4 ms·
And do they actually solve more science or engineering problems than US?
by azan_ 3y ago
And do they actually solve more science or engineering problems than US?
- LargeTomato 3y agoNot yet but the US has a big head start. The gap is closing every day.
- ethbr1 3y agoI'd argue it helps them more with engineering and manufacturing/building problems than science ones. The latter, under any government type, don't have a great track record of massive government investment accelerating progress. Proof of concept level grants, sure! But it doesn't seem to scale past that. IMHO, a free market is a better GTM-stage+ capital allocator.
- btown 3y agoIt's worth noting that, at least on the electronics manufacturing side (which is indeed what we're talking about here) the undeniable success story of TSMC was very much a government-led capital structure from the beginning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TSMC#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TSMC#History Government can often be a failure-prone capital allocator, but it can also result in improved alignment when an entire industry with wide socioeconomic implications is about to be born.
- ethbr1 3y agoTSMC, Korean chaebols, Japanese corporations. But I'd still hazard the exception rather than the rule, globally.
- Seanambers 3y agoWhat you are describing is basically subsidies. Taiwan lowered the capital cost of TSMC thus made them more competitive than their competitors. The Chinese did much of the same with their tech sector especially Huawei if I remember correctly with gigantic tax breaks and cheap financing.
- h0l0cube 3y ago> What you are describing is basically subsidies In this case, subsidies (and incentives) are 'governments throwing money at engineering problems'. The US does the same for SpaceX, EV manufacturers, and the entire military industrial complex – with the latter making tech controlled by the government
- hyperbovine 3y agoIf you count émigrés, hell yes.