I remind you, developed WTO member countries are obliged to facilitate technology transfers to lesser developed countries by WTO charter.
It might be a surprise to most HN readers, but that clause was put in WTO charter by... USA
It might be a surprise to most HN readers, but that clause was put in WTO charter by... USA
In other words, I wonder if there's a way to adjust tech transfers to developing countries based on not just the level of development, but also how 'dynamic' the developing country is? Is it fair to punish a country having a population and policies in place that focus on learning and development?
Meanwhile, in the US, our government is on the verge of shutdown every year because we have to raise some artificial debt ceiling to keep the federal government operating.
Why are the Chinese so much more efficient? Americans, even progressive Americans, often think of government being large, inefficient, and bloated. What’s the disconnect?
Edit: Maybe another thing is that value in technology is a mix of design and process. It's one thing to give the other side a blueprint, but it's another to force a joint-venture and teach people on the ground how to do things hands-on.
When trying to balance inequality in well-capitalized, mature markets, you fundamentally have to trade one set of ownership against another on a much more frequent basis. To replace one set of capital investments with another (even when the new investments are an improvement), requires displacement of the old owners and old industry; see fossil fuels and climate crisis as a major example. Government becomes a battleground between the capital interests and is often where progress is neutralized.