←back to thread

689 points taubek | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
rayiner ◴[] No.43632822[source]
Americans need to get over their view of “Asia” as being about making shoes. When I was working in engineering in the early aughts, we mocked the Chinese as being able only to copy American technology. Today, China is competitive with or ahead of America in key technology areas, including nuclear power, AI, EVs, and batteries.

We need to anticipate a future where China is equal to America on a per capita basis, but four times bigger. Is that a world where “Designed by Apple in California, Made in China” still makes sense? What will be America’s competitive edge in that scenario?

What seems most likely to me in the future is that the US will find itself in the same position the UK is in now. Dominating finance and services won’t mean anything when both the IP and the physical products are being produced somewhere else.

replies(66): >>43633029 #>>43633740 #>>43633979 #>>43634170 #>>43634230 #>>43635003 #>>43635033 #>>43635225 #>>43635278 #>>43635334 #>>43635471 #>>43635491 #>>43635637 #>>43635791 #>>43635923 #>>43635965 #>>43636370 #>>43636516 #>>43636589 #>>43636933 #>>43637091 #>>43637096 #>>43637236 #>>43637388 #>>43637764 #>>43637890 #>>43637962 #>>43638040 #>>43638048 #>>43638164 #>>43638448 #>>43638552 #>>43638604 #>>43638675 #>>43638810 #>>43638985 #>>43639013 #>>43639148 #>>43639294 #>>43639502 #>>43639504 #>>43639511 #>>43639667 #>>43639766 #>>43639770 #>>43639816 #>>43639820 #>>43639966 #>>43640213 #>>43640292 #>>43640451 #>>43641017 #>>43641361 #>>43641971 #>>43642066 #>>43642532 #>>43642662 #>>43642938 #>>43643423 #>>43643596 #>>43643685 #>>43643708 #>>43644078 #>>43646083 #>>43660566 #>>43661419 #
pjc50 ◴[] No.43633979[source]
> US will find itself in the same position the UK is in now

The thing is .. there's a point here, but it's not at all tied in with physical products. People are obsessed with one side of the ledger while refusing to see the other. Most of the stuff the UK is struggling with (transport, healthcare, energy) are "state capacity" issues. Things where the state is unavoidably involved and having better, more decisive leadership and not getting bogged down in consultations, would make a big difference.

The UK stepped on its own rake because it was obsessed with tiny, already vanished industries like fishing. Fishing is less profitable for the whole UK than Warhammer. It's not actually where we want to be. While real UK manufacture successes (cars, aircraft, satellites, generators, all sorts of high-tech stuff) get completely ignored. Or bogged down in extra export red tape thanks to Brexit.

To improve reality, we have to start from reality, not whatever vision of the past propaganda "news" channels are blathering about.

replies(22): >>43634292 #>>43634663 #>>43634841 #>>43634864 #>>43634939 #>>43634964 #>>43635024 #>>43635112 #>>43635288 #>>43635699 #>>43635776 #>>43637627 #>>43637838 #>>43638051 #>>43638563 #>>43639599 #>>43639910 #>>43640460 #>>43641575 #>>43641946 #>>43642439 #>>43642587 #
myrmidon ◴[] No.43634663[source]
> Fishing is less profitable for the whole UK than Warhammer.

This sounded completely insane to me. I tried to look up numbers and found that Games Workshop brings in > 0.5 billion in revenue (!!), compared to all of UKs fisheries at 1 billion-ish (profit margins are, as you'd expect, pretty favorable for the plastic figurines that they don' even paint for you).

Thanks for this interesting fact.

replies(8): >>43634720 #>>43635327 #>>43636951 #>>43638304 #>>43639769 #>>43640405 #>>43641885 #>>43644585 #
bombcar ◴[] No.43634720[source]
There's a problem with just directly comparing them - because JKR probably brings in more revenue to the UK than fishing, with Potter copyrights.

But most of that revenue goes to JKR, whereas most of the fishing revenue may end up in "working class" people's pockets.

replies(7): >>43634833 #>>43634998 #>>43635000 #>>43635136 #>>43635258 #>>43635306 #>>43637535 #
fwip ◴[] No.43634998{4}[source]
JKR's net worth is less than a billion, which means she's probably not raking in over a billion annually.
replies(1): >>43635073 #
dubiousdabbler ◴[] No.43635073{5}[source]
Isn't this because she gives so much to charity?
replies(1): >>43636585 #
tweetle_beetle ◴[] No.43636585{6}[source]
Quoting Wikipedia's source, Forbes estimated her donations were $120 million to date in 2012. However, she co-founded her own charity in 2005, of which she is the president, and I suspect most of it has been donated in that direction.

Personally, I'm always dubious of the rich and famous genuinely finding unmet cases for charitable organisations. Especially when they've made a fortune outsourcing being morally dubious to others - she can save children because others are paying her to be allowed to sell low quality merchandise almost certainly made in exploitative conditions.

She's not alone, there's many more e.g. Messi donating lots to children's cause through his own charitable organisation after gladly being a global ambassador for unhealthy snacks targeted at children.

replies(2): >>43637143 #>>43637630 #
throwaway48476 ◴[] No.43637143{7}[source]
During feudalism the rich donated a far larger percent of their assets. The trend has been that the rich donate a smaller percent since then
replies(1): >>43642540 #
weberer ◴[] No.43642540{8}[source]
Are you counting tithes as donations?
replies(1): >>43643215 #
1. throwaway48476 ◴[] No.43643215{9}[source]
Tithe/charity/donations/taxes. It's fungible from a socio economic perspective.