- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 3473 Hour
- Reading permission
The US seems to be moving towards decoupling but it is a bad strategy because there will be direct counteracting reactions and indirect asymmetric reactions.|
From a global standpoint, decoupling duplicates efforts, wastes resources and time, increases costs, reduces the sharing of ideas for mutual benefit, weakens platform growth from reduced demand markets, nationalistically closes off markets, and spikes competition until animosity is reached beyond which conflicts will arise thereby decreasing the subsequent mutual wish for resolution.
Moreover, technology advancement is challenged by the natural decrease in marginal returns from research for those in countries which are trying to make new advances on the back of previous advances; however it is the opposite case for countries which are advancing based on their new paradigms and frameworks of being emerging and newly industrialized economies which can learn from the lessons and mistakes in the technology development histories of those other countries.
Furthermore, technologies are foremost global solutions and value creators. Technology thrives on a multitude of parts and platforms and spreads by diversity of functions. A single device is often made from many different parts made and sourced from many countries spread across the globe. The platform of that device may have been designed in one place with applications designed on it but there will be other platforms with similar functions which can (a) best the performance of the first-mover platforms, and (b) also allow the same applications to be usable therein.
This means using technology to extort sovereign interest beneficial to one's trade only is counterproductive to the growth firstly of one's own industries, and secondly the industries of the world with which one must cooperate because of the basic feature of technology advancement - global integration of both product and market.
Twinned to global supply chain is global demand market. Because marginal returns from technology research are reducing, the only way to ensure each new product coming on-stream can make sufficient money to recoup costs, support enterprise value and safeguard futures is to facilitate not militate against the integration of technologies and their markets wherever it makes sense from a cost perspective. After all, the bigger the available market, the faster and bigger the chance to get back enough returns to continue the progress. If this is hindered, technology industries will recess, technical jobs will fall and talent will move to other less demanding industries, globally blunting one of the spearheads of progress that define this century.
The mistake the US policy-makers are making is failing to see how its technology industries can cooperate with the technology industries in other countries so that as they grow with US inputs, they increase the R&D pools of funds and talents of the US industries which can then become better at adding new values to the parts, platforms and products of their joint-venture overseas partners or other players in the same technology segments. The values here are both vertically integratable and horizontally diversifiable.
After all, the underlying feature of all technologies is constant-improvement. And the fundamental aspect of constant improvement is value-addition.
Therefore if one ponders what has been written here, the only real reason why the Trump administration alone has adopted an aggressive, antagonistic and extortionate approach towards China's imperatives in her technology development is to stop China's rise soley on account of her type of government organization even when US technology industries and markets are friendly and open to more cooperation with China's technology industries and markets.
But that type of government organization which the US rightwing hawks hee-haw against has for her President someone who has said while on visits to the remotest regions of the country, "Poverty eradication is one of the biggest concerns in my heart".
Would those who have only owned hotels, casinos and golf-courses be able to contemplate and appreciate that?