Correlation does not imply causation is the real problem here. The 2015 paper shows serious problems, such as asserting that a family which spends two thirds of its budget on food, 40% merely on bread, is "high wage", or discounting a criticism based on wage disparity between urban and rural because that difference goes away later. This is most evident in completely ignoring the question: why was Great Britain "high wage" in the first place (allegedly)? The real problem is that the author ignores that automation and higher wages don't just happen. They needs infrastructure and development. The UK wasn't special because it was "high wage", but because it had a lot of knowledgeable engineers and workers, a flexible society where one could create vast new industrial enterprises, and a relatively healthy economy. That would mean that wages would be somewhat higher than lands where the economy wasn't so good - even in the absence of increased automation.

      Sure there is a logical explanation via supply and demand for why expensive labor would incentivize cheaper automation. But that ignores that there were other paths that could be taken. Another is simply that UK exports go down, causing labor value to decline as well, and wages to go down. That is, wage differences equalize and nothing changes.

      And that's where California heads now. Sure, they have those high labor costs, but they also have a variety of onerous obstructions to anyone who wants to build improved automation: aggressive environmental regulations, labor union protectionism, goofy political ideology, etc. They'll get the high costs (including high cost of living!) without the benefits. And a large, extremely poor population to boot. They still have a waning Silicon Valley so for the near future, we may see key automation improvements done in California, but there's not much room for them there.
      • (Score: 2) by quietus on Wednesday March 08, @05:09PM (3 children)

        by quietus (6328) on Wednesday March 08, @05:09PM (#1295144) Journal

        I see you made it to Table 1. I am surprised.

        • (Score: 2, Funny) by khallow on Wednesday March 08, @06:51PM (2 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday March 08, @06:51PM (#1295161) Journal
          Perhaps you shouldn't be surprised that people occasionally take you seriously.
          • (Score: 2) by quietus on Friday March 10, @03:33PM (1 child)

            by quietus (6328) on Friday March 10, @03:33PM (#1295499) Journal

            The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.

            (Richard P. Feynman, as quoted in Statistics Done Wrong (the woefully complete guide) by Alex Reinhart)

            Luckily that doesn't happen all too often :P

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 15, @05:49PM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday March 15, @05:49PM (#1296287) Journal
              Sounds like you still don't get the problem. The argument you made was that high wages cause automation. This ignores that we can create a high wage environment with a strong disincentive for automation - like California. And we'd still have a strong need for automation even in a low wage environment: for example, extensive numerical computations or global communication.

              Let's consider an example of how California blocks automation: "AB 5" [wikipedia.org] a state law that attempted (and failed) to ban the practice of classifying gig economy workers as contractors. My take is that this was done merely to protect labor unions (and that we'll likely see future efforts to ban gig work). Any automation that significantly displaces workers would also run hard against this political opposition.

              So why would someone developing new automation develop and apply it in California where their efforts could be torpedoed by hostile labor unions?