Yes the west had a big head start in industrialization. But it could still be totally different if the west had not destroyed and looted everything they could have on their way conquering the world. The west almost killed off all its sibling rivalries as it grew up.
News on China's scientific and technological development.
- Thread starter Quickie
- Start date
I'm actually not sure what that first paragraph is about. Schmidt is not a China hawk. He just wants America to be #1. I see nothing wrong with that.
The reality is that America has too many of its smartest people work in wasteful fields like lawyers, bankers and political think tanks. Not enough entering into high tech fields. That's why it continuously have to import high tech professionals from other countries. There is certain level of efficiency in Chinese society that's not anywhere else. This youtube video is kind of a good example of that.
There is certain level of drive in the Chinese society that's hard to explain to outsiders. There is not a bunch of bureaucracy or culture war or indecision going on. Just make the decision and go for it. That's what allowed China to do so well in AI, bio tech, EVs, clean energy and probably semi conductor industries. I don't see how any other country can compete with that. Things really changed very fast even in the last 10 years. So one can only imagine where they will be 10 years from now.
What will happen when Western countries realize China dominates auto industry, clean energy industry, AI and fully caught up in semi conductor and bio tech? Current Western society is not setup with the same drive/urgency to accelerate technology at the same pace.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
Schmidt is using China to scare Americans into action. America to be #1 translates to wanting to dominate the world if China were to say the same thing but there's something wrong with that. I'm watching Real Time with Bill Maher right now. They have a former New York Times reporter, Nicole Perlroth, who's suppose to be an expert on cyber warfare. She talks about how the US is very vulnerable to cyber attacks because many utilities, corporations, and other private entities are sensitive to the government being involve in their affairs and don't want them involved which is needed in order to protect the country. Also it cost too much money for them. It means they want the government to give them the money to pay for it. The same private entities that want this money from the government because the stock prices to their shareholders is more important and budgeting the money on their own would suffer in their stock prices. So the easy answer is for the US government in the form of taxpayers money be given to them to so the stock price doesn't get affected. And remember how corporations got COVID relief money to keep workers employed but instead went to help support their shareholders instead. You don't think Schmidt has stock in many technology companies?
It is kind of too late, American chose to de-industrialise and build up Wallstreets, it is impossible for bankers to turn funding towards tech manufacturing(aside from come niche semicon equipments and processes, US tech are mostly software based play) where returns are lower compared to FIRE sectors. And considering how America's relative economic size vs the world has already shrunken by magnitudes from the 70s, and suffering from a working culture that does not lend to manufacturing competitiveness, access to global market will be hit badly without coupling with Chinese supply chain.
I have substantial exposure to investment in US Private Equity, all the top fund raisers for the past decade are overwhelmingly software players like Thoma Bravo, Insight and Silverlake. They have nothing on tech manufacturing.
Its only going to get worse, as those talents that could have worked on more critical sectors are going to be picked up by companies don't give any material or strategic benefit to their country because they have higher returns, like Cryptocurrency, NFTs and Metaverse. While China on the other hand is curbing and regulating these industries, probably to keep it just enough that China would have a say in those industries, but not overcommitted that precious manpower and resources are wasted.
supercat
Major
I don't know if Stuart Wallace is really so incompetent or he is trying to deliberately mislead. I suspect the latter. Huawei's profile increased 75% in 2021. The graph shows that Huawei's revenue (sales, or total income) decreased in 2021. But it's perfectly normal to have increased profile (net income) even with decreased revenue (sales, or total income). Even for a causal observer like me, the graph is in stark contrast to what he attempts to say.
Then probably Europe is cutting its own talent drain of its own people. Yes it did happen.
Read about William E Deming and Joseph Juran and their teachings . After that everything will fall into place.
Schmidt failed to compete with Microsoft while he was at Novell. His company used to be the leader in LAN software and then dropped out of the race completely.
Huawei's revenues decreased sure. But they sold Honor and other businesses like x86 servers. Businesses with large revenues but slim profit margins.
BEV passenger ship