3 ms·

The west is still ahead of China in both Science and Technology, but they're moving fast and we're slowing down. I'd say that China is moving faster because th

by donaldc 17y ago

The west is still ahead of China in both Science and Technology, but they're moving fast and we're slowing down. I'd say that China is moving faster because they're still catching up. Once they've caught up, I doubt they'll be moving any faster than the West. China has it's problems, but it has one thing that the west does not have, which is the power to make very bold decisions and to realize them. No such thing as turf wars between parties or coalition building to dilute any plans. When the way forward is very clear, as it often is when playing catch-up, this is handy. This isn't as useful once a country has caught up, and needs to figure out the way forward without somewhere else showing the way. At that point, the way forward isn't clear, and discussion and disagreement are useful for arriving at a better solution than one could get from top-down.

jacquesm 17y ago
That's a good point. So you are essentially arguing that as they approach parity they will stagnate again.
- jerf 17y ago
  When I make that point, I make it even stronger: If China was merely growing at the same rate as an established country, that would actually be surprising. Undeveloped countries moving to developed country status should be expected to develop more quickly than developed countries. The reason China may exceed others as a world power is that the developed China will still be five times larger than the US. It will take longer than people who naively project a continuous trend for China think it will take, though. And then there's the matter of India, too, which doesn't strike me as a natural Chinese ally. If you have a hard time understanding why, imagine a time portal to the United States fifty years from now opened up in downtown Manhatten (and suppose they are causally disconnected, parallel universes, so forget sci-fi paradoxes and stuff). Trade would begin, and technology would begin advancing very rapidly in the developed world as we learned how to build fusion reactors (probably) and grabbed their computer tech, bought copies of their educational materials, etc. (Presumably we'd trade for oil or something.) That's the sort of situation the developing world is in; they can buy things essentially decades or centuries (in some sad cases) ahead of their "natural" technology for the price of money, and advance far faster than the people who were at the same level of tech, but were at the apex of the world, did.
  - mediaman 17y ago
    Indeed this is a prediction of Solow's exogenous economic growth models: there are diminishing returns for investment in either capital or labor alone, but linear returns for investment in both. With a country which has had very low capital investment (later growth models separated capital and technology), you will see very high growth rates, which will experience diminishing marginal returns as additional investment is made. Ultimately, you will return to the point where investment in capital, labor or technology have equal returns to each other, so all must be invested in. It is argued that this is where developed nations are today.

by donaldc 17y ago

jacquesm 17y ago

That's a good point. So you are essentially arguing that as they approach parity they will stagnate again.

jerf 17y ago
When I make that point, I make it even stronger: If China was merely growing at the same rate as an established country, that would actually be surprising. Undeveloped countries moving to developed country status should be expected to develop more quickly than developed countries. The reason China may exceed others as a world power is that the developed China will still be five times larger than the US. It will take longer than people who naively project a continuous trend for China think it will take, though. And then there's the matter of India, too, which doesn't strike me as a natural Chinese ally. If you have a hard time understanding why, imagine a time portal to the United States fifty years from now opened up in downtown Manhatten (and suppose they are causally disconnected, parallel universes, so forget sci-fi paradoxes and stuff). Trade would begin, and technology would begin advancing very rapidly in the developed world as we learned how to build fusion reactors (probably) and grabbed their computer tech, bought copies of their educational materials, etc. (Presumably we'd trade for oil or something.) That's the sort of situation the developing world is in; they can buy things essentially decades or centuries (in some sad cases) ahead of their "natural" technology for the price of money, and advance far faster than the people who were at the same level of tech, but were at the apex of the world, did.
- mediaman 17y ago
  Indeed this is a prediction of Solow's exogenous economic growth models: there are diminishing returns for investment in either capital or labor alone, but linear returns for investment in both. With a country which has had very low capital investment (later growth models separated capital and technology), you will see very high growth rates, which will experience diminishing marginal returns as additional investment is made. Ultimately, you will return to the point where investment in capital, labor or technology have equal returns to each other, so all must be invested in. It is argued that this is where developed nations are today.