6 ms·
If you actually read the article we already outspend them on R&D. We spent 2.8% of GDP vs their 2.2% of GDP. They failed to meet their target of 2.5% of GDP des
by _6fmb 6y ago
If you actually read the article we already outspend them on R&D. We spent 2.8% of GDP vs their 2.2% of GDP. They failed to meet their target of 2.5% of GDP despite steadily increasing.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- cma 6y agoBut their purchasing power parity is way higher so presumably they get more for less, other than stuff they have to import to support research.
- sudosysgen 6y agoI don't understand why this is downvoted. Money goes further in China than in the US, and the Chinese GDP PPP is indeed higher than the US, although barely.
- newen 6y ago$27.8 trillion vs $20.3 trillion is not barely.
- sudosysgen 6y agoHoly shit. Not even a year ago it was 23.4 to 21.4, not only did the coronavirus do a number on the US economy, but Chinese growth has been simply explosive.
- Gibbon1 6y agoA lot of what's spent in the US goes towards private rents. Money that goes towards rents is a waste. Most don't see it because it's everywhere. Either directly or indirectly. You pay more per sqft for an office, but you also pay more per hour for labor, because the guy you hires also pays rent[1]. Things cost more because the supply chain has to pay rents. [1] Consider a lot of workers half their income goes to rent.
- Barrin92 6y agocorrect, it's also why the Chinese and Russian military are quite large and potent despite the fact that obviously they spend several times less in absolute terms than the US. In particular salary costs, which tend to be large factors in research or the military, are way lower in China or Russia.
- mistermann 6y agoI wonder how it would look if there was some magical way to view it on an ROI basis. Rather than focusing on R&D (science & technology presumably), I'd like to see Western countries start approaching ~"the humanities" (culture, society, happiness, etc) the same way we treat technology and industry. To me it seems fairly clear that there are distinct differences at the human satisfaction level between different countries/cultures. I have the sense that Western countries are starting to fall behind in some categories, the consequences of which first began showing up in our political discourse/mood, which has now progressed to literally spilling out onto the streets. Rather than our current laissez faire approach to this aspect of life, could treating it as a serious first class intellectual problem yield positive results?
- squidlogic 6y agoUnfortunately the humanities succumbed to postmodernism long ago. Since then it has been impossible to impose strict tests on veracity as you find in hard sciences.
- maedla 6y agoWhat do you mean?
- chillacy 6y agoI can only guess but art is now considered to be inherently subjective. So you there's no way to make statements like "picasso is better than jackson pollock", or "cubism is not real art". Going further there are a number of works meant to probe the exact limit of what we're willing to consider art. I recall a couple interesting ones: 1. An artist took a shit in a can and sealed it up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_Shit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_Shit 2. I recall there was an artist who took an existing book and changed the author name to their own, I can't find a link right now though.
- squidlogic 6y agoPostmodernism teaches (among many things) that truth is not objective. Rather, the epistemological center in postmodernism IS the self. Each self has its own version of truth, rather than truth being perspective-independent. In literature, for example, this means that authorial intent is supplanted by perspectivalism. That is, each reader interprets a text based on his or her own perspective, and each interpretation is equally valid. This plays out in the political realm most prominently in the supreme court's interpretation of laws (does it matter what the author meant to say or just what we now interpret them to have said?). So when I say it's impossible for the humanities to impose strict tests on veracity, what I mean is that a strict test would yield true results that are perspective-independent. This is what the scientific method attempts to accomplish, and the hard sciences use this methodology. The humanities, however, have long ceded that it is impossible to arrive at a perspective-independent conclusion and IMO would therefore reject a similarly rigorous approach.
- SuoDuanDao 6y agoMaintaining a lead could be a good idea all the same though...
- kkylin 6y agoGenuinely curious: to what extent is that because the numerator didn't grow enough, and to what extent is it because the denominator grew too quickly?
- arcticbull 6y agoNovel R&D is more expensive than incremental catch-up R&D; you can catch up by spending less money since by definition you at least know where you're going. When you take into account that China's GDP is 70% of the US but has a PPP factor of about 1.6 (i.e. the same amount of US dollars goes 60% further in China than it would notionally in America) they're actually spending what amounts 2.6% of the US GDP in PPP dollars.
- fred_is_fred 6y agoAlso on a per output basis spies are cheaper than scientists.
- arcticbull 6y agoYes. (a) that changes nothing about what I said, and... (b) do you really, truly, honestly, believe that if America were behind in tech the first thing they'd do wouldn't be to send in the spies? Of course they would. I know because that's what I would do. As a leader my obligation is to my people at the end of the day -- and this is true -- who's going to stop me? In what world would you sit back and say, well, I think it'd be better if we just figured it out on our own, fair and square lol.
- Hnrobert42 6y agoNo. The U.S. intell community does not do that, empirically. There isn’t even the apparatus for doing that. The US IC’s ties to industry, apart from defense contractors and communications, are very tenuous, hamstrung by clearance and classification problem and a very insular culture. So, in addition to being factually incorrect, is very damaging to the national discourse to normalize CPC’s strategy of wholesale IP theft.
- arcticbull 6y agoThe US intel community (a) doesn't need to do that because in general US tech is world-class and (b) wouldn't be very good at their jobs if they admitted to it publicly. I suggest you review your Cold War history for examples of when both sides were absolutely stealing each others' technology. When you're top dog, your job is largely counter-intelligence. > So, in addition to being factually incorrect, is very damaging to the national discourse to normalize CPC’s strategy of wholesale IP theft. Hold on, at what point did I suggest it shouldn't be combatted - or that it was okay? I'm saying we should expect them to try and do so. I absolutely think the US should fight back. That's the game.