←back to thread

521 points hd4 | 9 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
hunglee2 ◴[] No.45643396[source]
The US attempt to slow down China's technological development succeeds on the basis of preventing China from directly following the same path, but may backfire in the sense it forces innovation by China in a different direction. The overall outcome for us all may be increase efficiency as a result of this forced innovation, especially if Chinese companies continue to open source their advances, so we may in the end have reason to thank the US for their civilisational gate keeping
replies(17): >>45643584 #>>45643614 #>>45643618 #>>45643770 #>>45643876 #>>45644337 #>>45644641 #>>45644671 #>>45644907 #>>45645384 #>>45645721 #>>45646056 #>>45646138 #>>45648814 #>>45651479 #>>45651810 #>>45663019 #
notepad0x90 ◴[] No.45643876[source]
I think anti-immigrant rhetoric will have the most impact against the US. A lot of the people innovating on this stuff are being maligned and leaving in droves.

Aside from geography, attracting talent from all over the world is the one edge the US has a nation over countries like China. But now the US is trying to be xenophobic like China, restrict tech import/export like China but compete against 10x population and lack of similar levels of internal strife and fissures.

The world, even Europe is looking for a new country to take on a leader/superpower role. China isn't there yet, but it might get there in a few years after their next-gen fighter jets and catching up to ASML.

But, China's greatest weakness is their lack of ambition and focus on regional matters like Taiwan and south china sea, instead of winning over western europe and india.

replies(9): >>45644175 #>>45644347 #>>45644446 #>>45644626 #>>45645154 #>>45647568 #>>45649325 #>>45652018 #>>45652682 #
1. dlisboa ◴[] No.45644175[source]
> But, China's greatest weakness is their lack of ambition and focus on regional matters like Taiwan and south china sea, instead of winning over western europe and india.

That's a strength. Them not having interest in global domination and regime change other than their backyard is what allows them to easily make partners in Africa and LATAM, the most important regions for raw materials.

replies(3): >>45644562 #>>45644569 #>>45645297 #
2. notepad0x90 ◴[] No.45644562[source]
You would think so, but historically that's why they never became more than a regional power. Empires for millennia craved trade with China but only the mongols from that region made it all the way to western europe in their invasions.

It is a strength, if their goal is to have a stable and prosperous country long term, and that seems to be what they want. good for them. But nature abhors a vacuum, so there will always be an empire at the top of the food chain. Such empires want to maximize wealth for their people and secure them against threats, that's why invasions and exploitation of weaker countries happens. That game hasn't changed. Friendly relations work, until you need a lot of resources from a country that doesn't want to give it up. Or, like with the US, when they're opening up military bases next to your borders and you need a buffer state. Or, when naval blockades and sanctions are being enforced against your country for not complying with extra-sovereign demands.

History shows that countries content with what they have collapse or weaken very quickly.

China will have a population crisis in a few decades for example, and it won't have the large manufacturing base and its people will be too used to luxuries to go back to slaving for western countries for pennies. Keep in mind that the current china itself is so great and prosperous because of all the invasions it did against western china and satellite states like Vietnam and north Korea (the US isn't special in this regard).

replies(1): >>45644832 #
3. OrvalWintermute ◴[] No.45644569[source]
if you've been tracking the shark deals they give countries for loans, I think you'd recant what you just said.

"while the CCP accuses the West of predatory interest rates, the average Chinese rescue loan carries an interest rate of about 5 percent, more than double the IMF’s standard 2 percent. As of Oct. 1, 2025, despite higher U.S. interest rates, the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights lending rate stands at only 3.41 percent, still significantly lower than what China charges struggling nations for so-called relief."

These countries paying these loans are the ones least able to pay them back, and at more than double IMF loans, they are really putting them in a vise.

replies(1): >>45650986 #
4. lossolo ◴[] No.45644832[source]
> But nature abhors a vacuum, so there will always be an empire at the top of the food chain

The world has been bipolar and multipolar before in history, and it can be again. The unipolar period of American dominance is ending.

replies(1): >>45647454 #
5. ikidd ◴[] No.45645297[source]
>Them not having interest in global domination and regime change

I don't even know where to begin with that one.

replies(2): >>45645909 #>>45647791 #
6. anonzzzies ◴[] No.45645909[source]
Alright let's hear it.
7. notepad0x90 ◴[] No.45647454{3}[source]
Yes, it can but those poles are expansionist/influential empires not isolationist states. For example, China wants involvement in African development but they don't want any say or interference in local affairs, they can exert influence but they don't want to.
8. Jackpillar ◴[] No.45647791[source]
Yeah waiting to see historical examples of contemporary China being interested in global domination and regime change, especially in contrast to the US.
9. skinnymuch ◴[] No.45650986[source]
China’s retribution or punishment against loan issues is nowhere close to IMF and the west. Same with them not wanting the state to do what they want.

You did the equivalent of showing some stat showing black and brown people do violence and crimes and saying “see how uncivilized they are” ignoring everything else.