- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 3249 Hour
- Reading permission
sfphoto Post time: 2019-4-28 21:40
The problem is not Chinese manufacturers using US technology, it is their business model of relyin ...
Any innovation system needs a strong and tested R&D culture in place first. Countries like the UK, Germany, Japan and the US took more than a hundred years each to develop their R&D cultures. And the US and UK absorbed migrant brains from all over the world which enabled them to accelerate their R&D. Furthermore their R&D cultures had percolated as populist ideas into their societies through movies, magazines and garage-level DIY tinkering's, many of which later becoming commercial inventions even if only at supermarket shelf levels. Making ingenious and useful things to sell or franchise therefore became a natural yardstick and badge of backyard household success and gave rise to communities of lone-ranger inventors with dreams and visions fueled by just innate curiosity and eagerness to solve problems systematically.
Moreover their government-university-industry R&D tripartite was further propelled by government grants, funds, subsidies and contracts and the callings of wars, later quantitative easing, stock market plays, alumni networks, venture capital industries, bank credits, natural resources lock-ins, default dollar and trade rules written and dictated by them, further abetted by patent systems they had developed to lock-in any amount of premium values for their designs they can choose to set in their language and legalese. It should not be lost on anyone that locking-in for oneself also means locking-out others to develop extensions of similar inventions or designs, for that matter setting a price for one's design means selling at an even higher premium later to weaken the financial development capacities of potential buyers.
In short, they built a closed loop of institutions, systems and contacts which in turn was magnified solely in their favor by their own global media, political ideologies, religions, rules for progress, trade currency, even sanctions and sovereign ratings.
Furthermore, many of those foreigners who had studied in their education centers would return home thinking in their language, using their standards of judgment, and choosing to buy their goods because of familiarity. With their everything as de-facto standards, what for goods came next for way of thinking, finally for life, and unless careful, hence of destiny.
On the other hand, China came up from a very low base not just industrially and economically; she had also suffered the aftermaths of historical annexations, natural disasters and social deformations. She also didn't have the benefit of a domestic technological head-start nor foreign R&D brains to start in-house R&D programs for that matter postgraduate courses. She didn't start any wars to build capability for dual-application hardware. She had a monotonic population by dint of historical evolution of events and circumstances. She didn't have enough arable land nor industrial natural resources.
She could have followed the examples of others then and taken a hundred years from opening up but because her base was abnormally low for a country which was at one time the most advanced and wealthiest, her taking such a long path of a century of opening up for her large population and huge market potential would have meant by the time 2078 is reached for her to develop indigenous technologies, those technologies would have a problem ever competing for her own internal market shares in all sectors which by then would already be foreign-owned and controlled as she has learnt from her history where no foreign power had ever been altruistically benevolent towards her peoples.
It would then have been an insufferable position for a proud nation of intelligent peoples who were once primus inter pares among civilizations only to be conquered again, this time from within and by one's own remiss. Stretched, it could be akin to opening again that gate of the Great Wall. Fortunately, it hasn't happened.
What she currently faces is understandable. Fast-tracked opening in any country will always bring issues of overcapacity, under-productivity and mismatches between supply and demand besides foreign jealousy and mischief. Yet she has been quietly solving those problems. The economic and other reforms were already being instituted to address those challenges until Trump like some Nero impatiently decided he wouldn't wait so he proceeded to rock the world's biggest supertanker of the oceans, forgetting to ponder what would happen if bilateral agreements against the agency of the WTO will also create waves of discontent in a world which had been set to multi-lateralism and entrenched global supply chains for decades. But that's because his neuro-processes are only binaries above (and below) his navel. And all the other countries have concluded he and his US had started it all to mess everything up by forcing China to buy from him at the expense of buying from others.
Indeed, given time, China is big and resourceful enough to develop end-to-end domestic technologies for her own markets. Her trading partners would already have come to the same conclusion and should help her so that she can be relieved from the incoming bilateralism to buy more from them. Maybe one day her R&D culture can accelerate in its own unique form, as her poverty reduction programs, technical unicorns, agricultural revolutions, green technologies and super-speed infrastructural mega-projects have already shown to the world. Meanwhile those trading partners and others should wisely strike up even stronger cooperative ventures and technical exchanges with her so as to be able to share future growths together from better economies-of-scales leading to more affordable and varied goods and services in their respective home countries. If their advanced technologies are any good, they will find a ready market in a country like China whose market is huge enough combined of other markets in the world for such goods.