Comment by z2 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by z2 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I think a unique problem with China (and India too in the future) is that it is so big that the consequences of transfer materialize faster and and in bigger ways. Unlike smaller developing nations, China seems to be pretty good at learning and implementing, either as a matter of policy or through the sheer size of its markets and burgeoning professional class. Siemens and Kawasaki probably didn't expect China to internalize their high speed rail tech in a few short years, and proceed to compete internationally against them. Where do you draw the line from acceptable transfer? Is stealing a retroactively-applied term when someone exceeds the teacher or can the terms of transfer be done better upfront?

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?

What is it about China that allowed them to so quickly internalize that high speed rail tech so they could compete with Siemens or Kawasaki?

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?

Not being an expert or qualified on this, my speculation is size, as in a reasonably-educated population and resources to support them, not necessarily government efficiency or competency. The size is what enables a complex supply chain and network that high tech companies need. You can transfer tech to a smaller country like Vietnam all you want, but it will be forced to specialize into only a few industries as it matures if it wants to keep an edge (like with Korea, Taiwan, etc.).

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.

I would say the difference is that Chinese political leaders are very concerned with improving their country while lining their own pockets, while American politicians are mostly concerned with lining their own pockets. Sure, they say all the right words to inspire people and get re-elected, but it's 90% about the $$$ for them personally.

They haven't had long enough to see all of the eventual downfalls of centralized, secretive governance.

I think that greed is easier to manage when expanding into underserved & undercapitalized markets - in that environment most capital increase becomes an easily spread general improvement in life quality.

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.

So it’s like a new greenfield project vs dealing with legacy systems?

Yes, but instead of code and past technical decisions fighting against advancement, it's people with capital and interests in the status quo.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com