China Systematically Developing New Technologies

newsblaze writes "China, having recognized there are major gaps in its science and technology arsenal, released their Technology Development Plans. The plans cover five main areas — geology, mechanical engineering, metallurgical engineering and aeronautical engineering. Three areas are prioritized in space technology and six major goals are announced. All this comes after having first set out their 100 Year Vision of Greatness. They appear to be giving themselves a breathing space, telling the world they are interested in cooperation and also giving themselves a major target, in much the same way as John F Kennedy did for the USA."

Comments

What's the fourth main area?

[eggsurplus]

The plans cover five main areas -- geology, mechanical engineering, metallurgical engineering and aeronautical engineering

Re:What's the fourth main area?

[Reason58]

The plans cover five main areas -- geology, mechanical engineering, metallurgical engineering and aeronautical engineering Counting.

Re:What's the fourth main area?

[jimstapleton]

Kindergarten math.

Hey, they did say they were a bit behind!

Re:What's the fourth main area?

[treeves]

Steganography.

Re:What's the fourth main area?

[cybermage]

ruthless efficiency?

Re:What's the fourth main area?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Ecconomic Warfare of course.

This is just a shot fired across the bow of globalization. But since the globalists are all worshipers of Mao, this resurgence of national identity for China will go unnoticed.

Re:What's the fourth main area?

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Surprise?

Re:What's the fourth main area?

[sentientbeing]

and an almost fanatical devotion to the pope.. I mean party.

Re:What's the fourth main area?

[cjdkoh]

they can't reveal the fifth area. if they did then people would know the step that comes before profit. we can't be having that.

Re:What's the fourth main area?

[hazee]

I wasn't expecting the spanish inquisition...

Re:What's the fourth main area?

[happyemoticon]

THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS!

Re:What's the fourth main area?

[hlomas]

Heart

Re:What's the fourth main area?

[Traa]

Suplies?

Re:What's the fourth main area?

[beadfulthings]

What's the fifth main area? Dog poisoning technology.

Re:What's the fourth main area?

[Woy]

Brilliant!

Re:What's the fourth main area?

[DrMrLordX]

Earth!
Fire!
Wind!
Water!
Heart!

GO PLANET!

With your powers combined I am Captain Planet!

Captain Planet, he's our hero,
Gonna take pollution down to zero,
He's our powers magnified,
And he's fighting on the planet side

Captain Planet, he's our hero,
Gonna take pollution down to zero,
Gonna help him put us under,
Bad guys who like to loot and plunder

"You'll pay for this Captain Planet!"

(chanting)
We're the planeteers,
You can be one too!
'Cause saving our planet is the thing to do,
Looting and polluting is not the way,
Hear what Captain Planet has to say:

"THE POWER IS YOURS!!"

Re:What's the fourth main area?

[Clifton Beach]

The plans cover five main areas -- geology, mechanical engineering, metallurgical engineering and aeronautical engineering

Math

Re:What's the fourth main area?

[master_p]

Profit???

Re:What's the fourth main area?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I think you are about 40 years too late. Communism lost. Today's globalists are 110% monopolistic capitalists.

What do you think Lenin's and Mao's version of "communism" was, if not 100% monopolistic capitalism with a single owner? True communism only works in SMALL communities with good communication, the con job Lenin and Mao were running is the natural result of capitalism.

Cultural differences

[lawpoop]

The fact that China is pursuing a 100-year plan for greatness underscores the difference between American and Chinese culture, and shows why American culture is superior. Why bother planning for the next 100 years when the rapture is immanent? Instead, they should be teaching the Bible in schools like we do here, so that they might be saved when Jesus returns.

Re:Cultural differences

[Anonymous Coward]

dude, it's 2007. the rapture was seven years ago.
everyone who had a hangover on jan 1, 2000 was left behind...

Re:Cultural differences

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

Why bother planning for the next 100 years when the rapture is immanent? Instead, they should be teaching the Bible in schools like we do here, so that they might be saved when Jesus returns.

It will no doubt shock you to know this, but the majority of Christians in the world do not believe in the rapture and quite a few of us really have no desire at all for the Bible to be taught in schools. Churches and parents can do the Bible teaching quite nicely on their own. The problem is that the people who do believe in the rapture and want the Bible to be taught in school make an awful lot of noise and while they are in very large numbers in the USA, they are not in the majority in other places. Catholics, Orthodox and other Christian groups totally reject the idea of the rapture as a misunderstanding of the Bible. But I suppose you probably think we all spend our spare time bombing abortion clincs too, don't you?

Re:Cultural differences

[LunaticTippy]

Your joke has an element of sadness. Xianity is the fastest growing religion in China.

Re:Cultural differences

[rbarreira]

That's like telling the dead man "there are not many killers". What good does that do to him?

Re:Cultural differences

[DragonWriter]

The problem is that the people who do believe in the rapture and want the Bible to be taught in school make an awful lot of noise and while they are in very large numbers in the USA, they are not in the majority in other places.

Or even a majority of Christians in the USA. What they are in the US, is very well-organized and connected politically.

Re:Cultural differences

[sgt_doom]

"If they can put a man on the moon, why can't they....?????"

Well, to all the nimrods out there (Not you, Good Citizen lawpoop, I just felt this comment was more appropriate following your intelligent and sarcastic post), the obvious answer to such a rant is:

Because they murdered the fellow who initiated the "man on the moon" project, and those who were connected with his brutal murder (and most likely the murders of MLK and RFK as well) have been in power in the USA for quite some time. 'Nuff said......

Re:Cultural differences

[Sodade]

Isn't it then incumbent on people like you to put real energy into stifiling these whack jobs and doing your very best to distance yourself from their insane worldview?

It's easier when you have a target

[jonnythan]

It's a lot easier to make technological gains when you're essentially trying to copy the technologies already in use in other parts of the world.

Re:It's easier when you have a target

[qwijibo]

It worked well for Japan and the auto industry. They started with making inferior copies cheaply, figured out how to improve the quality without substantially increasing the cost, and now American manufacturers are second rate.

Though, there have been some impressive contributions to the crypto community from chinese researchers recently. They're already ahead of the curve in some fields.

Re:It's easier when you have a target

[Anonymous Coward]

Not just American manufacturers, the German ones (being the major manufacturer of cars, other European countries produce less) are also second rate too, in the meantime -- if you are looking at reliability at least.

Re:It's easier when you have a target

[CyberLord Seven]

It's not that simple.

You have to have a reason for your people to not want unions.

From what I understand Toyota and Nissan take much better care of their employees than GM and Ford. At Toyota and Nissan if you come up with a great idea that will eliminate your responsibilities you do not lose your job!

Of course not all the blame goes to the auto companies. They were working within the framework of the society at large and it's laws. And they were also dealing with their own history towards their own employees.

Re:It's easier when you have a target

[ElAsturiano]

Well, its just like building The Great Library in Civ 3...

Re:It's easier when you have a target

[Slorv]

> That's simply not having unions. BS.

Re:It's easier when you have a target

[Slorv]

Ops, should have been:

> That's simply not having unions.

BS.

Re:It's easier when you have a target

[Vicissidude]

They started with making inferior copies cheaply, figured out how to improve the quality without substantially increasing the cost

Actually, the Japanese also copied their quality improvement program from an American, W. Edwards Deming. We handed them everything they're currently using to put us out of business.

Japan started upon Deming's quality improvement path in 1950. Ford Motor, in contrast, didn't start until 1981. Those facts alone can explain the last 40 years of automotive history.

Re:It's easier when you have a target

[jfuredy]

Though, there have been some impressive contributions to the crypto community from [C]hinese researchers recently. They're already ahead of the curve in some fields. Well, if you lived in China what technology would you work on first and hardest? There's a reason that they have good crypto there.

Re:It's easier when you have a target

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a bit harsh -- it's more accurate to say that the Japanese had the good sense to embrace Deming and then THEY ran with it.

Toyota Lean Production methods (for instance) are far from trivial -- otherwise you'd see Detroit cranking out quality cars as well if it was just a matter of simply "copying" Deming's work.

Re:It's easier when you have a target

[jonnythan]

There's nothing wrong with copying.

I'm talking about the *target technology* essentially already existing somewhere. That's much easier than developing totally new technologies.

Re:It's easier when you have a target

[A beautiful mind]

Exactly. It is a fascinatic topic actually. This technological and economy success was named japanese wonder, signifying their development in the WW2-today period. Why is it that posters seem to think that china is doing some immoral thing by acquiring knowledge?

Re:It's easier when you have a target

[qwijibo]

An overdeveloped sense of entitlement. TV has lead us to believe that we deserve to live in opulent luxury. It's hard to do that if all of the jobs that pay above minimum wage are going to people who are more educated, harder working, more dedicated, and making not much more than our minimum wage to provide them with a very comfortable lifestyle in their homeland.

Re:It's easier when you have a target

[Vicissidude]

More than that, Toyota copied Ford, took Deming's alterations, and ran with that. Toyota had a thirty year head start by the time Ford got its head out of its ass. Even then, Ford didn't get behind Deming like Toyota did. Hard to make those changes when you're already enormous, rather than growing your company that way in the first place.

Re:It's easier when you have a target

[Vicissidude]

It depends on how the knowledge is acquired. Learning engineering, creating companies, and out-competing like the Japanese did is one thing. Planting spies across the world, stealing trade and military secrets, and strong-arming foreign companies and countries like the Chinese do is another thing.

Re:It's easier when you have a target

[Vicissidude]

Entitlement? Yes, I suppose you can use that to justify theft. The rich deserve to have their trade and military secrets plundered.

Re:It's easier when you have a target

[hey!]

The great genius of Japan is that they don't have the last shred if the Not Invented Here syndrome. Same goes for India. Japan didn't start out making cheap copies of goods, they started over after having their industry bombed out. They went from junk to world class way faster than Americans realized, not because they copied, but because they learned. In fact they learned about the best of American innovation faster than Americans did.

American has dreadful NIH and xenophobia. We won't even use the metric system. I heard a guy on Jon Stewarts show talking about changes in US immigration policy away from immigration and towards guest worker program. He memorably said, "The one thing we copy from France, and it has to be their immigration policies."

China once had the kind of NIH and xenophobic attitudes America has been sliding into, and they suffered a century of weakness as a result.

America is still stuck looking inwardly, and to the past. The big irony of a decade or more of conservative ascendancy in US policy is that the conservatives initiatives have managed to demolish one of the conservatisms most cherished values: national sovereignty. National sovereignty doesn't mean the same thing when you are dependent upon others for everything except agriculture, and that done with foreign machines running on foreign oil paid for with currency propped up by foreign treasuries. That's not a xenophobe's nightmare future, that's today.

It's not that this is so bad, this is exactly what we told the world we wanted. The problem is we didn't exactly have much of a plan to manage the transition, other than to take some quick short term profits from labor cost differentials.

Personally, I think its futile to think about putting the genie back in the bottle, because it can't be done without breaking the bottle. But that's exactly what people are going to start demanding once the reality sinks in because we're culturally and poltiically ill equipped to deal with our interdependency with the rest of the world.

The Iraq fiasco may be a blessing in disguise. When we talk about "victory", what we're talking about is the ability to impose our preferred outcomes -- unless there is a new definition of military victory. But we are so over our heads there that even the administration has abandoned its utter contempt of diplomacy. In the end we're either leaving with our tails between our legs or we're going to the rest of the world for help with a humbled attitude. Maybe both. And maybe we'll find out humble pie isn't so hard to swallow now and then.

One of the natural roles for the US in the global economy is as a major center of scientific and technological innovation. But we aren't going to be only such center, and we can't expect to continue as driver of innovation if we pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist or doesn't matter. One thing we can learn from the Japanese is to embrace the alien and learn from it.

Re:It's easier when you have a target

[algoa456]

Spot on - even down to the space suits they have used when sending their people into orbit. As a friend of mine says, "They are good at what they are good at".

They are good a copying, but nothing much has come out of the ancient kingdom - despite all the hype about their old civilization - no doubt there will be a flurry of comments on them inventing many things - but before you write do the following. Look around the room and see what inventions these guys have produced - from the light bulb, to the transistor, to the computer, to the iPod, to the LCD you are using. Sure they are good at refining things, but name one modern invention or discovery they have produced.

Re:It's easier when you have a target

[islandaddy]

Big Deal. Is this high tech venture going to be carried out in factories fueled by burning our used tires! [A Fact] Lets get China concerned with Global Warming not pie in the sky space travel!

Re:It's easier when you have a target

[jandersen]

And it worked quite well for the US too. Let's not forget that once the United States was a backward nation that 'stole' all its technological advances from the British Empire; this went on almost up until the second world war, if I remember correctly.

There is nothing wrong with this - it is called learning from you superiors, and it is what any nation does until it has caught up. Apart from that, China is already ahead of the West in a number of areas, simply because it is relevant for them and not for us; and of course it doesn't help that the current anti-intellectual climate in America tends to stifle research for religious reasons.

In the end it doesn't matter all that much - advances in Chinese science and technology will benefit us all, just like advances in American, European, Indian, Russian, .... technology will.

Re:It's easier when you have a target

[Stephen Ma]

Sure they are good at refining things, but name one modern invention or discovery they have produced.

I would mention the Chinese invention of paper and the printing press. When combined, these two triggered more progress than was achieved in all of human history prior to these inventions. (The incredible impact of the printing press is why the West has tried so hard to steal credit for it, even though Gutenberg was 700 years late, and used many Chinese techniques, such as rice glue, in his system. Slightly more honest Westerners assign Gutenberg credit for the movable-type printing press, but even for that he was over 400 years behind the Chinese.)

But you wanted something "modern". How about "laser cooling", which earned Steven Chu the primary credit for the 1997 Nobel Prize in Physics?

This was for sure not an obvious trick, which is partly why it was worth a Nobel: lasers were famous for zapping things with their heat; who would have thought of using them for cooling things to record low temperatures (microkelvins)!

But the main reason that laser cooling earned Chu a Nobel so quickly (most winners have to wait for decades) is that once you cool things down to microkelvins, quantum effects start becoming visible in macroscopic amounts of matter. Laser cooling is already responsible for an almost unending stream of breakthroughs: Bose-Einstein condensates, quantum computers, slowing light, near-field optics, new phases of matter, et cetera, et endless cetera.

And remember, China is just getting started.

Re:It's easier when you have a target

[algoa456]

Firstly paper was invented by the Egyptians - I had an arguement with another Chinese person and so we looked it up and sure enough the Egyptians invented it - remember papyrus. The printing press was invented by China, but never really exploited - so that is one invention - very good. So they have about 100,000 to go. As for Chu and the Laser - ok - but they did not invent the laser. If Gabor and his ilk had not invented the laser Chu would not have been able to do his work. There are fundamental inventions - transistor, aeroplane, laser, radio, and then there are parasitic inventions that feed off the main invention. I am waiting for the fundamental inventions not the parasitic ones.......... You say they have just started, but whenever I talk to Chinese they tell me that they have an ancient civilization, 5,000 years old. I guess they are just resting after inventing the printing press.

Re:It's easier when you have a target

[algoa456]

You miss the point entirely - it is and was Western civilization that created the modern world. The US is really an extension of Europe in the sense that it was colonized by Europeans. And then they picked up and continued.... from the Greeks until now. Sure there were bad patches; sure there were some inventions done by other civilizations, but the bulk of inventions that created the modern world were done by the West. No other culture comes even close (even if you hate you own culture - as trendy leftists do) - you have to admit that from understanding the world is round to the big bang, inventing calculus and quantum physics and computer chips and transistors and electrodynamics and telescopes ..... no other culture comes close.

Re:It's easier when you have a target

[Stephen Ma]

remember papyrus

You might have mentioned sheepskin too, because that was almost as easy to make. Papyrus is made by mashing plants together by hand, carefully aligning the fibers for maximum adhesion. Needless to say, that is a slow and very expensive process.

The point is not to have someting to write on, because even the cavemen had something, namely rock surfaces. The point is to have cheap, abundant, and light writing surfaces. Sumerian clay tablets had the first two properties, but your back would break if you tried to carry a book.

You might say that paper was the first product of mass manufacturing! Of course, a cheap writing medium was a prerequisite for the printing press: there is no point in being able to print a zillion copies of a book if the cost of the papyrus alone would break the bank.

By the way, the invention of paper was unique: it appeared in China by 200 BC, during the Han Dynasty; in Europe 1600 years later, people were still scraping sheepskin for writing material. Papermaking was clearly a very nonobvious process, for which the world owes China an extremely deep debt.

Paper and the printing press come as a tandem; and together, they revolutionized the world. You don't have to take my word for it; take the word of Francis Bacon, perhaps the first European scientist:

It is well to observe the force and effect and consequences of discoveries. These are to be seen nowhere more conspicuously than in those three which were unknown to the ancients, and of which the origin though recent is obscure; namely, printing, gunpowder, and the magnet. For these things have changed the whole face and state of things throughout the world; the first in literature, the second in warfare, the third in navigation; whence have followed innumerable changes; insomuch that no empire, no sect, no star, seems to have exerted more power and influence over human affairs than these changes. -- Novum Organum (1620)

Bacon thought the critical inventions were "recent", so he was probably unaware that they all came from China.

I am waiting for the fundamental inventions not the parasitic ones

Every invention builds on previous work, so your "nonparasitic" invention is never going to come -- from anywhere.

Re:It's easier when you have a target

[algoa456]

From Wiki "Papyrus is an early form of paper made from the pith of the papyrus plant, Cyperus papyrus, a wetland sedge that was once abundant in the Nile Delta of Egypt. Papyrus usually grows 2-3 meters (5-9 feet) tall, although some have reached as high as 5 meters (15 feet). Papyrus is first known to have been used in ancient Egypt (at least as far back as the First dynasty), but it was also widely used throughout the Mediterranean region, as well as inland parts of Europe and south-west Asia." Truth is paper was first manufactured in Egypt and then refined by other cultures including China (no matter what your Chinese history books tell you (I heard the claim to have invented golf too) ...... why make such a fuss about paper. What about the thousands and thousands of other inventions from the West

Re:It's easier when you have a target

[Stephen Ma]

Not so. You might imagine that paper was derived from papyrus because of the similarity of the names (assigned by Westerners, you will note). But they are not at all alike. Do you have any idea how paper is made? Any idea at all?

The fact is that the West was unable to duplicate the invention of paper: for 1600 years after the stuff became common in China, Europeans were still gluing papyrus reeds together or scraping sheepskin. Paper was an extremely nonobvious and great invention.

why make such a fuss about paper. What about the thousands and thousands of other inventions from the West

Some inventions are more important than others. Without China's contributions (paper and printing) the Western Renaissance would almost certainly not have gotten started. The West would now be stuck in the Dark Ages, while China, armed with paper and printing, might have had another renaissance of its own (it's had several already, and almost had an industrial revolution -- twice -- before the West started exploring the world).

And the fact that you try so hard to deny China any credit is proof that, deep down, you realize how important the Chinese inventions were.

Re:It's easier when you have a target

[algoa456]

Thou doth protest too much - you build your case on purely one thing and fight for it dearly as if nothing else mattered. That is because there is nothing else to fight for - occasional Nobel prize winners aside Chinese inventiveness is poor - for a civilzation 5000 years old the inventions are pretty limited. The Greeks, for example, produced significantly more in their time than than China has during it entire life. I employ many of them - you should be Ma Shen - or something clearly Steven is only your Western name. Fact is that despite their cleverness they seem to be unable to think out of the box - which I guess what is needed for creating new concepts and ideas. They have a one track view of things (like you and the paper thing). There is a lot of discussion around this area look for example at http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sft2.htm Politically incorrect as it is it may be that Chinese and Japanese are genetically not as good at generating new ideas. But they are much better at refinement of ideas and careful close work. Much more focus, patience and concentration than Westerners. I mean it is odd that one fifth of the world's population, with clearly high intelligence have produced so few good ideas - your examples notwithstanding.

Re:It's easier when you have a target

[Stephen Ma]

When you lose an argument on all the merits, you fall back on general insult and disparagement. Way to go buddy.

You are plain ignorant. The Greeks produced more than China? Don't make me laugh. In mathematics, China kept up, on its own, with all of the West and was at times far ahead. And in literature, China leaves the Greeks, the Romans -- and in fact, all of the West combined -- in the dust. The only reason you don't know this is that you probably can't read Chinese. If you could, you would know about the 300,000 ancient volumes carefully preserved at the Beijing National Library -- and that is only a small fraction of what has been published in China.

The West leapt ahead of China for one main reason: because the Mongol invasion of the West brought along a huge amount of Chinese technology. And I do mean huge: see the seven massive volumes of Joseph Needham's Science and Civilisation in China. And remember Francis Bacon's conclusion in 1620, that Chinese technology (but he wasn't aware that it was Chinese technology) had completely changed his world.

The Mongol invasion (ca 1200 AD) was a disaster for the countries that were devastated, but in the long run it caused the invigoration of the West. China did not benefit from a similar cross pollination -- until recently. I expect China to resume leading the world in many areas, very soon.

Re:It's easier when you have a target

[algoa456]

So you really believe the Chinese did all this. Good luck to you. Talk about falling back on the unproveable.... 300,000 ancient volumes in the Beijing library. I guess all knowledge is in those books and the West simply borrowed and stole from them via the Mongol hordes around 1200 AD or so. But we don't know that it was stolen because we cannot read Chinese. (Now unveiled for the world to see: Secrets of the Hoo Flung Dung radio transmitter shown in the Beijing archives; the Ping Pong secrets of aircraft design now revealed: Not Pythagoras, but Confucious discoved the Pythagorean theorem and geometry. Arab numerals were stolen from the Chinese). As I said, good luck to you I guess that is how you justify the situation instead of looking at it as objectively as you can. What a joke, what a cultural patriot. Hilarious. It was not the Romans and Greeks and or even the Arabs and Egyptians, but the Chinese. Hooray for the lego men. Have a good day mate. End of conversation.

Re:It's easier when you have a target

[Stephen Ma]

So the racist now is out in the open for all to see. And to judge.

Much as a bigot like you may hate to admit it, the fact is that Chinese technology did completely change the Western world. And as I have said before, you don't have to take my word for it: just read Francis Bacon, one of the first European scientists.

Even if you ignore Bacon (bigots are good at ignoring uncomfortable facts), you would have to explain why nearly every historian names the printing press as the trigger for Europe's exit from the Dark Ages.

Your only chance to recover your smug feelings of European superiority is to insist that China did not invent the the papermaking process and the printing press. You would have to do some fast talking (or lying) because the evidence is overwhelmingly against you.

Hooray

[stratjakt]

America needs more propoganda like this.

They got any plans to start respecting human rights?

Re:Hooray

[JordanL]

I think that comes sometime after the brain control waves.

I know!

[Anonymous Coward]

The plans cover five main areas -- geology, mechanical engineering, metallurgical engineering and aeronautical engineering

Wait for it...

WAIT FOR IT...


|
Spoiler
|

Uranus

edit: FIFTH

[eggsurplus]

Ironic

Re:edit: FIFTH

[Walter Carver]

Actually it gave it a slight touch of irony which made it more funy.

this is all well and nice but

[xlurker]

it would be nicer if they also started investing more interest in human rights, democratic ideals, freedom of speech, free press, no censorship, political pluralism, open competition of ideas and on and on and on.

Science is a system and culture based on open discourse, accountability and merit. A culture that strives for good science should also honour these values in itself.

Re:this is all well and nice but

[192939495969798999]

Forget China, I'd like to see the USA start "investing more interest in human rights, democratic ideals, freedom of speech, free press, no censorship, political pluralism, open competition of ideas and on and on and on!"

Re:this is all well and nice but

[Brandybuck]

Yes. Once they get those, then the progress will follow. Science and technology doesn't happen in a vacumn, it happens in an environment where men are free to engage in intellectual curiosity.

This program recalls to mind China's earlier experiment with statist progress. "The Great Leap Forward" was an unmitigated disaster.

Re:this is all well and nice but

[cyfer2000]

China just passed the property law. I think this is a big step.

Re:this is all well and nice but

[homer_s]

Yeah, it will also be good if the US and UK stop invading countries, supporting dictators, etc

I don't disagree with you about China, but pretending that the West has some sort of moral high ground is ridiculous considering their acts in the last 300-400 years.

Re:this is all well and nice but

[hax4bux]

Some science leadership would also be nice

Re:this is all well and nice but

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom cannot be achieved through any "investment" by government. Freedom is defined by the lack of organized coercion, not the presence of it!

Human rights preceded government, not the other way around. Human rights are derived from human nature -- first and foremost the right to self-ownership of mind AND body -- not from authority as government wants you to believe. Authority, derived from coercion, is the logical opposite of freedom.

human rights ... freedom of speech, free press, no censorship ... open competition of ideas

Each one of those ideals (note that I excepted "democratic ideals" and "political plurism") will be achieved ONLY by reducing -- not expanding -- the powers of government. By calling for "investment" you are falling straight into the trap prepared by the power elite who control government: they want you to believe, of course, that your ideals can only be achieved by appealing to authority -- not by abolishing authority!

While I strongly agree with your ideals of freedom, I strongly suggest considering just what government is before calling for even more of it. Government is coercion, plain and simple. Everything and anything government does is backed by force or the threat of force -- quite unlike the relationship you have with your friends and family. Clearly, government is the enemy of freedom, not the champion of it as the power elite want you to believe.

Re:this is all well and nice but

[LynnwoodRooster]

Having lived in Germany (Munich, Wolfostrasse), Chile (Vina Del Mar, Catorce Norte by the mall), China (Minhang District, Shanghai, Hualin Lu), and the US (mainly in the Seattle, WA area) I can assure that - as bad as you think it is here - it is MUCH worse in all those other countries.

People who habitually decry our supposed lack of "human rights" or "freedoms" simply are ignorant of the truth. Get out and travel, live in other countries, and learn what we really have in the US.

How you got modded insightful I'll never know... Fear and Loathing in the US...

Re:this is all well and nice but

[be-fan]

I fail to see where human rights, freedom of the press, or political pluralism factor in to (technical!) open discourse, accountability, and merit. While the western world created the scientific process concurrently with certain beliefs about social justice, there is no evidence to suggest that science as a process is reliant on those beliefs.

And of course, I should note that a large percentage of the scientists in the US are working in fields that we'd like to sweep under the rug from a social justice point of view. The field of aerospace engineering, for example, is completely beholden to the American war machine (DOD). As an aerospace engineer myself, I'd be perfectly content to work on something like a cruise missile, which my philosophical side considers to be a horrible and cowardly weapon, for the simple reason that social justice doesn't pay for expensive research, but weapons of mass destruction do.

So don't think for a second that social justice is necessary for science to be effective. Heck, in this day and age where science has become tremendously expensive, a lot of really good science is done by organizations (pharmecutical companies, oil companies, chemical companies, defense contractors, etc) whose overall contributation to social justice is not... positive.

Re:this is all well and nice but

[X86Daddy]

it would be nicer if they also started investing more interest in human rights, democratic ideals, freedom of speech, free press, no censorship, political pluralism, open competition of ideas and on and on and on.

You cite a variety of freedom related issues and mix in an (emphasis mine) political / structural bit, assuming it's part of the ultimate goal of a free society. I heard a beautiful statement the other day from Jacques Fresco along the lines of "Civilization is the goal, but we don't really have civilization yet, it's in progress." I think democracy can work very well, and given history, better than most other systems. However, it obviously has its flaws and is easily endangered.

Every time I've been to China, I'm amazed at how rapidly they're making progress... how amazing the shift is from the '80s to what it is now. Democracy would yield far more stagnation. In a country like ours, where we all have AC, TV, and McD's, stagnation can be comfortable... In a place like China, where there's still huge ammount of variation and a gigantic poor / agrarian sector, rapid change, the kind that comes from an oligarchy, will result in more happy, thriving people sooner than slow, "natural" progress aforded by Democracy. I would not be surprised to see an emergent political/governmental method demonstrate its superiority to what we have in the next 20-50 years. As with all things, such "superiority" would be by some measures and not all. I personally chose freedom of speech and less censorship (don't kid yourself on US being totally free), than the oddly rapid pace of progress in China at the moment though, but I certainly don't count our political system to be one of our country's great treasures.

In Democracy, faux issues are fought over and rehashed endlessly to distract us from the fact that our government isn't doing its proper, boring jobs. The Democratic Ideal requires ideal humans to operate... given that the concept includes all of any set of humans, it is designed to reach less than its own ideal... there's some kind of funky recursion there. Anyway, long term planning like this is virtually impossible to produce in our system, and if it were produced, even less possible to adhere to. Just something to think about...

Re:this is all well and nice but

[lawpoop]

"People who habitually decry our supposed lack of "human rights" or "freedoms" simply are ignorant of the truth. Get out and travel, live in other countries, and learn what we really have in the US."

Myabe we have it so good here *because* we are hyper-vigiliant and extremely suspicious of anything that remotely reeks of less human rights and freedom.

BTW, did you know that we lock up a greater percentage of our population that the Soviet Union did?

Re:this is all well and nice but

[LynnwoodRooster]

Myabe we have it so good here *because* we are hyper-vigiliant and extremely suspicious of anything that remotely reeks of less human rights and freedom.

That may be, buy hyperbolic responses about how we're worse than China don't lend any credibility to your argument.

BTW, did you know that we lock up a greater percentage of our population that the Soviet Union did?

I'm not sure I buy that claim at all... Maybe it looks bad for the US right now because we have this annoying tendency to not kill a significant percentage of our prisoners in the first place - they tend to live out their terms, unlike what happened to literally tens of millions in the USSR. I mean, if we just killed half our prison population, we'd have a lower incarceration rate, AND still lag the USSR in terms of prisoners killed...

Re:this is all well and nice but

[sunwolf]

Science and technology doesn't happen in a vacumn, it happens in an environment where men are free to engage in intellectual curiosity.

...and as long as there are women do all the cooking, laundry, dishes, grocery shopping, and babysitting, aye?

I ain't free to intellectualate until my woman makes me a sammich.

Re:this is all well and nice but

[WED Fan]

BTW, did you know that we lock up a greater percentage of our population that the Soviet Union did?

Nice try, comrade. Folks, you just witnessed an exemplar case of making statistics say what you want.

We, in the USA, lock up our criminals, not our politically undesireable. We don't send entire families to gulags. We don't execute or exile our Jews, gays, and minorities. Were exiles (internal) counted in your prison figures? I bet not.

Re:this is all well and nice but

[Brandybuck]

I beg your pardon? I used the word "men" as the generic noun referring to human beings of both genders.

Re:this is all well and nice but

[lawpoop]

"We, in the USA, lock up our criminals, not our politically undesireable."

Every society defines its own crime. The "political undesirable" were criminals, in Soviet Russia. What is wrong with American society that we have so many criminals? Are there more criminals, or more *crimes* -- behaviors that in the past did not result in imprisonment, but now do?

Are things really getting worse on the street, or are three-strikes laws and 0-tolerance drug policies for non-violent offenders locking up people who are otherwise productive members of society?

This CS Monitor article says that we now lead the world in incarceration: "More than 5.6 million Americans are in prison or have served time there, according to a new report by the Justice Department released Sunday. That's 1 in 37 adults living in the United States, the highest incarceration level in the world."

" We don't send entire families to gulags. We don't execute or exile our Jews, gays, and minorities. Were exiles (internal) counted in your prison figures? I bet not."

You know what? You might be right. We might not actually have worse incarceration rates than Soviet Russia. But I'm sick of not being the worst. I believe that America is the greatest country on Earth. I think we should have the lowest incarceration rate in the world, right now, not just lower than Soviet Russia.

This ABC article says that "The United States has incarcerated 726 people per 100,000 of its population, seven to 10 times as many as most other democracies. The rate for England is 142 per 100,000, for France 91 and for Japan 58. " Why are we getting beaten by Japan, France, and England? Why aren't we on top?

Re:this is all well and nice but

[asninn]

I believe that America is the greatest country on Earth. [...] Why are we getting beaten by Japan, France, and England? Why aren't we on top?

Um... are you really so stupid that you can't see that you're *NOT* the greatest country on Earth[1]? No country is; they're all just temporary and (even compared to human history) comparatively short-lived apparitions, and while they're certainly useful, they're not per se "great" - ever.

It's important to understand this so you can understand that there is no entitlement (and I mean absolutely NONE) to anything for any country, ever. You want to be the first, the best, the greatest? Work on it! Stop spouting bullshit like "we're the greatest country on Earth, we deserve to be the first in everything" and admit that you have a problem, since if you don't do that, you can't fix it.

And FWIW, stop believing that you're special, too. There's more than 200 countries on Earth (and a bunch existed in the past that don't anymore), and *none* ever had a slogan along the lines of "we're the second greatest country in the world, after the USA, who naturally are greater than us foreign pigs".

Seriously, people like you are what's wrong with the USA (and other countries, too, naturally; the USA do not have a monopoly on idiocy, but since you're apparently from the USA, I'm focussing on that particular country). You just want to make me puke.

1. Not to mention the fact that "America" is a continent, not a country: the country is called "the USA". My friends in Brazil and Colombia would probably not be thrilled if you told them that they're not from America, for instance; it'd be like the UK calling themselves "Europe" and then saying that the French, or the Italians, or the Germans, or the Swedes or whoever aren't.)

Typical mistake

[Colin Smith]

They'll spend a fortune developing research resources when they could have just announced a prize for a winner and allowed business to get on with it.

Still. Just goes to show you can't tell politicians, they need to be controlling things. Same the world over.

Re:Typical mistake

[king-manic]

They'll spend a fortune developing research resources when they could have just announced a prize for a winner and allowed business to get on with it.

Still. Just goes to show you can't tell politicians, they need to be controlling things. Same the world over.

A free market is not the answer to everything. It does some things well (evolve good consumer products) and some things poorly (evolve new technology). it tends to increment whats there and move towards what is pofitable. some research needs to be doen by the state because private enterprise will nto fund it.

Re:Typical mistake

[Colin Smith]

some research needs to be doen by the state because private enterprise will nto fund it. This is just dogma without basis in fact. Some of the most innovative and inventive universities are private.

Meh! Seriously.

[WED Fan]

China is in the process of reverse engineering, embracing and extending, and using purchased technology to come up to par with the rest of the world.

"New" technologies are a bit of a stretch.

When I worked at Cymer and Lam Research, we had tons of Chinese engineers and scientists who, although not stated, were placed in U.S. corporations for what amounted to industrial espionage. Well, espionage by cooperation for those that weren't out-right spies.

Yes, the Chinese are advancing, but "new" is a strong term. Maybe "new for them"?

Re:Meh! Seriously.

[zappepcs]

I'd mod you up if I had points....
I get a list of recalled products on a regular basis and >90% of those are manufactured in China. I don't really think that China is up to the standard that you need to be on par, never mind above par with the rest of the world.

The fact that there are reports of thousands of industrial spies in North America from China backs up what you say. Without political and social reform, China is a boiling pot that is about to spill over and put the fire out beneath it.

Re:Meh! Seriously.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

China is in the process of reverse engineering, embracing and extending, and using purchased technology to come up to par with the rest of the world.

I can't speak for all subjects, but have you seen China's internet backbone diagrams? It is a three-tiered full mesh out of a textbook. Would that the US would aspire to bring out communications infrastructure up to the same standard.

Re:Meh! Seriously.

[Red Flayer]

Have you taken a look at the top research graduate schools in the US recently? Have you noticed the change in distribution of nationalities over the past couple decades?

China is developing quite a lot of top researchers in many fields, and it's hubris to think that we'll always be technologically ahead of China. The way things are going, they'' soon have greater resources dedicated research (if they don't already), as well as some of the top minds in almost every discipline.

One other note -- isn't this announcement pretty much a statement that they are poised to leap ahead, rather than play catch-up?

stealth technology

[cyfer2000]

Apparently. But most people simply couldn't see it.

We can all breathe easier

[Volatile_Memory]

If you can't trust the Red Chinese, who can you trust? Besides, they don't plan to crush us for 100 years! That's like 700 in dog-years.

v.m

The fifth one gets revealed next season

[wiredog]

After the Dylan song finishes playing.

You can't impose liberty. You grow it.

[Colin Smith]

human rights, democratic ideals, freedom of speech, free press, no censorship, political pluralism, open competition of ideas and on and on and on. These things will all come with a middle class who demand them. You have to build that middle class up first. This is what a lot of people don't get. It's the middle class, who are financially independent, not the working class who demand change. Funnily enough, it's money which allows freedom to flourish.

Re:You can't impose liberty. You grow it.

[tempestdata]

I disagree. I'm not saying you're wrong, but from what I've seen (yes its my subjective view point) financial wealth breeds apathy. I've seen this in more than one country and more than one society. The middle class and the rich by definition have something to loose. They are the last people to want any kind of uncertainty and change always brings uncertainty. The middle class and the rich would only throw their weight in to help the poor if they themselves had something to loose by not doing so. America is a great example of apathy due to financial wealth. I read this somewhere, (I cant remember where, so cant attribute it correctly, but I wont take credit for it) "The Chinese government has basically made a deal with its people, let it retain its place of power and in return it will bring them financial wealth". That is exactly what has been happening in China. People have been trading freedom for prosperity. There are thousands of protests in China each year, but its not the middle class and the rich protesting.. it's the poor who haven't benefited from China's prosperity.

Re:You can't impose liberty. You grow it.

[khallow]

You have a reason for your disagreement? My take is that it's the opposite. The wealthy in the US are the most politically active.

Re:You can't impose liberty. You grow it.

[Brandybuck]

So you're saying if a society doesn't have a sufficiently large middle class, that they must accept totalitarianism instead? Could it be instead, that a large middle class arises out of freedom? That it is freedom that diminishes the power of the aristocracy while simultaneously reducing destitution?

Re:You can't impose liberty. You grow it.

[Apotsy]

Yes, but their goal is to either preserve the status quo, or actively restrict freedom of the lower classes.

Re:You can't impose liberty. You grow it.

[meringuoid]

The middle class and the rich by definition have something to loose. They are the last people to want any kind of uncertainty and change always brings uncertainty. The middle class and the rich would only throw their weight in to help the poor if they themselves had something to loose by not doing so.

"Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!"

Maybe, but the leaders of the revolution are usually comfortable middle-class intellectuals and student cadres, people freed from the daily necessity of earning their bread and with the leisure time to, say, debate ideology and distribute progressive literature.

The workers do have a great deal to lose. The British miners in the 1980s were highly motivated, politically informed and highly idealistic, but enough of them were prepared to scab once they saw their families suffering because of the strike; in the end Thatcher won. A 25% drop in the rich man's pay means he drives a smaller car and goes on holiday only once a year, or only within his home continent. A 25% drop in the worker's pay means his children go hungry. Not to mention that the rich man's wealth gives him substantially greater resources which he can use to make a difference.

Re:You can't impose liberty. You grow it.

[tempestdata]

Yes. I am sure that the rich as very politically active (albeit in a different way). Through corruption, cronyism, gifts and other means, the rich in China are very politically active. But the rich use their wealth to make the existing authority act favorably towards them. When they do try to use their wealth to defy the authority, Mikhail Khodorkovsky stands out as a warning to all. The rich are concerned in perpetuating their wealth and status, as long as the government can be coerced into letting them achieve that goal, why on Earth would they want to challenge it?

Re:You can't impose liberty. You grow it.

[tempestdata]

You are absolutely right, the workers will throw their weight in if they have something to lose financially. The scenario you described is in support of my argument. They were not fighting for a different system of government or a freer society or any such abstract concept. They were fighting for financial well being. If the chinese government were to suddenly impoverish its middle class, they would surely rise up against it. But that is not the case, China's present government is creating a middle class, not destroying it.

Re:You can't impose liberty. You grow it.

[CodeBuster]

"Economic freedom is a necessary, though not a sufficient, condition for political freedom."

from Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman

Re:You can't impose liberty. You grow it.

[Vicissidude]

The poor throughout history are working enormous numbers of hours to barely pay their bills. The poor need their jobs, so they focus on those jobs and keeping their bosses happy, who generally tend to be the wealthy they would be agitating against. Further, poor children are generally put to work early, don't get educated, and don't value education, which would give them the tools to see the problems around them. In short, the poor don't have time nor the inclination nor the ability to start revolutions.

Only when people reach the middle class do they have the free time to sit back, look around, and reflect upon the conditions around them. They have time to read books and get educated on the world around them. They have time to see the misery in peoples' lives and can imagine a better world. They can look at their poor friends and family and empathize with their plight since they either came from that group or could easily be part of that group.

It's much harder for the middle class to empathize with the rich since the disparity tends to be enormous. Further, the rich often flaunt their money and insult the people around them, making them despicable in the eyes of just about everyone not in that social group.

Yes, money does allow freedom to flourish. And that money needs to be spread around to a large group of people in the middle, not focused in a small group at the top.

Re:You can't impose liberty. You grow it.

[be-fan]

The poor have never contributed anything to any society, and they never will. The poor are the biggest danger to democracy, precisely because they have nothing to lose. They are easily appeased by corrupt governments that will give them temporary handouts by taking away from more productive elements of society. I don't disagree that the upper classes in wealthy countries can get apathetic, but at the same time there are very few examples of truely free societies which are not dominated by the interests of the middle and upper class.

Name a single society in history where the lower classes were the driving force for democracy? The democratic revolutions in the West (the United States, Britain, France) were driven by the interests of the commercial elite. Now, list the countries where corrupt governments came to power by making empty promises to the poor, who were only too happy to believe whatever they heard? Latin America, South-East Asia, and Africa are full of examples.

Re:You can't impose liberty. You grow it.

[Yvanhoe]

May I be the first to point out that a middle class exist in China and already has the size of the US population ?

Re:You can't impose liberty. You grow it.

[TheModelEskimo]

I read this somewhere, (I cant remember where, so cant attribute it correctly, but I wont take credit for it)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tankman/in terviews/schell.html
Do a text search for "doors" on that page - should be the first hit.

I read the exact same thing about the government of Iran through another media outlet, but I can't remember where it was.

Re:You can't impose liberty. You grow it.

[Colin Smith]

So you're saying if a society doesn't have a sufficiently large middle class, that they must accept totalitarianism instead I'm not saying it's inevitable but basically it's the middle class which drive freedom. In Cambodia, the middle class were the first victims of Pol Pot. He executed them in order to prevent counter revolution. Without a large middle class, the rich will tend to dominate the poor.

Money provides freedom. The reality is that without money you are essentially a serf, in thrall to employers simply to survive. The middle class are more free than the lower classes because they can afford to go to university, be educated, to travel, to change jobs, to take time.

Re:You can't impose liberty. You grow it.

[dominion]

Sweden

You make the mistake of thinking that there is only political democracy, but ignore the push for economic democracy.

Other than that, your classism is blinding.

Re:You can't impose liberty. You grow it.

[be-fan]

Democracy has a traditionally very well-defined meaning, and economic equality isn't part of it. Democracy is a *political* system designed to ensure *political* freedom.

As for classism, that has nothing to do with it. I don't hate poor people, that would be irrational. However, I don't have the ridiculous inclination to hold them up as paragons of virtue as so many people tend to do.

Poverty (I mean real poverty --- remember we're talking about China here) deadens any higher faculties of the mind. When 100% of your daily effort is spent merely on survival, there is no time to develop the social consciousness necessary to uphold a free society. Now, one could argue that your average American doesn't have much of a social consciousness, its not as if they spend their leisure time studying history and philosophy, and you would be correct in saying that. However, your average American is a intellectual giant compared to most truly poor people. American school children spend at least a dozen years being properly socialized, learning about history, writing, etc. Even if most Americans can't tell you exactly what Thomas Jefferson wrote about, they remember the basic ideas he espoused (even if only as a result of twelve years of socialization in school!) and that understanding shared cultural history does impact the way they think and act.

I originally come from Bangladesh. Bangladesh is a country where almost 60% of the population cannot read. If you think that those people have any democratic ideals, your comfortable position in life has blinded your judgement. When someone cannot so much as read, how can one be expected to hold any high-minded democratic ideals? As ignorant as your average American (or westerner in general) may be, he's a fundamentally different creature as an element of a democratic society. If you're wondering why democracy has completely floundered in poor countries, you have your reason.

Democracy is not an inborn instinct in human beings. Westerners like to say that all people desire to be free, but that's not really true. All people desire to be treated with a certain minimum dignity (and that minimum can be very low indeed), but that's not what democracy is. Democratic ideals imply not just freedom for oneself, but ensuring the (social, religious, etc) freedom of those around you. If you think villagers in Bangladesh who cannot read have any ideas about ensuring the religious freedom of individuals in their community, you're deluded. The entire mindset of such communities is rooted, often out of necessity, in a strict social and religious conformity completely at odds with democratic ideals. So no, democracy is not an ingrained element of human thinking --- it's a social construction of successful societies that have achieved a level of prosperity where the security and stability of a rigid communal social structure is no longer necessary for survival. Members of democratic societies must be socialized into the required mode of thinking, and the root of the problem with the poor is that they generally lack this socialization. Though the more successful classes of society may make poor stewards of democracy, their socialization and desire to protect the social system that makes their economic success possible make them far better at the job than the poor.

Re:You can't impose liberty. You grow it.

[be-fan]

I should also point out that your example of Sweden is a poor one. Sweden is arguably less dominated by the interests of the upper and middle classes, but the lower classes in Sweden are quite well-off in the grand scheme of things. Sweden achieved this condition by instituting a welfare state long after it had become economically prosperous, so the resulting income redistribution had the effect of leaving everybody pretty well-off and lifting up the poor. However, we're not talking about Sweden, we're talking about China, a country where the sheer volume of poverty is staggering. An income redistribution system in China would hardly effect the level of poverty at all, while decimating the economically productive middle and upper classes.

The idea of developing nations emphasizing economic productivity before social equality is a sound one. It's no great comfort to be an equal in a land of paupers. As sad as it is, social justice is largely a luxury enjoyed by those countries whose prosperity guarantees their basic survival. Empirically, there is an extreme correlation between economically prosperous countries and those with just (relatively) societies. Almost all of the western nations had highly-developed economies long before they implemented modern democratic systems. Indeed, it was their prosperity that provided the impetus for democratic reform. Expecting China to be any different in this regard is foolish.

Re:You can't impose liberty. You grow it.

[khallow]

You made the claim that the wealthy were politically apathetic. Now, we see that isn't true. Even if we restrict our attention to legitimate politics in the US, IMHO we still see that the wealthy are inordinately involved. At the simplest level, they're more likely to vote. This is all based on the simple fact that the wealthy simply have more at stake than the poor do.

Mikhail Khodorkovsky is actually a good example of the drawbacks of a business based heavily on politics for profit. He exploited the Yeltsin auctions of public companies to build a huge conglomerate. But when political power shifted to someone else, he fell out of favor and had those assets seized. Unless Putin (or someone else) can become "president for life" (and currently the Russian Federation Constitution still prevents that from happening), then there will further transfers of power which will continue to dillute the power of the greedier political players.

It's not pretty and there's no real reason to expect it to lead to genuine democracy in the near future, But even heavily authortarian societies (as long as they have turnover among whoever decides policy) have some limits to the extent of corruption and cronyism that they will endure.

Re:You can't impose liberty. You grow it.

[khallow]

You may not like their motives or means, but they are politically active contrary to the assertion I was replying to.

Re:You can't impose liberty. You grow it.

[dominion]

The poor have never contributed anything to any society, and they never will.

This is a textbook example of classism, you can't deny that. You're robbing a whole group of people of not only their historical impact, but also robbing them of their agency. Poor people are still human beings, and despite their percieved irrationality (which rich people, taken as a group, can also be viewed as violently irrational as well), are agents in world history, effecting both positive and negative change. Just like every other economic, racial, social, and cultural group.

To say this statement is, simply put, broadly classist and patently absurd.

Re:You can't impose liberty. You grow it.

[dominion]

P.S., fascism in the first world was almost uniformly a movement of the middle class and the elite.

Re:You can't impose liberty. You grow it.

[dominion]

Latin America, South-East Asia, and Africa are full of examples.

Examples of movements for grassroots democracy are very abundant in places like Latin America, where encuentros, assemblias popular, zapatismo and other movements for direct democracy flourish. And those movements are very greatly movements of the poor. The very poor.

This demand for direct democracy far exceeds anything western liberal Democracies have experience, and most importantly, have gone out of their way to crush or forcedly make obsolete. We had forms of direct democracy, for instance, in the United States, in the form of the Iriquois Confederacy, or the New England town hall meetings. The former was ruthlessly crushed, the latter slowly pushed into obscurity.

You may have this idea that democracy begins and ends with congressman and senators, but it has much, much greater potential than that.

Re:You can't impose liberty. You grow it.

[Marxist Hacker 42]

The democratic revolutions in the West (the United States, Britain, France) were driven by the interests of the commercial elite.

And these were largely false revolutions in the end- with every politician on the ballot pre-purchased by campaign contributions, none of them actually representing the people who elected them.

Re:You can't impose liberty. You grow it.

[Marxist Hacker 42]

So you're saying if a society doesn't have a sufficiently large middle class, that they must accept totalitarianism instead? Could it be instead, that a large middle class arises out of freedom? That it is freedom that diminishes the power of the aristocracy while simultaneously reducing destitution?

Could be, but history shows almost exactly the opposite in the few societies that have actually achieved a large middle class and freedom: First come the merchants, who take power from the aristocracy, then come the trade unions, that oppose the merchants, the trade unions elect progressive politicians, and finally a middle class emerges whenever and whereever there is a strongly progressive income tax. This was most true during the 1950s in the United States, but the same economic consequence has happened elsewhere and elsewhen. The Merchant Class and the Middle Class are the strongest creators of freedom- because their very continued existance requires both progressive economic protection and political power for the greater population.

And if anything is sure to succeed...

[Cr0w T. Trollbot]

...it's certainly a top-down mandate handed down by Communist Party officials in a one-party state! Why look at how well all those Soviet Five Year Plans did at burying us in mountains of wheat...

Alternately, China could stop dicking around with piecemeal reform and institute capitalism, democracy, and the rule of law. If China had half the per-capita GNP of Tiawan, they could easily surpass the United States economically. But as long as they cling to the vestiges of a totalitarian command economy, they won't do it.

India has already woken up and figured out that socialism doesn't work. Unless China does the same, it could well be India that supplants the United States as the world's biggest superpower by the end of the century, not China...

Crow T. Trollbot

Re:And if anything is sure to succeed...

[Viceroy Potatohead]

Alternately, China could stop dicking around with piecemeal reform and institute capitalism, democracy, and the rule of law.

A massive, system-wide change is best done slowly, erm, piecemeal. Radical, fast changes in China's economic, political, or social systems wouldn't likely help the Chinese much. Look at the USSR. Rapid change there led to years of crappier life quality for many people, caused a huge debt (partially defaulted on, IIRC), a thriving criminal economy, political destabilization, and more foreign control of industry.

I hope China does become a lot more democratic, but I hope they do it slowly (and I think they are). In the end, it'd be in the best interest of both the Chinese people and China as a country. Economic collapse would cause a lot of damage inside and outside China. The only people who would really benefit would be the vultures with enough capital to buy out assets at rock bottom prices.

Re:And if anything is sure to succeed...

[king-manic]

...it's certainly a top-down mandate handed down by Communist Party officials in a one-party state! Why look at how well all those Soviet Five Year Plans did at burying us in mountains of wheat...

Alternately, China could stop dicking around with piecemeal reform and institute capitalism, democracy, and the rule of law. If China had half the per-capita GNP of Tiawan, they could easily surpass the United States economically. But as long as they cling to the vestiges of a totalitarian command economy, they won't do it.

India has already woken up and figured out that socialism doesn't work. Unless China does the same, it could well be India that supplants the United States as the world's biggest superpower by the end of the century, not China...

Crow T. Trollbot

That plan worked so well for russia. Lets ditch everything we built and try again. I'm sure anarchy and crime wont sky rocket. While we're at it lets just disarm, I'm sure the Americans want nothign but peace and won't do anything unsavory like invade a nation or support our enemies. Look at how they treat their best frienda Canada, predatory tarrifs, protectionist policies, double speak, random arrests of their citizens, and out right lies. I'm sure they mean us no harm and completely changing our society without a plan would just be great.

They want to cut the umbilical cord to the USA

[The Media Mechanic]

Bottom line is China wants to make the United States as just another trading partner, but not THE ONLY trading partner for certain key technologies. Right now they are buying and importing our good technology in a few key areas where there is no domestic Chinese substitute, namely big equipment. Stuff like Caterpillar monster trucks and General Electric Hydroelectric Turbine Generators. Everything else they can create domestically. Now their central government (which incidentally has a heavy representation of civil engineers) wants to cut the umbilical cord with the United States on these key systems. So this will ultimately give them more flexibility and wiggle room when negotiating on the world stage.

Chinese Diplomat: For motherland, we want Taiwan now. We now annex Taiwan to Greater China.

American Diplomat: Well, then, I'm sorry to inform you that the discount wholesale price on those new Boeing 787s you ordered is now NULL and VOID ! You have to pay Full Price + Extra Tariffs ! Take that, LOL !

Chinese Diplomat: We have satisfactory improved domestically manufactured Chinese copy of Tupolev 9000 airplane. We now cancel all orders for 787s. Please to be refunding our initial deposit.

American Diplomat: Oh sh*t

Chinese Diplomat: For motherland, we want Mongolia now. We now annex Mongolia to Greater China.

Watch out USA!

[bogaboga]

Like it or not, believe it or not, at the present pace, the Peoples' Republic of China will wield more power and influence as compared to all other major powers including the USA within two decades.

Let's look at some of the facts here:

1: They, (the Chinese), are responsible for keeping our currency (the dollar) afloat since they are holding a good chunk of our debt.

2: They are the world's greatest manufacturer now and are not about to stop.

3: They produce most scientists and engineers than all major powers combined.

4: Because of the above, they managed to shoot a satellite from orbit. The US and Russia thought they were the only ones capable of this.

5: They keep low, just like the Russians, and are planning to manufacture their own [wide body] passenger planes.

6: The USA is helping China in a way because its leaders and government are running massive deficits and on top of this, spending huge amounts of cash on munitions, creating no value at all.

Guys, the red dragon is rising and we cannot stop it!

Re:Watch out USA!

[krbvroc1]

Guys, the red dragon is rising and we cannot stop it! Actually, we helped build it, fund it, perpetuate it, outsource to it, and legitimize it... Hoisted on our own petard.

Re:Watch out USA!

[NeutronCowboy]

1: Check, though a bit oversimplified. The Chinese can't just dump their reserves out, because the impact on the world will be too drastic. They're in a better position than the US, but can't really take advantage of it.
2: If by greatest, you mean largest by volume, then check.
3: No. And please define "all major powers". If you say it's the US and a smattering of European countries, I'd be tempted to agree. Though that's like bragging that the US got more gold medals at the Olympics than Luxembourg - misleading, not to mention irrelevant.
4: Wrong. They shot down a satellite to demonstrate they were able and willing to do so. Any country with ICBMs can achieve this, it's just that most are a bit more concerned than China about creating a huge mass of space junk.
5: China keeps low? That's news to Taiwan, the US, Japan, Tibet, and pretty much the whole world. I'd also assume that China would take offense to being compared in any way to Russia. Russia is a two-bit thug on the world stage, while China plans on being the super-power. And since when is a wide-body passenger plane anything to brag about? Airbus would love to forget its latest venture in that area.
6: Wrong. Military expenditures by China: 4.6%. Military expenditures by the US: 4.06%. And this is from heavily understated official figures.

China will be the world power by the time the second half of this century rolls around, but only one of your reasons will have even remotely something to do with it.

Re:Watch out USA!

[z4ce]

Alternately, one can hope that as they continue to embrace capitalism, eventually the people will overthrow the government and start wanting "rights".

It's a bit of a farce to say the chinese are "keeping our currency afloat." What the heck does that mean? It would become weaker relative to other world currencies? Yes, that's true. So what? It also would bring manufacturing jobs to the USA. That's why China is trying to "depress" their own currency.

It's not like we went out and were like CHINA.. please finance our debt. No, their currency was getting stronger.. exports were declining so they devalued their currency to keep exports up. Of course, this also means their people cannot buy much abroad with their dollars.

People get way, way too hung up on wanting a "strong currency." Its not necessarily a good thing to have a strong currency if your goal is to bring jobs to your country. Strong and weak currencies really just describe the ebb-and-flow of purchase power parity.

Re:Watch out USA!

[Brandybuck]

1: They, (the Chinese), are responsible for keeping our currency (the dollar) afloat since they are holding a good chunk of our debt.

China spent billions to get those billions. This is an investment for them. While they could go nuts and sell off all their US investments, the results would end up hurting them a lot more than it would hurt the US.

Re:Watch out USA!

[Canthros]

Even if that's all true, China's going to be staring down a pretty serious demographic within the same time period. It's entirely probably that they peak within twenty years and decline thereafter. Whether they will really wield more power or influence than the US in that timeframe is going to be very difficult to predict. I can't say I'd bet on it.

Re:Watch out USA!

[LynnwoodRooster]

Excellent points! I would add, though - as one who currently spends 30% of my time living in China - the following:

Item 1: the owning of our debt. It actually makes China MUCH more vulernable than America. Why? They hold the IOUs - our debt. We hold the tangible goods we got in exchange for the IOUs. If we default, how do they get their goods back? If the bank can't repossess your house, they're in a much weaker position when they hold your mortgage...

Item 2: China produces a LOT of products, so by volume they do win. But not in terms of actual value of manufacturing. The US still leads, and probably will for a long time. And a lot of that manufacturing that goes on over in China is directly for 100% American owned companies. Meaning that the investment and return on that manufacturing is still based in the US.

Item 3: Working with Chinese engineers daily leads me to conclude that while most are extremely intelligent, they do not have a "western" style of engineering mind. There is a natural resistance to conflict (cultural really). It's more of "here is what you were told to do, now do it exactly that way"; pushback on specs or design is frowned upon. And THAT is the crux if engineering. It'll take 3-4 generations to 'breed' that out of the culture of China. So numerically they produce a LOT of great engineers; but in actuality they produce very few innovators.

Re:Watch out USA!

[DerekLyons]

1: They, (the Chinese), are responsible for keeping our currency (the dollar) afloat since they are holding a good chunk of our debt.

Check, though a bit oversimplified. The Chinese can't just dump their reserves out, because the impact on the world will be too drastic. They're in a better position than the US, but can't really take advantage of it.

No need to worry about the rest of the world - the impact on their own economy and currency from dumping their reserves will be devastating to them. There is no way to dump those reserves fast enough to cause real damage to the US, but slowly enough to avoid having to take massive losses. The two are simply mutually incompatible.

Re:Watch out USA!

[algoa456]

I would not get too excited about all the engineers and scientists China produces. I have worked with them. They simply cannot think out of the box and constantly follow recipes...... as to whether that will change I don't know, but given their pathetic efforts over the last 5,000 years (even compared to the ME and the Arabs work on astronomy and mathematics) I would not worry. Sure we hear over and over about their discovery of printing, paper and gun powder. Fact is paper was invented by the Egyptians; bottle rockets were about as far as they took gunpowder - and printing did not allow everyone access to knowledge. Same with the Japanese - they are good at taking something else and refining it, but have produced nothing really of any moment (unless you think the piped in sound of toilets flushing to hide noises is a great invention.) There is something in the Asian world view that stops them coming up with anything really new (even though as we all know they are smart).

no wonder

[AlgorithMan]

The plans cover five main areas
1. geology
2. mechanical engineering
3. metallurgical engineering
4. and aeronautical engineering.

No wonder China has major gaps in science and technology - if they can't even count to 5...

Re:no wonder

[Sibko]

The plans cover five main areas
1. geology
2. mechanical engineering
3. metallurgical engineering
4. aeronautical engineering.
5. ???
6. Profit! I see their cunning plan!

Re:no wonder

[Kuvter]

The plans cover five main areas:
1. geology
2. mechanical engineering
3. metallurgical engineering
4. and aeronautical engineering
5. ????

Profit!!!

Wait...

[sepharious]

are you talking about our government or theirs? I get confused these days...

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

are you talking about our government or theirs?

If you dislike the stereotype of Americans being ignorant, stop assuming everybody you talk to on the Internet is American. You do realise that they have the Internet in other countries, don't you? And other countries also speak English? The World-Wide Web isn't like your "World" Series, where the only people included are American.

Re:Wait...

[CyberLord Seven]

HEY! Be careful tossing around that word like it applies to only one nation!

Mexicans, Canadians, and others are all Americans!

If you're refering to people from the United States refer to them as...Californians? North Carolinians? USians? WTF do you call us?

Oh, yeah! I remember, immigrants!

Re:Wait...

[samkass]

"A citizen of the United States" is one of the correct definitions for "American" in the English language. Learn the language, please, before you try to correct others.

Every country should have a vision and a plan

[davidwr]

If only every country had a realistic vision of where they wanted to be 10, 25, 50, and 100 years from now and planned accordingly.

Obviously, the goals for China will be more lofty than, say, Mongolia.

Re:Every country should have a vision and a plan

[Viceroy Potatohead]

Obviously, the goals for China will be more lofty than, say, Mongolia

That's what you think! My hundred year plan for Mongolia has North America being renamed "Mongolia Minor", and most of the world's population living in yurts. Don't even get me started on the strategic uses of yak's milk.

Re:Every country should have a vision and a plan

[Harinezumi]

Obviously, the goals for China will be more lofty than, say, Mongolia.

Yeah, the goals for China probably also include Taiwan, Korea, and a good chunk of the Russian Far East.

The ??? step

[novus ordo]

Importing technology by exporting artificially cheap goods made with that technology?

right

[papar]

I assume '100 Year Vision of Greatness' will be followed by '1000 Year Vision of Nuclear Winter'.

Just what the doctor ordered

[oldwindways]

Honestly, a more competitive China is the best thing that could happen to American science. We need the impetus of a threatening adversary to not only motivate the practitioners of science, but also to open the floodgates of private/corporate/government funding.

And on a related note, people need to stop dismissing China simply because of their political system. I hate communists just as much as the next red blooded American, but saying they can't do science in a one party government with a control economy is simply short sighted and naive. Doesn't anyone remember the cold war? I seem to recall the Soviets putting the first satellite in orbit, and the first man (and woman) in space. Just because we beat them to the moon doesn't mean they were inept. If anything, history should remind us how effective the concentrated efforts of the government, the economy, the military and civilians of a nation can be. Political freedom does not by default lead to progress, nor does a lack of it guarantee regress.

Definition

[Marxist Hacker 42]

These things will all come with a middle class who demand them. You have to build that middle class up first. This is what a lot of people don't get. It's the middle class, who are financially independent, not the working class who demand change. Funnily enough, it's money which allows freedom to flourish.

This must be some strange meaning of the words "middle class" of which I have not previously been aware. Last I saw, "Middle Class" in the United States was defined as having incomes in the $36,000-$120,000 range; which while certainly comfortable and able to afford a few luxuries and assets, is certainly NOT what I'd call "financially independant" or "not working class".

Other than that I agree with you- as did George Orwell. The working poor can't afford to revolt- 100% of their time is spent just trying to survive. The rich are profiting from the status quo, they aren't going to change anything. Only with a middle class, who suffer due to worker conditions and prosper with a robust economy, can these changes be made.

Re:Definition

[Paracelcus]

In the US of A "Middle Class" means that you work at one job instead of the two that the "Working poor" have. As a "Middle Class" person you may or may not have medical insurance, if you do it either means that you are either very lucky to have an employer who provides it at a very reduced group rate or you are a single professional who can afford your own. At the very highest end of the "Middle class" are professionals who while working sixty to eighty hours a week at (one) job do pay their own family medical insurance (it may be noted that most of these people have two working adults per household). And then there is the mystery of housing, the "Working Poor" who have two minimum wage (or low paying) jobs per person usually are forced into "creative" housing situations and usually spend at least several weeks of "homelessness" at least once in their lifetimes. The US of A's "Middle Class" have been brainwashed that if you don't buy a house that you're a fool and headed to financial ruin! while the people of the San Francisco Bay Area are being forclosed on in ever increasing numbers losing whatever they had "invested" in their homes.

IMHO, always, only my opinion, Anybody that tells you that buying a house that costs more than you make in five or more years is lying or an idiot, it just doesn't add up.

Cash in hand is always your friend!

Re:Definition

[Boronx]

You are really only out your downpayment, and if interest rates and prices are low, while rent is high, buying saves you money. It's not an investment, it's just a way of not throwing 100% of your housing costs into a hole every month.

But I agree, the standard middle class attitude in the USA towards owning a house is messed up.

Re:Definition

[Paracelcus]

You've obviosly not read my post carefully, I was referring to housing that cost's more than five years wages (like the SF Bay Area) a small house in a bad neighborhood costs over $700,000 in SF and a person who would feel at home in that neiborhood probably makes less (a lot less) than $50,000 a year (they couldn't qualify for the loan).

Also you're response would suggest that you are probably a fairly young person, as a person whose lost everything (twice) due to the violently unstable US economy, I will stand by my comment that "Cash in hand is always your friend".

Keep your passport ready, your bags packed and your evacuation route clear, I smell another world war coming!

Re:Definition

[Marxist Hacker 42]

You are really only out your downpayment, and if interest rates and prices are low, while rent is high, buying saves you money. It's not an investment, it's just a way of not throwing 100% of your housing costs into a hole every month.

Depends on how your neighbors are doing. If you're still able to sell relatively quickly when you need to, no problem. But if the *entire* neighborhood has gone for subprime loans to live on, you'll lose downpayment + equity as your house gets foreclosed on instead of sold.

Their Five Year Plan...

[Vexler]

...is being updated, that's all. If you read your history, you will see that the reason China has a habit of making large, grandiose plans is that they are desperate to address embarrassing deficiencies. When the nation's space agency announces that outer-space seeds have higher mineral contents, I cannot help but chuckle. Of course, their 100-year time line does say something about the practicality of the plan.

Re:Overcoming apathy

[maxume]

You are using loose where you mean to use lose, and you did it twice, so it wasn't a one time thing.

hm

[JeanBaptiste]

good thing they're doing it systematically. wouldn't want it to be all haphazard and shit.

Don't Pay Attention To What They Say

[MCTFB]

Pay attention to what they do. The same thing goes for any government, including our own. Corrupt governments, regardless of what corner of the earth they happen to be exist on, only tell the truth when it is convenient for them to do so or else when they can gain a propaganda advantage against their adversaries by being only truthful enough for their big lies to seem plausible.

China says they mean no harm and they only want peace, yet they brazenly shine lasers on our satellites and single handedly add 10% more space debris to earth's orbit through destroying one of their own. China says they are all for innovation, yet they have armies of spies in the United States and Europe conducting industrial espionage on a grand scale, rather than spending the money they use for espionage operations on home-grown research. China says they are all about socialism and equality, yet wealth is even far more concentrated in the top 1% in China than here in the United States (and by a wide margin). I could go on and on, but the point stands that every piece of state propaganda coming out of Beijing should be taken with a grain of salt.

Duplicity and doublespeak is China in a nutshell. After the 2008 Olympics, expect China to start making its real moves, now that George Bush has successfully run our military into the ground and thanks to military espionage, the Chinese now have the military capability to keep our pacific fleet in check and threaten any nation they wish in the Pacific.

Re:Overcoming apathy

[tempestdata]

Thank you for pointing that out :) I'll be more careful next time.

Mathematics

[Elad Alon]

The fourth (fifth) area is apparently mathematics.

Fifth Area: Suppression of Human Rights

[reporter]

Regardless of how technologically superior China might be, technology alone does not create a high-quality society. To this day, many members of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) continue to emigrate to the United States (even while their relatives and other comrades in the CCP brutalize North Korean refugees). They could live like kings in China due to their CCP-derived wealth, yet they choose to go to the USA.

Look closely at Vietnam. Though it is still an authoritarian society, the Vietnamese have made significant strides towards democracy and human rights. We rarely hear of pompous national goals like "First Vietnamese in Space" from Hanoi. The Vietnamese focus on things that matter: economy and social liberalization (e.g., human rights). In fact, "The Economist" reports that the strongest voices of support for democracy is coming from the membership of the Vietnamese Communist Party.

The Chinese focus on pompous national goals (e.g., space weapons and the like), but the Vietnamese focus on the things that matter to the common people. Note that the Vietnamese are specifically not developing nuclear weapons while Beijing is spending huge sums on aggressively developing nuclear-tipped missiles.

With the new national technology program, the Chinese may create the most advanced robot in the world, but their society will be socially impoverished. Meanwhile, the Vietnamese create a liberal democracy.

15 years from now, in which society -- China or Vietnam -- would you prefer to live? Another bowl of Pho please!

Kennedy dreams

[sepharious]

I find it interesting that the submitter brings up Kennedy and long range goals and visions. I've been pondering on this subject for some time now and it seems that America has lost its vision. We're trapped in a day-to-day shitfest wondering what celebrities are doing while waiting on our next paycheck to go buy some other piece of junk manufactured in said Red Country. What happened to dreaming of putting men in places they've never been and returning alive to tell the tale? Our government of today has paid the due lip service of "man on Mars....eventually", but where is the far vision? Why have we not heard something of this ilk: "First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of reducing the percentage of energy we import and continuing that trend until such time as we are energy independent"? Or "First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of balancing our budget and wisely investing surpluses in areas to maximize American potential in perpetuity." Werner von Braun thought we could have gone to Mars in the Eighties. Instead we're mucking around on planet Earth fighting a combat technique as if it were a thinking, independent entity. I want something to work towards, a dream to live. I don't want to go nine to five for forty years so I can plop my fat ass on the couch and watch the Britneys and Paris' of the future on my SuperTivo(tm). I want a country that's worth living in and living for. But maybe that's too much to ask...

Re:Kennedy dreams

[qbzzt]

If you want dreams, dream them. Find like minded people and try to achieve them. Don't expect them to come from our leaders, who just happened to win a popularity contest.

Good Thing I Married One

[DumbSwede]

My wife is a Chinese National and an Economist. I don't know where to start on how naïve most of today's comments are on this topic. I myself have been to China four times. It is a vibrant growing area. Disparaging their accomplishments is far from productive.

What amazes my wife most is how much America cares about what are internal Chinese matters, while we, Americans, meddle in every affair across the globe. I can attest that the average Chinese is non too concerned about internet censorship nor political activism. They all assume (rightly or wrongly) they will all have more rights and freedoms as their wealth increases. Modern Chinese care about wealth and security. Obtaining an education is almost a mantra for them.

While the majority of rural Chinese live in property, it will not take too many more decades of double-digit GDP growth to correct this.

While I prefer living in America and believe in Capitalism and Democracy the current Chinese brand of socialism is working well. It is a hybrid system of Capitalism and Central Control that for now is working. It may breakdown in the future, but not necessarily. Communist dogma is not allowed to get in the way of economic planning. That they can plan for the long run should be envied. Chinese patience is an amazing thing.

I am not prepared to say China will eclipse America and the West soon, but am also disinclined to say they could not be the major Super Power in the world 30-50 years from now.

Of course I've hedged my bets by having a Chinese wife ;-)

Re:Good Thing I Married One

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

While the majority of rural Chinese live in property, it will not take too many more decades of double-digit GDP growth to correct this.

I live in Ireland. It took one decade of single digit growth to turn this country from a second world laughing stock to a first world economy (though truth be told the economy could be ais to still be a laughing stock). So how come it's going to take several decade for China to do the same? Interia? Give me a break.

The difference is that in 1990, Ireland was a democracy. In 1990, China was still sweeping Tiannamen Square under the carpet. 17 years later, although our public services still suck, Ireland is a properous country overall. In China, 800m+ people have benefited only minimally from those double digit growth figures.

The reality is, even with single digit growth, if China was a democracy, its society would have rocketed forward in the last ten years. Instead, even with double digit growth, the Imperial Court^D^DCommunist Party is holding the entire nation back.

China was once the most advanced country in the world, but successive authoritarian and incompetant emperors lead to its decline. The communist party is simply continuing that long tradition.

Re:Good Thing I Married One

[hackingbear]

I'm not sure if Ireland had a real 3rd world status, it might be considered so by the Britons.

How many people are there in Ireland? And how many in China?

The size makes it a very hard problem to solve. Singapore is very prosperous even though it is not a democracy. India is considered the largest democracy in the world but the poverty level there is so bad.

Democracy is a good thing for richer countries, but it has yet to be proven working well in a real 3rd world country.

Re:Good Thing I Married One

[Chris Burke]

Of course I've hedged my bets by having a Chinese wife ;-)

I may not know Chinese, and I may not know women, but I'm betting she doesn't like you referring to her as your "hedge". :)

Re:Good Thing I Married One

[stephanruby]

"I live in Ireland. It took one decade of single digit growth to turn this country from a second world laughing stock to a first world economy (though truth be told the economy could be ais to still be a laughing stock). So how come it's going to take several decade for China to do the same? Interia? Give me a break. "

You're wrong. Compared to all the other tax havens, Ireland is *still* a third World country.

1. Switzerland
2. Luxembourg
3. ...
18. ...
19. Macau
20. Isles of Man
21. Barbados
22. Vanuatu
23. Ireland

Why is that a troll?

[wsanders]

This is the second modded-troll (or attempt at humor, whatever) I have defended in two days. If you peek into who runs the US government (well at least the executive branch), you will find that this concept has some support. Why conserve natural resources when Jay-zuss has given us all these abundant natural resources to plunder?

Although I would still give 1000x more credit for the pillaging of the world by American business not because Jay-zuss is coming to take us all home, but because executives don't get any credit for planning anything beyond pump and dumping the end-of-the-quarter's stock price, thus justifing the next bloated paycheck. Propose a 100-year plan for an American business (or even for government) and you'll just get ridiculed.

Re:Why is that a troll?

[OldeTimeGeek]

It's a Friday and I'm bored, so I'll bite.

Let's say that it's around 1915, your name is Thomas J. Watson and you've just been been hired to help out a company called Computing- Tabulating- Recording Company. Your job is to come up with a hundred-year plan to help the company sell their tabulating and time-recording devices to businesses. Please account for technologies that haven't been invented yet, materials that haven't been discovered or invented, a couple of wars, advances in travel and communications, a depression that wiped out most of the valuation of the country, radical changes in culture and a space program. What's your plan?

Too tough? Ok, let's try for 50 years. Please account for multiple "police actions" with other countries, a revolution in electronics, two wars, the creation of global communication infrastructure based upon technology that doesn't yet exist and a revolution in miniaturization, satellites and an attempt at a landing on the Moon.

Wanna try for a twenty-five-year plan? Add computers that are cheap enough to be bought by normal people. You get the point.

BTW, if the name isn't a hint as to what that company became, here's another: who has the most patents?

All country do it

[aepervius]

If you think the US does not have a myriad of people all over where emergent new tech could be interresting, you are fooling yourself or buying into your own country propaganda. Neither do I fool myself into thinking my country does not do it, and isn't adverse to a bit of wet work (google for rainbow warrior). Don't paint china as the big evil, don't cry wolf during the whole day. After a while people will not hear to you since you were so biased all the time, then when a true horror and human right violation they will remmember how the whole time you painted China as THE DEVIL and will then dismiss you as again crying wolf.

Re:All country do it

[WED Fan]

Don't paint china as the big evil...

Exactly where did I do that? The point of my post was that China is developing nothing new. They are simply trying to catch up.

If you think the US does not have a myriad of people all...

I think you are trying to read too much, way too much into other people's words. I never said the U.S. doesn't do it. I was pointing out the concerted effort that China is making to grab technology.

By the way, how's that knee. You know they have medication so it doesn't jerk as much.

Re:All country do it

[macro187]

Don't paint china as the big evil But it is the big evil

"imminent"

[Elad Alon]

kthnxbye

I think...

[grnrckt94]

maybe they were counting in Chinese.

Where's Intelligent Design?

[NFN_NLN]

If they want to keep on par with the US they better not omit the important areas like "Intelligent Design". Clearly, the US will dominate in this field in the coming years! :)

+5 flamebait, +5 sad but true

well ANONYMOUS COWARD

[sepharious]

its kinda hard to get a fix on where you're from, you'll pardon my assuming nature, I won't make the same mistake again. my question was a tongue-in-cheek remark about the state of human rights under the Bush Administration and how we can't be high and mighty about our "American values" these days. but perhaps you really are from another country and me English are confusting you're brians...

Funny that you say that

[WindBourne]

The American autoworkers in the Japanese plants ARE unionized. In fact, they are making as much as the folks up north. Personally, I have always thought that if a company such as GM or Ford or United Airlines is heading downwards, it is the management that should the blame. But like our politicians, those at the top try hard to shift the blame to those below them. I would guess that it is the lack of personal responsibility that is costing America. I wonder if we introduce Seppuku for our top leaders in Gov. and Business that fail, if that would help.

Re:Fifth Area: Suppression of Human Rights

[thrawn_aj]

The Chinese focus on pompous national goals (e.g., space weapons and the like) Foolish, but inevitable. How else would you inspire an apathetic populace to DO stuff? The moon landing was the same. So is the White House's Mars fetish. Personally, I don't give a damn if at least some useful technology comes out of it. People dig their own graves. If a huge population such as China's can't demand and obtain human rights from their tiny ruling minority, perhaps they actually believe in all the "national glory" horseshit. So be it. After generations of innovation by someone else, at least now they can contribute to the sum total of human knowledge for a change and return to their roots as an innovative society.

Getting past the blog dreck to the source material

[Animats]

As usual, we have dig past all the blogodreck to get to the source material. And, as is typical of third-rate bloggers, there's no link to the original source. The "100 year vision" policy document they're quoting is speech by Wen Jiabao, addressed to the Communist Party of China, which he heads. The blog article attaches importance to the line "China is at the primary stage of socialism, and will remain so for a long time to come." That's a quote from the Chinese constitution. That line was changed back in 1993, which reflected some economic liberalization. Jiabao is making the point that there's no policy change. Overall, it's a "stay the course" speech; the current course is working.

The more specific technology plans are from a draft plan for medium and long term development, with the main site for the projects here.

You are way OFF base.

[WindBourne]

1. They hold out debt, but it is because they have tied their money to ours at a fixed rate that this is occurring. If W. had some balls and prevented it, then this artificial difference would be wiped out in a decade or so.
2. Need to look again. They are NOT the world's greatest manufacturers. In fact, America still outproduces them. Of course, it is the lower end consumables that they produce which is important. But at this time, I believe that America (and EU as well) still outproduce China.
3. I do not think that they do at this time. But obviously, they will. But what is their quality? Not that good. I will still take an American, Japanese, SK, or german engineer over these at this time. But I will say, that while their quality is low, they have some clever designs coming from there.
4. BFD. They tried more than a dozen times. India, Japan, and EU can also do it if they applied themselves to it.
5. They are NOT planning a wide body anytime soon. First, they have to produce real narrow body airplanes. At this time, they have only created a 2 engine 70 seater RJ (which uses heavy American parts). Moving to a jet like the 737 will take them a LOT of work.
6. Sadly, this one has more truth to it. Hopefully, that will change in before the next election. I am sick of the deficits that Reagan and W ran up.

Space Technology

[DerekLyons]

"Plans" == "Powerpoints" != "Accomplishments" Thus, TFA (which I might point out is unsourced [1]) is incorrect in treating plans as if they were accomplished facts.

I should also point out that various functionaries in the Chinese space progam have been shopping around grand plans for China in space for a couple of years now. One who is familiar with the history of space exploration might note that NASA functionaries did the same thing in the 60's (as well as off and on since then), shopping around grandiose plans far in excess of the political goals of the national leadership. Russia's space officials have been doing the same thing since a little after the fall of the USSR. The results of all three agencies propoganda and planning are noticeable by their absence.

The only concrete results of these (Chinese) "plans" has been a heap of fearmongering FUD on Slashdot and in the blogosphere. All available evidence points towards the Chinese continuing their space program at it's current glacial pace. (Though the term 'glacial' is perhaps inappropriate - as it implies that glaciers have the same blazing speed normally associated with continental drift.) They have just enough of a program to convince the world that they are a Great Nation - and not a Yuan more. (Which is pretty much true of all nations space programs.)

[1] And the "100 Year Vision of Greatness" cited by the submitter only appears on the same website, by the same author as the "Technology Development Plans" article. This seems fairly suspicious.

HAHAHA America!!!

[bloosqr]

http://festival.sundance.org/2006/watch/film.aspx? which=402&category=DOC

Strip-mining and militarizing of Tibet is set to..

[Anonymous Bullard]

Chinese strip-mining and colonization of Tibet and the militarization of the historically "new border areas" facing India (since the 1950 invasion of Tibet by Mao's communist army) are all set to become that much more "ruthlessly efficient" once the "gaps" identified in geology, mechanical engineering, metallurgical engineering and aeronautical engineering by the junta in Beijing have been addressed. The massive Tibetan mineral deposits already scouted and mapped by the Chinese geologists will make sure that the occupying regime will no show mercy for the Tibetan nation as long as 1) the resources are there to be stolen and 2) the regime remains in absolute power.

Thank your lucky stars right now if you weren't born as a Tibetan, or if you did, that you've never heard about the vague terms of "the UN declaration of human rights" or "solidarity"... although sometimes what you don't know can still hurt you badly.

Luckily, or "double-luckily", for the expansionist Chinese junta, the territories of East Turkestan they grabbed from the turkic muslim Uygur people across the vast Taklamakan desert were far easier to exploit for oil, gas, minerals and even uranium since unlike Tibet (aka The Roof of the World) the Uygur homeland lies at or even below sea level.

And for some reason the islamic world is too busy hating the "West" to pay attention to their Uyghur brothers being wiped off the map in actual fact.

China: the oft forgotten downside potential

[blind biker]

What might completely cancel the dreams of greatness that China has, is an accelerated process of desertification. Deserts in places where there were none, and expanding existing deserts - this, in spite of huge efforts by the Chinese to stop these processes by targeted re-forestation.

If you think this is a negligeable factor in China's economic and scientific future, I'd like to hear your take on it. 'Cause to me, it looks like China is screwed in the long run.

"First Vietnamese in space" no longer a "goal":

[The_REAL_DZA]

And hasn't been for a long time, at least according to this.

Will the Belters speak Mandarin?

[phunctor]

Henry the Navigator (1394-1460) marks the beginning of the European Age of Expansion and all that flowed from it. The next historical event of similar scale will in my view be the exploitation of asteroidal resources.

This is going to take continental-scale resources invested in present time in order to reap quasi-infinite rewards -- generations in the future. Unfortunately the effect of discounted cash flow accounting models and highly democratic political systems is to render this investment all but impossible in the West. China shows interesting signs of understanding all of the above.

--
phunctor

Anti-Satellite Repercussions

[oldwindways]

4: Because of the above, they managed to shoot a satellite from orbit. The US and Russia thought they were the only ones capable of this.

Military/Political motivations aside, that was a very short sighted thing to do. There has been some coverage in the mainstream media, but not nearly enough attention has been paid to the physical repercussions of the destruction of Fengyun-1C. The debris resulting from the impact are numerous and wide spread, and while they may each be smaller than a golf ball, even objects that small do serious damage when they are moving at speeds in excess of 4 km/sec as is the case. To further complicate the matter, there are tens of thousands of such fragments, and in the time since the initial destruction of the weather satellite, they have saturated the entire low earth orbit. LEO is by the way where the vast majority of artificial satellites live, including communications, surveillance, weather monitoring and with few exceptions, all the manned space missions.

When (and I mean when, not if) some of this debris impacts a satellite that has an effect on everyday life, expect to hear a lot more commotion about China's reckless endangerment of space. It takes millions if not billions of dollars to put these systems in orbit, but a 10 cent part can take down the network given the right conditions. The global community needs to take a stand now to prevent the irresponsible contamination of one of the planet's last commonly held resources: its orbits.

Re:Anti-Satellite Repercussions

[Breakfast Pants]

LEO isn't a big deal at all; things catch air there and eventually slow enough to burn up in the atmosphere. Tiny golf ball sized things do it even faster, because smaller things have less mass per unit surface area (which incidentally is why a squirrel can survive a fall from the top of an oak tree while an elephant cannot).

Re:Anti-Satellite Repercussions

[oldwindways]

Based on the findings of Mr. Johnson, I respectfully beg to differ.

the debris cloud extends from less than 125 miles (200 kilometers) to more than 2,292 miles (3,850 kilometers), encompassing all of low Earth orbit. The majority of the debris have mean altitudes of 528 miles (850 kilometers) or greater, "which means most will be very long-lived," he said. http://www.space.com/news/070202_china_spacedebris .html
Nicholas Johnson, Chief Scientist for Orbital Debris at Johnson Space Center

Re:Read as...

[A beautiful mind]

You can't fucking steal knowledge! Your post is not only ignorant and racist, but is characteristically showing what is wrong with the direction the USA is heading towards.

Eric Idle

[pipingguy]

I Like Chinese

The world today seems absolutely crackers,
With nuclear bombs to blow us all sky high.
There's fools and idiots sitting on the trigger.
It's depressing and it's senseless, and that's why...
I like Chinese.
I like Chinese.
They only come up to your knees,
Yet they're always friendly, and they're ready to please.

I like Chinese.
I like Chinese.
There's nine hundred million of them in the world today.
You'd better learn to like them; that's what I say.

I like Chinese.
I like Chinese.
They come from a long way overseas,
But they're cute and they're cuddly, and they're ready to please.

I like Chinese food.
The waiters never are rude.
Think of the many things they've done to impress.
There's Maoism, Taoism, I Ching, and Chess.

So I like Chinese.
I like Chinese.
I like their tiny little trees,
Their Zen, their ping-pong, their yin, and yang-ese.

I like Chinese thought,
The wisdom that Confucious taught.
If Darwin is anything to shout about,
The Chinese will survive us all without any doubt.

So, I like Chinese.
I like Chinese.
They only come up to your knees,
Yet they're wise and they're witty, and they're ready to please.

All together.

Wo ai zhongguo ren. (I like Chinese.)
Wo ai zhongguo ren. (I like Chinese.)
Wo ai zhongguo ren. (I like Chinese.)
Ni hao ma; ni hao ma; ni hao ma; zaijien! (How are you; how are you; how are you; goodbye!)

I like Chinese.
I like Chinese.
Their food is guaranteed to please,
A fourteen, a seven, a nine, and lychees.

I like Chinese.
I like Chinese.
I like their tiny little trees,
Their Zen, their ping-pong, their yin, and yang-ese.

I like Chinese.
I like Chinese.
They only come up to your knees...

Tech Policy

[Doc Ruby]

If the US had a tech policy, instead of a "tax cuts for billionaires" policy, we'd have no trouble competing with a Johnny-come-lately like China.

This must be exactly the same position the UK was in before WWI, while the British crown pampered its imperial lords as the US focused on radio, rail and other strategic industries.

Re:Tech Policy

[Doc Ruby]

So what you're saying is that only Communists have technology policies? And that China doesn't anymore? WRONG.

Anonymous Johnny-come-lately Coward, you really know nothing about Communism, capitalism, national policies, or anything else. Even your sarcasm is pretty weak.

Google for President 2020

[RicktheBrick]

Computers are already telling us what to do a lot of the time especially at work. In 2020 a computer will get input from everyone over the internet and will respond to everyone. Its decisions will be always be corrected if they result in a negative fashion. A computer would not have any financial interest in any of it decisions. By 2020 we should be able to make a computer with enough artificial intelligence to govern us.

Re:Google for President 2020

[Marxist Hacker 42]

The Oregon Project is about making sure such a computer serves everybody in the community- not just the rich.

CPUs, of course

[Rui del-Negro]

And they've started with an enhanced Pentium clone.

Observation

[pipingguy]

This is the second time I post relevant Monty Python lyrics with the subject title, "Eric Idle". Both times the post got modded-up as Funny very quickly. Is Idle a moderator with unlimited points?

Dumbest headline ever.

[nyzapatista]

So the technologies aren't just growing from the ground?

Re:Fifth Area: Suppression of Human Rights

[enjahova]

I see 2 points in your post.

The first is that because some rich CCP members choose to come to the US China must be a crappy place to live. This is some nice hand waving. The plural of anecdote is not data, and neither is hearsay.

The second point is that space exploration is a pompous national goal. I don't understand why you assume advancing technology and spurring progress is backwards. America has some of the worst systems in place to eliminate poverty, but we are one of the richest nations. America is advanced because it has had a healthy environment for innovation and progress. Furthermore, pompousness has little to do with a country's democratic leanings. Have you looked at America's attitude in the last 100 years?

We are one helluva pompous democracy. I'd like to give a quote relevant to our own space exploration:

"Well, space is there, and we're going to climb it, and the moon and the planets are there, and new hopes for knowledge and peace are there. And, therefore, as we set sail we ask God's blessing on the most hazardous and dangerous and greatest adventure on which man has ever embarked."

I don't know much about Vietnam, but it sounds great for them.

Re:Read as...

[sgt_doom]

Perhaps you missed this news story.....

The middle class is the business class

[Colin Smith]

I think the US definition is overly broad. The middle class are employers. They get other people to work for them. That's what gives them the time.

Re:The middle class is the business class

[Marxist Hacker 42]

The middle class are employers. They get other people to work for them. That's what gives them the time.

That's the upper class to me- in that they have POWER to destroy or create OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES.

The lower class have NO POWER AT ALL- their time is spent in quiet desparation, working 2-4 jobs just to keep food in their bellies and a roof over thier heads; with no time for anything else.

Neither the upper class (who profit from the status quo) or the lower class (who have no time) will change anything politically; the natural state of the world is to have only these two classes and no other.

When creative progressive taxation, such as we had in the 1950s in America, creates something different, then you get change. What is different is a unionized middle class- who only work 40 hours a week and have time to engage in politics on the side. They are not employers- but they're not drudge workers either. They do not profit from the status quo, but instead profit from increased political freedom to speak out. THAT is where change comes from.

Re:Strip-mining and militarizing of Tibet is set t

[radl33t]

Don't all countries become rich and powerful by plundering their neighbors and enemies? Whats the deal/?

elswhere

[zogger]

China is investing money and resources at an amazing rate into africa and south america (and as much as they can in the middle east), seeking to lock in their influence (all sectors I would presume, civil/business/military) and all the natural resources they can get now with long term contracts + develop new markets. Like here's one, venezuela, where the US now garners a not insignificant amount of oil. They and china has recently announced a new oil cooperation deal, and chavez is on the record stating that if/when the US hits iran, poof, no more oil for the US, and China will then take it all.

IMO, historians in the future will label the 21st century the century of the resource wars.

Don't Panic

[BillGatesLoveChild]

Had some colleagues who headed over to China for contracts. When they came back, they said the place is so chronically polluted, there's a huge gap between the happy rich and the very pissed off poor, and the Communist Party is panicking and frantically trying to hold it all together. It's like the big Japan panic of the 1980s that turned into a fizzle. China's not going anywhere.

Yeah right

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

But imagine if some government in the 19th century had laid out a "100 year technological plan". WIthin decades it would have been the laughing stock of the world. We aren't leading the technology, it is leading us. This is just more humorous Chinese hubris. In my opinion, they will have hit critical mass in their middle class long before then, thats when you'll see the real revolution over there.

Re:Yeah right

[TapeCutter]

"But imagine if some government in the 19th century had laid out a "100 year technological plan".

Opening up the west with the "iron horse" would probably fit that category, sure trucks, planes and spaceships came along but the US still has plenty of trains.

With all due respect you are thinking small. There are plenty of instances where infrastructure and buildings are planned on century time scales, the dykes of Holland, the lochs in the Suez cannal, the renovations of countless monuments and historical buildings such as the leaning tower, then there's dams, sea walls, sewers, levies, mines, bridges, (responsible) forest management, ect.

It's true you can't plan for everything or even a significant portion of everything, but you can set a "direction". Sadly many people don't want to fart unless every contingency has been thought through and don't seem to recognise that plans contantly change.

To put it another way. Do you play chess by pre-planning the entire game, do you just react to your opponents last move, or do you have several plans and contingencies all playing their part in an overall strategy of defense and attack? Does your plan change if you are blocked and see a new opportunity, if so does your long term goal change?

Re:Read as...

[TheLink]

"Are you telling me a transportation system as complicated as a magnetically levitated train under development for 24 years can be replicated in 22 months because one guy cleverer than the next"

I personally think it is stupid and a waste of resources to reinvent a good wheel (badly or in a twisted manner to avoid "patent infringement") when you can copy it. After that you can spend the resources (you saved from not reinventing stuff) on improving it if necessary.

It is ridiculous to restrict 6 billion people from copying an idea/thought/speech just because one person lays claim to it. If you plan really long term, this system won't scale _well_ to trillions or more people - nobody would be able to think of something without infringing. In the near future brains could be seamlessly augmented with computers - so accurate playback AND sharing of what you "remember" would be technically possible if not legally possible (DMCA + DRM = crippled).

This concept of "intellectual property" introduces artificial scarcities. At various stages of a country's development it is better for it to ignore such "constructs" if possible - such as USA in the 1800s (see Charles Dickens ;) ), and same for Switzerland, Netherlands etc in those days.

see: "Patents; An economist strolls through history and turns patent theory upside down". http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0 6E2D9103DF93AA1575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewan ted=print

Quote:
''Exhibition data are particularly useful for studying the effects of patent laws on innovation because they measure economically useful innovation in a way that is independent of changes in patent laws,'' Professor Moser said. ''Countries without patent laws were really doing quite well.''

So what is the lesson for Brazil, China, India and other countries that are being pressed by industrialized nations to create strong patent systems?

''We try to force patent laws on developing countries and say, This is best for you,'' she said. ''Then we are surprised when they say they don't want patent laws. But they have a point. Such laws could actually hinder innovation in those countries.''

Re:Read as...

[TheLink]

Oh yeah as for the German perspective? I forgot to mention that it's just like Felix Hoffmann "stealing" from Charles Frederic Gerhardt (French guy) the formula for what became trademarked and patented as Aspirin by Bayer (a German company which Felix worked for).

Bayer's trademarks to Aspirin (and Heroin) were lost as "spoils of war" in the 1919 Treaty of Versailles.

Many big companies about nowadays were built on what they now call "theft" and "infringement". And these big companies are now working to keep competitors out.

5 years isn't nearly enough time for visions

[davidwr]

Well, not good ones anyways.

It's also too short a time to back out if you realize the vision is no longer realistic.

Remember, in Soviet Russia, 5-year-periods plan YOU!

Oh, before I forget: I wasn't joking. Countries do need long-term visions.

China is not a planned economy!

[ordovician.cenozoic]

Alternately, China could stop dicking around with piecemeal reform and institute capitalism, democracy, and the rule of law. If China had half the per-capita GNP of Tiawan, they could easily surpass the United States economically. But as long as they cling to the vestiges of a totalitarian command economy, they won't do it. China can hardly be called a communist country anymore. That would only be on paper. China is just another capitalist dictatorship. I don't know were you got the idea they they still have a command economy? Right now China could probably not have done any better economically than they do. Citing Taiwans GDP is futile. China started going down the capitalist path much later. They have much more catching up to do. But at +10% growth a year I don't see how a radical reform like you suggest could do any better. I mean, you don't think they are doing any good until they have +20% growth? However what western style democracy and capitalism could bring is a more sustainable and healthy growth. A growth that doesn't destroy the environment as much as current Chinese growth and that doesn't stomp on reqular people, and doesn't cause dangerous buildups of structural weakness in the economy. But as Iraq showed, you can't introduce Democracy over night. American way of thinking about Democracy is inherently broken. Because the US was made a democracy after one war of independence, they think the same can be done elsewhere. Forgetting that the US was a export of European liberal ideas and institutions that had matured in Europe over centuries. These ideas and institutions have to mature in China too.

Dirk Gently has the answer!

[dotoole]

It's not that they can't count, it's just that their calculators can't handle answers above 4. "1+1" they can manage ("2"), and "1+2" ("3") and "2+2" ("4") or "tan 74" ("3.4874145"), but anything above "4" they represent merely as "A Suffusion of Yellow". I'm not quite sure if this is a programming error or an insight beyond my ability to fathom.

Re:Read as...

[DrWho520]

I personally think it is stupid and a waste of resources to reinvent a good wheel (badly or in a twisted manner to avoid "patent infringement") when you can copy it.

If you like the wheel, you buy the wheel, you do not steal the wheel. Say you work for the most altruistic company in the world. You spend millions developing a widget that costs $100 to manufacter, but you have to pay for R&D costs, so its $200 until the R&D costs go away. Why pay the R&D costs? Your employees need to eat food, not altruism. If someone steals you prototype (or your design, or infringes on your patent, or reverse engineers your patent) and starts producing your widget, think about these two possibilities:

A. They directly compete with you, selling at $200 and cut into your sales. This increases the time to recoup R&D costs and cuts budgets for all your other altruistic projects.

B. They directly compete with you, selling at $175 and eliminate your sales. Why shouldn't they undercut you? They do not have to worry about R&D costs and they do not have to share sales anymore. No one will buy your product on moral grounds because they is nothing wrong with what they did, right? Why should they reinvent the wheel? Oh, the time to recoup R&D costs goes to infinity and your altrustic company goes out of business.

This is simple economics. It costs resources to develop an idea from the drawing board and to build a product. In a global economy, if one of the players just cuts corners by stealing someone work, why should anyone do anything?

Re:Read as...

[TheLink]

"In a global economy, if one of the players just cuts corners by stealing someone work, why should anyone do anything?"

0) Get real. You think that widespread copying isn't already happening in China _amongst_ the companies there? You really think that the companies in China have already given up "doing anything" because their own competitors in China copy them? Nope, they are competing like crazy. If the US/Euro/etc companies give up so easily, well too bad for them then.

Sure once those Chinese companies get big enough they'll start bribing politicians for laws to reduce competition (if they haven't already started doing so), but meanwhile it's business as usual.

1) Copying is not stealing. (and I'm not talking about plagiarism or trademark infringement which both involve a form of lying/deceit).

2) R&D costs don't make up the bulk of the costs of most products on the market. Even the Biotech giants who keep talking about extending patents to recoup R&D costs spend more on marketing+advertising than R&D (probably since most people only seem to have room in their brains for 2 or 3 brands for a particular type of product/service. Being able to copy things for cheaper may get you a temporary "appearance", but it's not a good way of staying there, esp if the management chooses to produce an inferior copy for cost reasons (Chinese quality culture isn't top notch yet) ).

3) Copying isn't always zero cost- especially if you are copying those maglev trains given current technology - and there's always other things you need, even if you can copy the processes, documentation, in-head knowledge, support staff+infrastructure etc.

Maybe by the time China copies everything, China would resemble USA and go around trying to stop others copying them ;)

Re:Read as...

[DrWho520]

I guess we just have to disagree on this. I know other companies have engaged in industrial espionage in the past, but I do not think it is OK for Chinese companies to do it now. Chinese companies use their labor force as reasoning to bring product assembly to China. This allows them to reverse engineer any product they assemble. They are very good at it.

0) Well I guess the rest of the global economy who got used to legislative control that allowed them to sell products they developed and implemented, that built their companies around this (they have to now, even if they did not in the past) will just have to go back to the good 'ol days of stealing ideas. Why? Because China joined the game and if we do not change all the rules, they will take their billion member, dirt cheap labor force and go home.

1) Chinese companies are engaged in industrial espionage. They steal technology implementations that require millions of dollars to develop. They do not copy the idea, they copy the implementation. I think this is stealing.

2) Fine, R&D AND implementation costs, because, again, Chinese companies are engaged in industrial espionage. Oh, and Chinese quality culture is leaps and bounds beyond where it was. You need some form of QC to build these.

3) Oh, but it is much less than working the bugs out on your own.

I loved Reading Rainbow as a child, because I love to read and it was hosted by LaVar Burton, AKA Geordi La Forge. So in that vein, you can always read more about it! Now, its time for coffee.