It is my opinion that China’s leadership is smarter than ours. That’s no accident. It is a factor of the differences in our respective political systems, cultures, and languages. The Chinese leadership is showing that intelligence in increasing their exports to the “Global South” as David Goldman points out in his piece at Asia Times:
China’s exports grew 10.7% year-on-year in December, outpacing November’s 6.7% gain and beating analyst forecast of 7.3% growth.
Restocking in anticipation of tariffs accounted for a small part of the gain, but the main driver of Chinese exports remains the Global South, especially to countries where China is building infrastructure. China’s exports to the Global South exceeded its shipments to all developed markets in 2023, and the shift toward the developing world continues.
Consider as example the balances of trade between China and Nigeria or China and Ghana. That’s certainly good for consumers in those countries but I suspect it will be disastrous for their economic development. Japan, South Korea, and China didn’t import their way escaping poverty.
There’s more than one way of winning a trade war.
To quote Mao, quantity has a quality of its own. China has 10 times as many engineers and scientists as we do. Eight of the world’s top 10 technological universities are in China. If an IQ of 160 or more is needed to do cutting edge physics, we have 10,000 such people, and China has 300,000,
So regarding any economic or technological problem, China can put at least 10 times as many skilled people and almost infinitely more resources on the solution. Competition with them is impossible. We have to find a way to coexist and cooperate with them.
Need I add that China’s ally, Russia, is every bit as capable as we are. They have as many engineers and scientists as we do, and only 40% of our population. That implies that their industrial capacity is equal to ours.
We need a government that understands reality. We do not and will not have one. We are in for a real economic and military disaster.
You are wrong about China’s investments in Nigeria and elsewhere. The BRI is everywhere a net benefit to all the participants. The IMF and World Bank are the parasites on the developing world.
Although not the focus of the title, I couldn’t help but note the applicability to the linked article.
https://hotair.com/headlines/2025/01/19/the-energy-storage-fiasco-how-soon-will-it-be-abandoned-n3798961
The salient points are simple, the amount of storage needed to create a viable grid level system based on any material amount of solar or wind is enormous. And storage facilities cost a lot and are dangerous. Before the recent fire at a CA storage facility there have been a number of other fires at storage facilities in CA and NY.
These real world issues remain unresolved, despite the zealots slavish devotion to green. We have barely scratched the surface of the need. It falls under the same umbrella as the billions allocated for EV car charging stations……..while only a handful have been built. Our leaders, like Newsom, Hochel or Biden – and their merry men – just aren’t as smart as China’s. China is building enough coal fired plants to dwarf everything we do to reduce CO2. While we deindustrialize.
If solar, wind and EV’s really ever hope to be more than a niche product, and they theoretically could, we need to think in terms not like 2030, but 2070. And not commit societal and industrial suicide in the interim.
Now, shall we talk about the projected energy demand from AI……..?
I dont know if it is smarter, but it is more stable. It’s easier to generate industrial policy if you dont face election every 4 years. Of course they are also engaging in central planning which has worse long term outcomes.
I am sure few people will read Drew’s link but the author claims we would need to have 40 days worth of electricity storage if we went to all renewables. He uses his own proprietary calculations that are the most extreme I have ever seen. Also, most people are using lithium iron phosphate batteries for large scale storage which are incombustible. (Also, isn’t it odd to worry about batteries burning when all fossil fuels also at risk of burning?)
Steve
Nancy Pelosi has been in the Congress since 1987. Joe Biden has been in office since 1973 with a brief hiatus during Trump’s first term. How much more stable can you get? Lack of stability isn’t the problem with our political leadership. Leadership is the problem with our political leadership.
Arent you the guy who complains Congress has ceded its power? POTUS has changed and fairly radically several times. SCOTUS, the other real power, has also drastically changed. Besides which even in Congress, are you really going to claim that Congress under Gingrich or Johnson is the same as Congress under Pelosi? So let me amplify and say that stability also implies some consistency. Xi wont be replaced by someone who will cancel everything his predecessor did just because he doesnt like Xi.
Steve
IMO there’s a direct causal relationship between Congress adopting reelection as its prime directive and a lack of the consistency you say we should have.
Having actual principles beyond getting elected might be a good step.
Steve.
Use whatever standards you desire. The points will maintain.