$150 billion in VC in the U.S. >>> $0 in china. Plus the collapse in VC funding was nearly entirely driven by rate hikes which are now headed into rate cut territory.
Miscellaneous News
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
proelite
Junior Member
Yeah, like I said before it was reckless expansion of capital that could have been put to more productive uses. China doesn't need to be as innovative as the West when it can just farm the West for ideas and successful examples to take to market earlier or scale up quicker.
Not really? China has a massive surge in notional human capital; that you’d see a comicitant growth in the number of startups pursuing every possible technological end would be expected (ex: automating every possible business process with softwarenew biological pathways for drugs to target, all kinds of material ideas for new batteries, etc, etc). A collapse in new business formation with apparently high savings rates and apparent increases in human capital mean there must be an absolutely atrocious business environment.
*for example, everyone is aware of the FAANGs, but fewer people are aware of software firms like MathWorks that make MATLAB (an important software package for all kinds of simulation)); Schrödinger, a New York software firm that makes a drug discovery software platform; or Ellie Mae, a software publisher made for making mortgage underwriting easier and less time intensive and more consistent (for more construction and fewer loan losses).
proelite
Junior Member
China doesn't need the number of startups nor the rate of new startups as the US. I would argue they don't need innovative greenfield startups at all. They can simply harvest the fruits of the US's startup market's labor.
The allegation isn't that the number of startsups in China is lower. The allegation is that it's zero. Personally, this doesn't pass the smell test to me, but collaps of VC does. And no, having no venture capital is actually a very bad thing for China. China would benefit from further development of its financial markets.
There are substantial first mover advantages with startups including name recognition, locked in customers, and ecosystems that develop around your product (university teaching, regulator norms, etc).
Biotech/pharma firms using SAS instead of any other statistical tool is nearly entirely an old relic of the FDA liking SAS outputs more than anything else, for example. Or everyone using Windows and Office is a result of Microsoft being first to market with an OS with a point and click UI while embedding IE with every new PC. Lipitor is the most pre scribed statin not because it’s necessarily the best but because it was the first one onto the market and Pfizer locked in doctors trust early. Etc. etc.
It's quite some difference between genociding some guys people only care about as proxy puppets to fuck US and inviting war and unrestricted reprisal from another superpower.
What you're saying is like saying just because China genocided the Uyghurs and no one did anything, China could also have ethnically cleansed every NATO citizen on Chinese soil and they would also face no reprisal for it. (I know China didn't do anything illegal regarding Uyghurs, but NATO itself believes in a genocide, yet ignored it, so speaking from their perspective).
Not comparable situations in any shape or form.
And what meaningful damage have they ever done to China? They don't because it's uncertainty for them what will happen otherwise. Like I said, if what you say is true, there is no logical reason not for them to simply... Attack now. Or in 2015. They don't need to deescalate you claim. So can you explain what does America gain from watching the gap widen between it and China every day, while pussy footing around in Asia and occasionally abusing innocent passage rights to posture politically?
Objectively yes, it's functionally a suicide pact. If anything China has slightly better infrastructure (EMP proofing, widespread civilian shelters) to come out of a nuclear exchange.
Sure China is at a disadvantage in the sense that more Chinese will likely die than Americans, because there aren't that many Americans to cover 1 for 1 with every Chinese. But it's not like the rest of the Western world wouldn't also be hit, for a similar level of carnage as US inflicts on China.
Romania when it was ruled by a dictator would be the classic case study of such "DEMOGRAPHIC DIVIDEND."
proelite
Junior Member
Chinese startups will do exactly that in China once they know that something works in the US and might also work in China.
The 0 value in the FT is likely a definitional change and/or some regulatory evasion but the general directionality: an atrocious sentiment and business environment that has frozen equity investment in high-risk innovative businesses