3 ms·

Ironically, the best way America could have prevented China’s rise in tech was by stapling green cards to diplomas of Chinese citizens who completed their highe

Ironically, the best way America could have prevented China’s rise in tech was by stapling green cards to diplomas of Chinese citizens who completed their higher education in the U.S. like the plan in the early 2010s.

ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
Is that the best way? China's rise had already happened by the 2010s Preventing that could have been prevented in the 70s, 80s, 90s by stopping offshoring, blocking student visas, and prosecuting IP theft.
- brookst 1y ago
  Those students would have just gone to other countries, written their PhD dissertations there, advanced another country’s tech sector, and the US would have found the pain of isolationism that much sooner. It is not possible to keep core IP secret. HN folks, of all people, should know this. Anything that thousands of people know is de facto public knowledge.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
    Keeping core IP secret is not the issue. The issue is allowing the Chinese to steal IP and then compete in our markets with that stolen IP. >students would have just gone to other countries, written their PhD dissertations there, advanced another country’s tech sector, which other countries specifically? No other country has a tech sector. It's the US hegemony or the China hegemony.
    - FpUser 1y ago
      >"...The issue is allowing the Chinese to steal IP..." I do not think they need permission. There is no force that could order country to recognize IP. Do you really expect all world forever pay rent to few giant corps?
      - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
        Bad reading comprehension. You're talking about recognizing IP, I am talking about stealing IP AND selling stolen IP in our markets. 1st: yes force can be used to discourage the theft of IP. This is merely an obstacle, not a total blocker 2nd: yes force can be used to block IP from our markets. This is actually incredibly trivial and would have been very easy 40-years ago.
        FpUser 1y ago
        >You're talking about recognizing IP, I am talking about stealing IP ..." If country does not recognize IP then "stealing" is not a theft in their eyes. As for using force to prevent "theft": what force? Military? You might get burned really bad.
        corimaith 1y ago
        A military controlling the flow of goods into its own borders isn't going to "burn bad", it's called customs controls.
        FpUser 1y ago
        >"The issue is allowing the Chinese to steal IP and then compete in our markets with that stolen IP" That was the original message. My understanding of "our markets" was customers of the US which include the US itself, China and many other countries. Sure the US can prohibit importing of China's goods. It can not control what happens in the rest of the world to the degree that it once could.
        ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
        I did specify the 70s 80s and 90s.
        ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
        Sorry no. If you can't imagine how one country couldn't use force to stop another country from stealing IP then you are either not intellectually up to this conversation or not arguing in good faith.
  - corimaith 1y ago
    How are you going to gain core IP research if you don't have experience or access to leading edge researchers to pass you knowledge in the first place? Talent is proportional to population, but that only matters if society and state has the infrastructure to raise that talent up. Otherwise Nigeria or Indonesia would be scientific powerhouses, and Iran would have modern fighter jets.
    - Cyph0n 1y ago
      > Otherwise Nigeria or Indonesia would be scientific powerhouses, and Iran would have modern fighter jets. The reason why these statements are not true is because of colonization, delayed industrialization, and Western intervention post-independence. Getting out of this “quicksand” is exceedingly difficult. China did well to industrialize quickly and keep intervention at bay - in fact, you could argue that it making the rest of the world reliant on its industrial capacity helped address the intervention problem.
      - wagwang 1y ago
        This world view is just wrong from top to bottom. Between 1945-1970, China was in a much worser state that any of those 3rd world countries in many aspects. Are you saying post 1970, the reason why these countries did not develop as fast as china is because of colonialism and intervention? You can apply the same arguments to Japan in 45 and Korea in 50. But but but aid? Ok and we send billions to countries all around the world every year.
        Cyph0n 1y ago
        But I just pointed out that China is an exception? Also, China had access to human capital at a scale that no African country had. Japan pre-45 was a world power, and had industrialized by the early 1900s. WW2 was a mere setback. Korea is more of a “miracle” than Japan was, but they also did well to industrialize ASAP. They also didn’t face the brunt of European colonialism.
        1y ago
- delfinom 1y ago
  Eh? They are a country with a culture that values education like a few other asian countries. They were set back by the colonial bullshit of Europe, devastation of WW2 and communist revolutions and so. They would have gotten to the same point as they are today, just longer if anything if any attempt was made to hamper it.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
    You're 100% correct. "Prevented" is too strong of a word (that I borrowed from GP). I would characterize my recommendations as things that could have been done for the US to not fund or encourage the re-rise of China.
  - corimaith 1y ago
    Traditional Confucian Exams were more of elite dispute resolution mechanisms. The idea of practical education is largely introduced by the West.
    - gessha 1y ago
      Which reminds me of this article about the origin of the research university by the Germans: https://asteriskmag.com/issues/10/the-origin-of-the-research-university https://asteriskmag.com/issues/10/the-origin-of-the-research...
- adventured 1y ago
  The inclusion of China in the WTO is what changed everything. The elites thought they'd set up shop in a new, gigantic consumer market and reap the rewards. So they got Clinton to spend his last days in office lobbying very aggressively for China's inclusion into the WTO. China had different plans. Keeping the plunderers out (this time) was one of the smartest moves any nation has made in recorded history. Then the same elites slowly pivoted against China, post realizing they wouldn't be allowed to own China. If we can own you, you're our friend; if we can't own you, you're our enemy. And this is quite obviously not a defense of China's human rights record or anything else, that's not the point. China only mattered (in the enemy sense) when the elites realized they were going to be locked on the outside of the rise.
  - marcosdumay 1y ago
    > The elites thought they'd set up shop in a new, gigantic consumer market and reap the rewards. So... Seems that's exactly what they are getting.
  - fspeech 1y ago
    They didn't keep the foreign corporations out. Having them as on-shore competitors is what keeps their own companies from merely seeking rents. Foreign companies also didn't bring their best products in the beginning out of the fear of getting copied, but that strategy is not sustainable over time as Chinese companies get better at making things.
deadbabe 1y ago
But they didn’t do it, because the current administration can’t get it through their thick skulls that the key advantage the US can have in this world is a monopoly on all the really smart people.
- aleph_minus_one 1y ago
  > [T]he key advantage the US can have in this world is a monopoly on all the really smart people. Dream on ...
lurk2 1y ago
Massive vector for theft of trade secrets and intellectual property. It’s notable that China did not adopt the same policy during the period you are associating with their rise. Indeed, they’ve taken the opposite stance in recent years and (now that they have stolen American IP) have moved to seize control of assets and expel the superfluous foreigners. There is a lesson to be learned there, but it’s contrary to the argument you are trying to make.

ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago

Is that the best way? China's rise had already happened by the 2010s Preventing that could have been prevented in the 70s, 80s, 90s by stopping offshoring, blocking student visas, and prosecuting IP theft.

brookst 1y ago
Those students would have just gone to other countries, written their PhD dissertations there, advanced another country’s tech sector, and the US would have found the pain of isolationism that much sooner. It is not possible to keep core IP secret. HN folks, of all people, should know this. Anything that thousands of people know is de facto public knowledge.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
  Keeping core IP secret is not the issue. The issue is allowing the Chinese to steal IP and then compete in our markets with that stolen IP. >students would have just gone to other countries, written their PhD dissertations there, advanced another country’s tech sector, which other countries specifically? No other country has a tech sector. It's the US hegemony or the China hegemony.
  - FpUser 1y ago
    >"...The issue is allowing the Chinese to steal IP..." I do not think they need permission. There is no force that could order country to recognize IP. Do you really expect all world forever pay rent to few giant corps?
    - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
      Bad reading comprehension. You're talking about recognizing IP, I am talking about stealing IP AND selling stolen IP in our markets. 1st: yes force can be used to discourage the theft of IP. This is merely an obstacle, not a total blocker 2nd: yes force can be used to block IP from our markets. This is actually incredibly trivial and would have been very easy 40-years ago.
      - FpUser 1y ago
        >You're talking about recognizing IP, I am talking about stealing IP ..." If country does not recognize IP then "stealing" is not a theft in their eyes. As for using force to prevent "theft": what force? Military? You might get burned really bad.
        corimaith 1y ago
        A military controlling the flow of goods into its own borders isn't going to "burn bad", it's called customs controls.
        FpUser 1y ago
        >"The issue is allowing the Chinese to steal IP and then compete in our markets with that stolen IP" That was the original message. My understanding of "our markets" was customers of the US which include the US itself, China and many other countries. Sure the US can prohibit importing of China's goods. It can not control what happens in the rest of the world to the degree that it once could.
        ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
        I did specify the 70s 80s and 90s.
        ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
        Sorry no. If you can't imagine how one country couldn't use force to stop another country from stealing IP then you are either not intellectually up to this conversation or not arguing in good faith.
- corimaith 1y ago
  How are you going to gain core IP research if you don't have experience or access to leading edge researchers to pass you knowledge in the first place? Talent is proportional to population, but that only matters if society and state has the infrastructure to raise that talent up. Otherwise Nigeria or Indonesia would be scientific powerhouses, and Iran would have modern fighter jets.
  - Cyph0n 1y ago
    > Otherwise Nigeria or Indonesia would be scientific powerhouses, and Iran would have modern fighter jets. The reason why these statements are not true is because of colonization, delayed industrialization, and Western intervention post-independence. Getting out of this “quicksand” is exceedingly difficult. China did well to industrialize quickly and keep intervention at bay - in fact, you could argue that it making the rest of the world reliant on its industrial capacity helped address the intervention problem.
    - wagwang 1y ago
      This world view is just wrong from top to bottom. Between 1945-1970, China was in a much worser state that any of those 3rd world countries in many aspects. Are you saying post 1970, the reason why these countries did not develop as fast as china is because of colonialism and intervention? You can apply the same arguments to Japan in 45 and Korea in 50. But but but aid? Ok and we send billions to countries all around the world every year.
      - Cyph0n 1y ago
        But I just pointed out that China is an exception? Also, China had access to human capital at a scale that no African country had. Japan pre-45 was a world power, and had industrialized by the early 1900s. WW2 was a mere setback. Korea is more of a “miracle” than Japan was, but they also did well to industrialize ASAP. They also didn’t face the brunt of European colonialism.
        1y ago
delfinom 1y ago
Eh? They are a country with a culture that values education like a few other asian countries. They were set back by the colonial bullshit of Europe, devastation of WW2 and communist revolutions and so. They would have gotten to the same point as they are today, just longer if anything if any attempt was made to hamper it.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
  You're 100% correct. "Prevented" is too strong of a word (that I borrowed from GP). I would characterize my recommendations as things that could have been done for the US to not fund or encourage the re-rise of China.
- corimaith 1y ago
  Traditional Confucian Exams were more of elite dispute resolution mechanisms. The idea of practical education is largely introduced by the West.
  - gessha 1y ago
    Which reminds me of this article about the origin of the research university by the Germans: https://asteriskmag.com/issues/10/the-origin-of-the-research-university https://asteriskmag.com/issues/10/the-origin-of-the-research...
adventured 1y ago
The inclusion of China in the WTO is what changed everything. The elites thought they'd set up shop in a new, gigantic consumer market and reap the rewards. So they got Clinton to spend his last days in office lobbying very aggressively for China's inclusion into the WTO. China had different plans. Keeping the plunderers out (this time) was one of the smartest moves any nation has made in recorded history. Then the same elites slowly pivoted against China, post realizing they wouldn't be allowed to own China. If we can own you, you're our friend; if we can't own you, you're our enemy. And this is quite obviously not a defense of China's human rights record or anything else, that's not the point. China only mattered (in the enemy sense) when the elites realized they were going to be locked on the outside of the rise.
- marcosdumay 1y ago
  > The elites thought they'd set up shop in a new, gigantic consumer market and reap the rewards. So... Seems that's exactly what they are getting.
- fspeech 1y ago
  They didn't keep the foreign corporations out. Having them as on-shore competitors is what keeps their own companies from merely seeking rents. Foreign companies also didn't bring their best products in the beginning out of the fear of getting copied, but that strategy is not sustainable over time as Chinese companies get better at making things.

deadbabe 1y ago

But they didn’t do it, because the current administration can’t get it through their thick skulls that the key advantage the US can have in this world is a monopoly on all the really smart people.

aleph_minus_one 1y ago
> [T]he key advantage the US can have in this world is a monopoly on all the really smart people. Dream on ...

lurk2 1y ago

Massive vector for theft of trade secrets and intellectual property. It’s notable that China did not adopt the same policy during the period you are associating with their rise. Indeed, they’ve taken the opposite stance in recent years and (now that they have stolen American IP) have moved to seize control of assets and expel the superfluous foreigners. There is a lesson to be learned there, but it’s contrary to the argument you are trying to make.