The China Thread

[HVC]

Sheilbh's link was about planes, so that's what I assumed the focus was on.

[crazy canuck]

China can assemble anything cheaply.  Why is it more ominous that they can assemble solar panels cheaply than that they can cheaply assemble socks and plastic toys?

Energy production drives everything in a world where everything needs energy

[grumbler]

Being a "technology leader" in a field implies that the actual technology is better, not just that you produce a lot of it. I can see the claim that experience gives China the edge in High-speed Rail, but have seen nothing to indicate that Chinese solar panels are technologically more advanced than, say French ones.

The claim about graphene puzzles me. The UK has always led research in that field, followed closely by the US. The most advanced graphene production facilities are in New York state. The company producing the largest amount of graphene (for iPhones and iPads) is in Taiwan.

I'm taking that chart with a boulder of salt.

[Josquius]

Define "Better" though.
Is it 1 vs. 1 product A is better than product B?
Or is it product B does much the same thing as product A but is half the price so more people buy it?

With solar in particular China is absolutely the leader. Not so much because the end product is better but they're so much cheaper and just as good.

[The Minsky Moment]

Being a "technology leader" in a field implies that the actual technology is better, not just that you produce a lot of it. I can see the claim that experience gives China the edge in High-speed Rail, but have seen nothing to indicate that Chinese solar panels are technologically more advanced than, say French ones.

The chart says "leadership position in five key technologies" which I read as somewhat different from "technology leader."  I.e. it isn't claiming that China has better solar module tech than Europe or USA. Rather it is saying that solar panels are a key technology and that China has leadership position in solar panels because the make and sell so many of them.

I agree it is confusing and somewhat misleading. It's just conveying that China has substantial manufacturing in those areas, not that they have superior or cutting tech, but it could easily be read as implying the latter.

[Josquius]

A fairly respected commenter on the Ukraine war with a interesting vid on why China is likely to invade Russia.

Not sure I would agree entirely with him but it's definitely a possibility not to be discounted.

China is advertising it's plans to invade Taiwan a bit much.... It does fly against Tsun Tsu 101.
And Taiwan is already Chinese, as a civilization, the stolen land in the north....

Of course there is then the counter argument that they can just dominate Russia, especially the east without conquest, but the same was true of taiwan.

[Tonitrus]

If nuclear weapons were not a thing, likely would have happened long ago.  With nuclear weapons, very unlikely.

That alone makes a Taiwan invasion scenario far more likely.

[DGuller]

A fairly respected commenter on the Ukraine war with a interesting vid on why China is likely to invade Russia.

Not sure I would agree entirely with him but it's definitely a possibility not to be discounted.

China is advertising it's plans to invade Taiwan a bit much.... It does fly against Tsun Tsu 101.
And Taiwan is already Chinese, as a civilization, the stolen land in the north....

Of course there is then the counter argument that they can just dominate Russia, especially the east without conquest, but the same was true of taiwan.

It sounds like desperate wishful thinking.  I just don't see what China has to gain from taking on such an existential risk.  At least Taiwan has some very serious strategic value besides the symbolism, in the age of AI that may very well be worth a risk of a global war.

[Sheilbh]

The chart says "leadership position in five key technologies" which I read as somewhat different from "technology leader."  I.e. it isn't claiming that China has better solar module tech than Europe or USA. Rather it is saying that solar panels are a key technology and that China has leadership position in solar panels because the make and sell so many of them.

I agree it is confusing and somewhat misleading. It's just conveying that China has substantial manufacturing in those areas, not that they have superior or cutting tech, but it could easily be read as implying the latter.

I think, in fairness, the confusion and misleading is from me (repeatedly) wrenching that chart from a multi-article series Bloomberg did on Made in China 2025, because I think it's a really useful summation.

I'd add that interpretation is also tied to what China's goals were with Made in China 2025. From my understanding they weren't really aiming at technological leadership but rather autonomy or in a way modern import substitution. So they wanted to reduce China's dependencies on imports by getting more domestic production, boosting domestic firms in the key sectors and aiming for technological parity (reducing dependency on foreign expertise/tech). Collectively those policies would also produce globally competitive producers (and develop third party dependencies on China).

My understanding is China's 2035 strategy (I swear I've seen a name like Made in China 2025, but can't remember it) is far more focused on technological leadership. The goal is to be far more of a technological leader - also interestingly work on regulatory standardisation in China to become more of a rule setter, which feels like it should be something Europe keeps an eye on as that is an area it traditionally sees itself as a leader in.

[Tonitrus]

I just don't see what China has to gain from taking on such an existential risk.  At least Taiwan has some very serious strategic value besides the symbolism, in the age of AI that may very well be worth a risk of a global war.

Also, everything China wants from the Russian far east (aside from direct control/potential living space), they can just buy...at a cost much less expensive than invasion/nuclear risk would bring.

[Neil]

It's worth remembering that the Chinese don't think long-term or realistic.  They've had their Trump in power for quite a while now.  They are thoroughly post-rationality.