<p>““And autocratic societies often are more efficient (not better, efficient)…anyone remember the lesson of Sputnik?..””</p>
<p>Of course, China has also known about the Sputnik incident very well. And a comparison with the FSU is off-based to begin with, since China is only communist by name, but market-driven by nature. The ideological separation of ownership and sovereignty in the 1980’s allowed the proliferation of market transactions (property rights have to be established before monetary exchanges of goods can happen), which provided crucial signals for the Chinese government to construct policies with economical efficiency (the “authority” has to know what the market needs in order to become benevolent). The information costs for resources allocation have significantly been reduced and the benefits of comparative advantage have ignited the economy of China. There is no parallel with any other part of human history that you can reasonably make a comparison, as evidenced by the fact that China has brought literally hundreds of millions out of poverty in merely 3 decades and still running strong. The FSU wasn’t even close, it collapsed several decades after Sputnik, about the same duration as from China began economic reform up till now.</p>
<p>““Yet the reality of the USSR is while they did have some achievements, there is a downside to autocratic societies, and that is they don’t innovate well…””</p>
<p>As illustrated above, what has happened to FSU is only about FSU. And it is a far stretch to generalize toward China. For example, when China fetched the top spot of the world’s fastest supercomputer in late 2010, people were criticizing that the Tianhe-1A was constructed with Intel and nVidia chips, although the crucial interconnections that contributed to swift data transfer were Chinese design. So after just one year, Sunway has released the BlueLight MPP with Chinese microprocessors,</p>
<p>“China has made its first supercomputer based on Chinese microprocessor chips, an advance that surprised high-performance computing specialists in the United States… The Sunway system, which can perform about 1,000 trillion calculations per second — a petaflop — will probably rank among the 20 fastest computers in the world. More significantly, it is composed of 8,700 ShenWei SW1600 microprocessors, designed at a Chinese computer institute and manufactured in Shanghai…”, <a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/29/world/asia/china-unveils-supercomputer-based-on-its-own-microprocessor-chips.html[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/29/world/asia/china-unveils-supercomputer-based-on-its-own-microprocessor-chips.html</a> .</p>
<p>There are many more examples, such as advances in meta-materials, quantum computing, space mining, etc., for which I doubt much of the Western media would pay attention and spend the time to appreciate the break-throughs as they are technical in nature. The number of publications and patents quoted on my earlier message, is only for convenience toward a general audience. China is changing far deeper and in so many fronts than most may realize that, casual comparisons with historical incidents or simplistic ideological models are off-the-mark.</p>
<p>““Japan is another example of a culture that was supposed to ‘take over the world’,…””</p>
<p>I would suggest refraining to build on such hyperboles as “take over the world” from the discussion here, because it is only indicating a strawman argument, solely constructed to be beaten down.</p>
<p>““The Chinese education system does have problems, and even parents and officials there admit it, the heavy emphasis on rote drills and learning knowledge for tests is all great and wonderful, but it is one dimensional in its approach, but people also tend to measure things by one dimensional measures, things like SAT scores and standardized tests and even grades to a certain extent can be achieved by drilling and drilling and a lot of hard work (and there is nothing wrong with that, you obviously need that)…””</p>
<p>The above is another strawman argument, whoever says the Chinese education system is problem-free to begin with. And those depending mainly on “rote drills” wouldn’t have performed well on the Gaokao, the Chinese university entrance exam, which isn’t any exam similar to SAT. For example, how would anyone “rote drill” on essay prompts such as these,</p>
<ol>
<li>Danish fishermen (with elaboration on the essay prompt).</li>
<li>Project in light reading.</li>
<li>Reject Mediocrity.</li>
<li>Why chase mice when there are fish available?</li>
<li>Your viewpoint about China sweeping all golds in the international ping-pong tournament.</li>
</ol>
<p>Or maybe the Western media have successfully “rote-drilled” some Chinese stereotypes into the unsuspecting audience instead. :-)</p>
<p>““I am talking java programmers, SA’s, dbas and so forth, and quite frankly, a lot of the people who are H1B’s these days are ordinary, they are drone workers…””</p>
<p>Flame bait alert… the author is calling CS people “drone workers”. 
There are indeed code monkeys, but for those capable of attaining H-1, it is far less likely the case.</p>
<p>““The other side of it is cultural, and that is where the Chinese may find the biggest hurdles. Innovation doesn’t come about in neat, structured ways, it doesn’t come about politely, it is often quite ugly and frankly disruptive.””</p>
<p>The Cultural Revolution had completely broken down the feudal system in China, which later allowed young workers to migrate from the villages and find manufacturing jobs in the cities, after the government had relaxed on Hukou, the household registration system. However, the feudal system was broken down by means of totally demolishing Chinese cultural structures, turning friends against friends, relatives against relatives, siblings against siblings, and children against parents, only at the whim of the immediate political climate desired by Mao for consolidating his leadership. It was a very chaotic period of about a decade. Chaotic enough that complaints about China nowadays, are ironically more about insufficient legal and social structures instead, such that the flip-side is fluidity to stretch the boundaries, with the exception of political issues. The argument of structure vs. innovations, isn’t a cultural issue here, but a political one, as communism was imported to China in the 1920’s, which isn’t part of traditional Chinese culture. But even then, China is only communism by name nowadays and market-driven by nature. Innovations would be supported by markets signals, whether directed by the government or the private sector.</p>
<p>““I talk to a lot of Chinese born colleagues, have several working for me, and one of the things they talk about back home is the frustration of a very hierarchical, autocratic system, where bosses say is all, where thinking outside the box is not only not encouraged, but is penalized. The people who innovate are the mavericks, and how do you have mavericks in a society that frowns on them, or puts them in jail… about the so called ‘Sea Turtles’, kids who went to the west for school and now started going home and one of the things they talked about was the frustration…””</p>
<p>It is counter-productive to mix politics in the discussion of non-political issues. Evidently, those Chinese who have filed the hundreds of thousands of patents every year weren’t penalized or jailed at all. Besides, Chinese entities tend to run on tighter budgets, which would provide less leeway for “mavericks” to run amok. The flip-side is more selective channeling of funds, for which some may perceive as autocratic, but in fact, more cost-efficient instead.</p>
<p>““China has the same problem in slightly different ways. The culture is hierarchical and there is a tendency to think that ‘great ideas come from the top’. More importantly,there is this tremendous fear of change, when you see artists censored, when you see ideas blocked or people put in jail for thinking ‘impure ideas’, you have a problem, because innovation comes from there, it comes from the radicals, it comes from the mavericks…””</p>
<p>Genuinely traditional Chinese culture also says (Confucius), for example, “Three persons walking along side each other, there must be someone I may learn from.”, which doesn’t specify at all the social rank of that other person. Together with the effects of the Cultural Revolution as mentioned earlier, the argument of hierarchy vs. innovations, is far from significant. Maybe surprised for some, those people weren’t jailed for “thinking impure ideas”, but political struggles with the Chinese government. As illustrated earlier, it is counter-productive to mix politics in the discussion of non-political issues.</p>
<p>““Edison if he lived in today’s China would probably be in jail or shot,…””</p>
<p>You may have mistaken China with Europe in the Middle Ages, where Copernicus and Gallileo were prosecuted. On the other hand, Corzine would have been shot in China and I suppose many would have applauded. :-), [Two</a> former officials convicted of bribery executed |Society|chinadaily.com.cn](<a href=“China Daily Website - Connecting China Connecting the World”>Two former officials convicted of bribery executed |Society|chinadaily.com.cn) .</p>
<p>““In terms of a “Chinese Century”… You can’t have a “Chinese Century”…””</p>
<p>Once again, I would suggest refraining to build on such hyperboles as “Chinese Century” from the discussion here, because it is only indicating a strawman argument, solely constructed to be beaten down, although in this case, it is part of the title of this thread.</p>
<p>““One cautionary tale from the not so distant past: Japan was considered to be the next big power, be the ‘japanese century’ and so forth, and they have fallen into a state of stagnation, no one is selling ‘the Japanese method’ any more, and it highlights one of the strengths of the US. Japan in part collapsed because it couldn’t change, the culture of how they did things was too strong, and the government couldn’t act when it should have, and as a result they are kind of on the sidelines at the moment, especially economically…””</p>
<p>Far more than the above, but it does highlight some strengths of the US ----- political strengths. Japan was forced to let the US dollar depreciate (about halved) against the Japanese Yen under the Plaza Accord in late 1985, to stimulate US exports as well as effectively allowing for more US government debts, which also attracted an enormous influx of hot money toward Japan, contributing to the speculation bubble and subsequent collapse of the Japanese markets in the late 1980’s and afterward, which also generated a huge amount of bad debts to be disposed of in the following decades. Whereas China has been successful in fending off the US from playing the same game. So a comparison with Japan in the 1980’s, is still moot here.</p>
<p>““Manufacturing in China today is there for the simple reason that China traditionally built its economic strength on a large supply of flexible, cheap labor and that is still true today…””</p>
<p>Far more than the above again. As mentioned earlier, the market economy has allowed the Chinese government to function more similarly to a corporation such that, authoritarian rule makes it more efficient to allocate resources according to market signals. This is the primary difference from the FSU, which have led to an almost uninterrupted economic surge for about 3 decades in China. If cheap labor were all there is, we may as well go to parts of Africa and many other locations wholesale. But the fact is many manufacturers have chosen to remain in China, even for still cheaper labor elsewhere.</p>
<p>““The top Chinese schools take relatively few students, and also highlights one of the problems with Chinese culture and education.””</p>
<p>The above is also a strawman argument in the sense that, “top” is comparative, then almost by default, those “top” Chinese schools must be selective and hence, indirectly the Chinese education system is unfairly blamed for having “top” Chinese schools.</p>
<p>““In China, to get into the top schools, of which there are few, the competition is fierce and is based on getting through a series of standardized tests and such, and there is all kinds of gaming to get into those schools, cram schools, cheating, you name it.””</p>
<p>As illustrated earlier, gaming for the SAT is relatively easy as compared to gaming for the Gaokao, the Chinese university entrance exam, or else some rich kids wouldn’t be trying to avoid Gaokao wholesale and take refuge abroad. And CollegeBoard doesn’t have the security measures at the SAT sites, similar to those of the Chinese government at the Gaokao sites.</p>
<p>““The problem is the rest of the colleges in China are mediocre in comparison, which is why those that can afford it send them to the US and elsewhere…””</p>
<p>The above is yet another strawman argument in the sense that, once the “top” is defined, then almost by default, the others must be “mediocre in comparison” and hence, indirectly the Chinese education system is unfairly blamed for having “top” Chinese schools.</p>
<p>““One of the advantages the US is the network of colleges here,…””</p>
<p>So the US don’t have “top” schools, which would create the “problem” of “the rest of the colleges in (the US) are mediocre in comparison”? :-)</p>
<p>““and the fact that where you (Americans) went to college (in the US) is not as a big a deal as it is in China…””</p>
<p>…which means attending party schools at the parents’ expenses. Yeehhhaaaa… :-)</p>
<p>I have enough fun. I shall stop here. Happy Chinese New Century… oops, nope, Year of the Dragon. :-)</p>