Sure. I didn't say China has done nothing impressive (although it's emissions intensity of manufacturing and other environmental and labor rights records are horrible, which takes a some of the shine off its manufacturing for me, but that blame is equally on western governments and corporations who conspired to circumvent the environmental and labor standards demanded by their populations by farming them out to totalitarian dictatorships but that's a different story). But it's bite does not match its bark when it comes to developing and inventing new ideas and technology.
I'm sorry, I can't take you seriously. Nowhere in the world can match the efficiency of Chinese manufacturing. They can do more with less in a way no other country in the world can, which is the simple truth. Even countries with worse labour standards, even countries with worse environmental regulations (and there are dozens and dozens).
This is simply a product of developing and inventing new ideas and technology, and using them to produce trillions and trillions of dollars of wealth. If it was simply about poor labor rights and environmental regulations they wouldn't be where there are today, as there is a large number of countries with much more permissive environments.
Twenty years ago people said that it was all just because their wages are low. Now their wages are higher than several EU countries and almost all of South America, and they still are doing more with less. There is no other explanation, this is simply because they have expertise, ideas, and innovations that others countries don't or can't put into practice. The bite is absolutely matching the bark.
If there really isn't much innovation and expertise there, everyone else would be doing it. The prize here is in the trillions of dollars.
You can't take me seriously about what? That Chinese manufacturing has very poor emissions intensity and other environmental problems, or other labor and environmental regulations? It has not been able to match other parts of the world in manufacturing when it comes to those metrics.
> This is simply a product of developing and inventing new ideas and technology,
"simply" (also using vast quantities of coal, poor working conditions and other air and water pollution regulations).
> and using them to produce trillions and trillions of dollars of wealth. If it was simply about poor labor rights and environmental regulations they wouldn't be where there are today,
I didn't say it was simple, you are the one who keeps trying to say it is simple. But they definitely achieve competitive advantages that way.
> as there is a large number of countries with much more permissive environments.
Non sequitur.
> Twenty years ago people said that it was all just because their wages are low.
Lots of people say lots of incorrect stuff all the time, not just 20 years ago. This isn't really an argument. Environmental concerns have been high on the radar for a long time.
> Now their wages are higher than several EU countries and almost all of South America, and they still are doing more with less. There is no other explanation, this is simply because they have expertise, ideas, and innovations that others countries don't or can't put into practice.
Their manufacturing industry overall is clearly extremely good in general. Not in all specifics (particularly high-tech sectors) like automotive, aerospace, silicon, etc etc, but as a whole of course they are major leaders in many types of manufacturing.
> The bite is absolutely matching the bark.
Absolutely not in terms of innovation and development of new technology and ideas across all areas.
"But it's bite does not match its bark when it comes to developing and inventing new ideas and technology."
You just had a huge thread of repeating this over an over, and you have never stated why you believe this, what have you counted or measured to arrive at that conclusion? Patents? GDP growth, scientific papers? Is it 'just a feeling'?
Technology leadership and innovation and invention wherever I look. Which yes is anecdotal, but I did repeatedly say this, and gave examples https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29792311.
I just had a huge thread of others repeating over and over that I was wrong, without actually addressing what I wrote. That's why the thread got so huge.
It's like an argument about vaccines between housewives - firstly neither side actually understands the areas being discussed - that evident from how discussion of nuclear technology shaped up.
Secondly the statement is poorly defined - you have different ideas about what counts as 'innovation'.
Third, it is quantitive, but none of the arguments/statements given by either side have any quantities attached.
I don't have a dog in the fight, but if your centered your argument around patents, or GDP growth, or research funding and papers, you would have a more productive discussion.
> I don't have a dog in the fight, but if your centered your argument around patents, or GDP growth, or research funding and papers, you would have a more productive discussion.
No it wouldn't. You clearly haven't understood the discussion or issues if you believe that. I think that's why you're finding it so confusing.
