5 ms·

What comparative advantage exists for high technology? I get it for things like agriculture and resources, but what intrinsic barriers are there to computer chi

What comparative advantage exists for high technology? I get it for things like agriculture and resources, but what intrinsic barriers are there to computer chips and cars? Especially when we're talking about the heart of the global supply chain, where there really is a comparative advantage in that standing up a logistical competitor would take decades of focused investment. Anyone who understands China knows that they want to be the master of their own destiny, and China understands that this means self sufficiency when it comes to technology. This is one of the many lessons they learned from the "century of shame". Anyone who thinks they don't want to eventually dominate all technologies in the name of security hasn't really been paying attention.

sudosysgen 2mo ago
There is definitely comparative advantage in certain technologies which depend on a niche supply chain with deep materials science experience, simply due to experience and network economies. China has many such advantages too. Lithography is very hard to dominate because if you want to do so, you have to convince your ecosystems to switch to domestic suppliers. But in the short term, they don't want to as that will hurt their competitiveness. That's why, for many sectors still and for lithography until the bans, there was no domestic program with realistic prospects to ever truly outcompete.
- coderenegade 2mo ago
  None of that is inherent. You could have said the same thing a decade ago about vehicle production, or microelectronics a decade before that, and yet here we are. The lesson we should learn from Comac is that China is quite happy to use its local market as a testbed until the technology is mature, and in the same way that it's only a matter of time before Comac has an internationally certified airframe and comes after the aerospace incumbents, it's also only a matter of time before they catch up in chip fabrication. This isn't about money for them.
  - sudosysgen 2mo ago
    Sure, none of that is inherent. But do note that China never caught up in internal combustion engines. They had to wait for a fundamental paradigm change to catch up, and were not able to copy ICE technology to a satisfactory level. Similarly, China has been able to make serviceable airframes for decades, it's just until now that they're getting close to price competition - and likely Comac will be more expensive for decades to come. My point is moreso that they can succeed in many domains, but it's mechanically unlikely they'll succeed on some domains unless we force their hand. Semis were one of them.
    - coderenegade 2mo ago
      China moved directly to hybrid drivetrains, which is where the future of the internal combustion engine lies. They did this while pushing EV technology, and it gave them a fundamental advantage because low voltage hybrids are not the future of cars. It's also too early to say whether or not they managed to catch up in ICE technology, because it takes time to put 500k kms on millions of drivetrains, and they haven't been selling cars globally at scale for long enough to pass that litmus test. We're also talking about a moving target; if they went straight to hybrids without perfecting traditional engines, does it really matter? I'm not sure that it does when the fundamental technology is largely the same, and they're putting out hybrid drivetrains in pickups that that eclipse the competition in terms of performance. Maybe the longevity isn't there right now, but it seems naive to claim that they never caught up, when they're right there in the thick of it in the current global market, in all drivetrain technologies that matter.
      - sudosysgen 2mo ago
        They didn't go straight, though. Chinese companies have been working for years on ICE. In fact, the largest companies were focused on ICE cars, and many were outcompeted by domestic EV upstarts. Chinese cars have been sold worldwide for decades, they just weren't competitive with western cars even in very poor African countries. We do have a pretty good idea of the quality of the current crop of Chinese ICE engines. They aren't great - I can go into more detail if you want.

sudosysgen 2mo ago

There is definitely comparative advantage in certain technologies which depend on a niche supply chain with deep materials science experience, simply due to experience and network economies. China has many such advantages too. Lithography is very hard to dominate because if you want to do so, you have to convince your ecosystems to switch to domestic suppliers. But in the short term, they don't want to as that will hurt their competitiveness. That's why, for many sectors still and for lithography until the bans, there was no domestic program with realistic prospects to ever truly outcompete.

coderenegade 2mo ago
None of that is inherent. You could have said the same thing a decade ago about vehicle production, or microelectronics a decade before that, and yet here we are. The lesson we should learn from Comac is that China is quite happy to use its local market as a testbed until the technology is mature, and in the same way that it's only a matter of time before Comac has an internationally certified airframe and comes after the aerospace incumbents, it's also only a matter of time before they catch up in chip fabrication. This isn't about money for them.
- sudosysgen 2mo ago
  Sure, none of that is inherent. But do note that China never caught up in internal combustion engines. They had to wait for a fundamental paradigm change to catch up, and were not able to copy ICE technology to a satisfactory level. Similarly, China has been able to make serviceable airframes for decades, it's just until now that they're getting close to price competition - and likely Comac will be more expensive for decades to come. My point is moreso that they can succeed in many domains, but it's mechanically unlikely they'll succeed on some domains unless we force their hand. Semis were one of them.
  - coderenegade 2mo ago
    China moved directly to hybrid drivetrains, which is where the future of the internal combustion engine lies. They did this while pushing EV technology, and it gave them a fundamental advantage because low voltage hybrids are not the future of cars. It's also too early to say whether or not they managed to catch up in ICE technology, because it takes time to put 500k kms on millions of drivetrains, and they haven't been selling cars globally at scale for long enough to pass that litmus test. We're also talking about a moving target; if they went straight to hybrids without perfecting traditional engines, does it really matter? I'm not sure that it does when the fundamental technology is largely the same, and they're putting out hybrid drivetrains in pickups that that eclipse the competition in terms of performance. Maybe the longevity isn't there right now, but it seems naive to claim that they never caught up, when they're right there in the thick of it in the current global market, in all drivetrain technologies that matter.
    - sudosysgen 2mo ago
      They didn't go straight, though. Chinese companies have been working for years on ICE. In fact, the largest companies were focused on ICE cars, and many were outcompeted by domestic EV upstarts. Chinese cars have been sold worldwide for decades, they just weren't competitive with western cars even in very poor African countries. We do have a pretty good idea of the quality of the current crop of Chinese ICE engines. They aren't great - I can go into more detail if you want.