China pretends to accommodate the administration


China is preparing to replace an industrial policy savaged by the Trump administration as protectionist with a new program promising greater access for foreign companies, people briefed on the matter said.

China’s top planning agency and senior policy advisers are drafting the replacement for Made in China 2025, President Xi Jinping’s blueprint to make the country a leader in high-tech industries including robotics, information and clean-energy cars. The revised plan—Beijing’s latest effort to resolve trade tensions with the U.S.—would play down China’s bid to dominate manufacturing and be more open to participation by foreign companies, these people said.

Current plans, they said, call for rolling out the new policy early next year, when the U.S. and China are expected to be accelerating negotiations for a deal to end their bruising trade battle. China has signaled other measures as well, including lowering tariffs on auto imports and increasing purchases of U.S. agricultural products.

U.S. stocks rose on Wednesday, but closed off the highs, continuing a recent stretch of volatility as signs of easing trade tensions boosted the global economic-growth outlook. The Dow Jones industrials climbed 157.03 points, to 24527.27, after earlier rising as much as 458 points. The S&P 500 added 14.29 points, to 2651.07. Positive trade signals have tended to boost stocks in recent weeks, while setbacks in negotiations have sent major indexes tumbling.

Signs of continued tensions surfaced elsewhere in Washington, as top U.S. national security officials told lawmakers in Senate hearings that Beijing continues to exploit U.S. technology in a bid to develop its own economy, further describing Chinese hacking and cyber-espionage as a severe threat to U.S. security.

Odds are long that Beijing’s new industrial policy will go far enough in addressing U.S. complaints. Mr. Xi and others in the Chinese leadership are used to exercising a strong hand in the economy. Many bureaucracies and state-owned enterprises benefit from the unfettered access to resources that come with big government initiatives and so don’t want to be hampered by the greater competition of a level playing field.

The revision is also likely to be treated with skepticism in the U.S. Officials in the Trump administration have called Made in China 2025 a threat to fair competition, saying it encourages state subsidies for domestic companies and forces technology transfer from foreign partners. Some U.S. officials are likely to see the changes as more cosmetic than real.

Well, duh. Tick-tock. For the most part, China just has to wait until the (1) leftists plus (2) the prissy conservative anti-Trump part of the USA destroy the country. For example, Spengler notes again and again that China outdoes the US in STEM by huge margins, in large part because US universities have become Idiot Holes, where true excellence is superseded by some fool thing called “diversity.” We’ve talked about this here and here and other numerous times.

Trump has taken on the leftist fools in many ways, but almost none would be a greater victory if he takes on the diversity scam.

4 Responses to “China pretends to accommodate the administration”

  1. feeblemind Says:

    I don’t know what it will take to stop the diversity scam, or even the global warming scam for that matter. There is too much money, power and prestige to be gained for these scams to go away.

    I suspect that at best, it will take a generational shift in attitudes, at worst . . . societal collapse would bring everyone back to reality in a hurry. It is not an outcome I would look forward to.

  2. feeblemind Says:

    China has problems too.

    They are not a juggernaut.

  3. feeblemind Says:

    How about this from American R&D??

    It’s way over my head but it looks like a big deal:

    IonQ Has the Most Powerful Quantum Computers With 79 Trapped Ion Qubits and 160 Stored Qubits

    * IonQ systems are at room temperature
    * IonQ manipulates ions with magnets and lasers and have software control on mostly FPGA chips
    * IonQ are like atomic clocks, they do not have time limiting decoherence
    * IonQ can invent and make any kind of quantum gate. It is a matter of software and tuning laser pulses.
    * There are no errors from the fabrication of the qubits as the qubits are ions and not Josephson junctions.
    * There are no idle errors, no readout errors and no qubit lifetime problem
    * They could make 100-200 qubit modules and link them with optical interconnects.
    * They can have modular scaling which is not possible or practical with the superconducting systems. Superconducting quantum systems need extreme cooling. This cooling limits the size of the systems
    * Superconducting systems had proposed or were using access via a remote cloud computing submission of problems.
    * IonQ will have quantum systems at specialized data centers and then at regular data centers. The reason for data centers is because the quantum systems generate so much data. You get more benefit by pairing them with a lot of classical computers to process the data.
    * IonQ has a path to optical networking.
    * IonQ has a confident path to scaling to thousands of qubits. They believe the error rates will let them get to thousands of qubits before error correction is needed.
    * Error correction means you need a thousand times more qubits to get a number of useful error corrected qubits. You would need say one billion qubits to get to one million error corrected qubits.

    IonQ is ramping up their improvement at a very fast rate. They are making revolutionary performance advances every day. Their strategy is to not release a commercial product now. They will ramp up improvement faster and then release when their lead and financing is such that they can support a product without slowing development.

    They have done all this with only $22 million in funding from GV (Google Ventures), NEA (New Enterprise Associates) and Amazon AWS.

  4. Bob Risko Says:

    Consider the following example of comparative advantage, first offered by David Ricardo in the late 1700s. It takes England 100 labor-hours to produce one unit of cloth, and 120 labor-hours to produce one unit of wine. Similarly, it takes Portugal 90 labor-hours to produce one unit of cloth, and 80 labor-hours to produce one unit of wine.

    Under this scenario, England has to devote 220 labor-hours to produce one unit each of cloth and wine, while Portugal has to devote 170 hours to produce the same. But if England devotes 200 labor-hours to cloth alone and Portugal 160 labor-hours to wine alone, the end result is the same 2 units of cloth and 2 units of wine, but on 30 fewer hours of labor. In this example, because England is the more efficient producer of cloth (based on a cloth opportunity cost of labor of 5/6 versus 9/8), and Portugal the more efficient producer of wine (based on a wine opportunity cost of labor of 8/9 versus 6/5), comparative advantage results in the more efficient use of labor.

    The point? Although this example considers labor only, there’s a general lesson in political economy: in the long run, countries that want to maximize national wealth should produce only those goods and services that, comparatively speaking, their firms can produce more efficiently…which is why, for example, the U.S. shouldn’t be producing cars, but the Japanese – and eventually the Chinese — should. (China produced 29 million vehicles in 2017.) It’s that simple.

Leave a Reply