No, that is your personal logical fallacy. Producing less poer with far far less reactors means superior reactor technology. America has a huge fleet of old reactors while China has the world's first and only 4th gen reactor. That's called superior technology. China also has 27 under construction while the US has 0.
If you uncritically accept the ITIF’s report - you should accept
all of its study conclusions. There - it is unambiguous - the U.S. and China are similar in technological levels, the U.S. has more nuclear energy deployed, and China has a more permissive structure to marketize nuclear energy. So even there, your favored sources do not support an unambiguous “15 years ahead” conclusion - especially not for capital formation and technological development.
“However, this does not necessarily mean that China’s largest nuclear power companies—notably the state-owned enterprises (SOEs) China General Nuclear Power Corporation (CGN) and the China National Nuclear Power (CNNP)—are exceptionally innovative technologically.” -
.
All of this is distracting from the original point that Congress is able to substantial changes (which you haven’t rebutted as much as you’ve downplayed).
Yeah, the US fights like an old lion grinding down its last miserable tools while China fights like a young lion growing stronger every day. Semiconductors are the hardest tech in the world;
Not just semiconductors lol. How many of the world’s larger electronic gas manufacturers are from China? Software publishers? Aircraft manufacturers (even with Boeing’s recent kerfuffle)? Pharmaceutical corporates? Life insurers? Medical device manufacturers? Oilfield equipment companies? Package couriers? Commercial avionics manufacturers?
The point was you don’t need to know
anything about the state of where China is to know US firms will maintain their market leading positions for decades.
8 years since the ZTE sanctions and China basically closed what experts say was over 20 years in difference and the increase in momentum is the most encouraging aspect of China's tech rise. It takes more time to go from tech to market.
This is indeed the point. By the time China scales effectively, it will be 203X at the earliest. Decades, indeed.
Competitiveness to the world, not to China. Actually, China has a higher per capita STEM grad output
There were ~1.9M STEM bachelor degree recipients in China in 2022. There were ~18 million people born in China in 2000. ~11% of the cohort earned a STEM bachelor degree.
There were ~420K STEM bachelor recipients in the U.S. in 2022. There ~4 million people born in the U.S. in 2000 and once again, ~11% of the cohort earned a ST
than the US and China's STEM output is basically entirely Chinese while the US trains many foreigners and minorities who may leave.
You can toggle with the numerators with international students and U.S. citizen/lpr Asians. It doesn’t change the analysis.
Furthermore, Chinese are known to outperform all other groups both in Western countries and when competing from China against Western countries. China has higher quantity and better quality.
No. It’s because immigrants are a positively selected cohort. Especially Asians, since they didn’t exist in the U.S. in 1965 and had to enter the U.S. on worker visas before there was any level of appreciable family reunification migration since the early 2000s.
That's so histoically ignorant it's hallmark American. So many empires have hundreds of years of prosperity compared to America's decades.
No other country has been at continuous peace since the 1860s, except, well, of course, the United States.
LOLOL OK. China's standard for success is the development of the technology. American standard for success is agreeing to develop the technology.
Because the technology already exists? It is just being deployed slowly? Also, “we will do X” is newsworthy in its own right - see the substantial coverage of Five Year Plans in China
So how much coverage? You wanna answer that? You got numbers?
Again, A1 headlines and prime time tv reports are observable. They didn’t cover it. Expecting national political outlets not to cover
acts of Congress is patently ridiculous. To what extent they cover it is much more operative.
The original point was that I said America's a big mouth and you tried to say it's not that big cus you don't think it got enough coverage to qualify LOL
Do you not expect national media outlets to cover acts of Congress? If that’s the standard for having a big mouth, then having a big mouth is (once again) tautological. It’s also meaningless because if national political outlets don’t cover acts of Congress - what else do they cover? It’s one of the 3 branches of government lol.
So... they talked about it and made a plan. And you jumped on it with enthusiasm as if the tech came out LOL. To Chinese people used to real progress, this isn't even worth discussing until the reactors are build and the new tech is demonstrated.
You act as if Xinhua and the like don’t reasonably spend a lot of effort covering Five Year Plans. Policy developments are always newsworthy.
No, paycheck to paycheck is the highest and most meaningful data. Not only does is show inability to absorb shock (AKA frailty), it further shows inability to budget and plan. Actually, it goes hand-in-hand with this data for the most meaningful picture of the finanacial situation which is reliant on each paycheck, unable to pay emergency expenses even with all paycheck coming in:
The $400 (or however much) expense report you cite is simply wrong - a substantial number of individuals who state they can’t afford an unexpected expense *also* have substantially more in transaction accounts. -
.
And once again, if you want to measure the ability to sustain financial shocks, you can look at financial assets held outright on balance sheets - there, since tje median household has ~$40K in financial assets, that’s clearly contradictory to survey data.
Survey respondents tend to underestimate their financial positionso actual financial statements take precedence.
