Talk:Essay: The USA is more innovative and productive than China and Russia

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This is so childish. Most people teach their children not to hate people for no reason, and certainly not because you think you are better than them. Not User:Conservative. He thinks it is American foreign policy. RobSThe Truth. Just Putin It Out There 09:22, June 18, 2024 (EDT)

Feel free to create a counter essay at: Essay: The USA is NOT more innovative and productive than China and Russia.
Also, the ad hominem (personal attack) is a logical fallacy. It would be far more impressive if you put forth a sound argument using facts, evidence and logic. Instead, you claim without evidence that I hate people for no reason. Given the lack of evidence you put forth, I suspect that you are engaging in projection.
Next, RobSmith admits that he is not an international relations and international politics expert:
RobSmith, no one in the world recognizes your self-proclaimed expertise. Conservative (talk) 01:59, June 14, 2024 (EDT)
"I never claimed to be." - RobSThe Truth. Just Putin It Out There 09:07, June 14, 2024 (EDT) Conservative (talk) 09:29, June 18, 2024 (EDT)

statist?

"A statist economy can’t foster creativity".

Next you are going to tell us the United States stands for democracy in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine.

(Oh, and don't tell us this was not plagiarized from a globalist website). RobSThe Truth. Just Putin It Out There 19:17, December 26, 2024 (EST)

Third world subhuman innovators

Is this what you mean by innovation? Russia apparently has innovated the concept of "shock & awe", and the United States needs time to catch up. RobSThe Truth. Just Putin It Out There 04:31, December 27, 2024 (EST)

So here's a THAAD in action. Problem is, they only exist in limited supply, are expensive to build, and those third world subhumans (to use your own idioms) can build ballistic missiles cheaper and faster than the US or all of NATO. RobSThe Truth. Just Putin It Out There 16:05, December 27, 2024 (EST)

According to Conservapedia's Pragmatism article

"Pragmatism ...hinders innovation, as the people who make real differences in this world are not focused on the odds, or coming up with endless reasons why something can’t work." [2]

What drives technology & innovation? consumer demand or military applications?

How much of the sourcing in Essay receives funding from USAID

? RobSI don’t really care, Margaret 18:49, February 6, 2025 (EST)

Why don't you write some articles on Russian technology and innovation. Wikipedia has ones at: Timeline of Russian innovation and Science and technology in Russia.
You can write about things like invention of the radio, the creation of the periodic table of elements used in chemisty, Sputnik, the development of hypersonic missiles, etc. Conservative (talk) 18:57, February 6, 2025 (EST)
Don't challenge me to write counteressays. Your challenges are trolling & harassment.
Answer the question: How much of the sourcing in this Essay received funding from USAID? RobSI don’t really care, Margaret 19:00, February 6, 2025 (EST)
You can put the articles in mainspace. Conservative (talk) 19:01, February 6, 2025 (EST)
Did any of the sources in this Essay receive money from the same source that routed money to the Church of Satan? [3]
Your inability to qualify sources properly is well known and documented.
None of you narcissistic opinions belong in Mainspace Categories with other properly researched articles. RobSI don’t really care, Margaret 19:09, February 6, 2025 (EST)
You are fishing for an argument with the wrong person. Having arguments over the internet has no interest to me. There are so many more productive things to do. Conservative (talk) 19:32, February 6, 2025 (EST)
“ A little leaven leaventh the whole lump ”

—Apostle Paul

All your Essays are corrupted with the same willful ignorance. See Essay:Are ignorance, stubbornness, and stupidity conservative values? RobSI don’t really care, Margaret 22:55, February 7, 2025 (EST)

How Russia and China dominate the global quantum computer race

Again, step in doggie doodoo. Open mouth. Insert foot.

A 50-qubit quantum computer prototype based on rubidium neutral atoms has been developed by researchers at the Moscow State University and the Russian Quantum (https://t.me/geopolitics_live/42510) Center. What makes it so special?

How it works 🔎

▪️The new quantum computer is based on cold atoms, which is a method that involved trapping individual atoms to be manipulated with laser beams.

▪️This method allows for precise manipulation of quantum states, with the atoms being cooled and controlled via lasers.

Why does it matter? 🧐

▪️Unlike Western quantum computers based on superconductors, the Russian device possesses higher stability, has lower error rates and is more energy efficient.

▪️This technological breakthrough marks a significant leap from the 20-qubit quantum computer Russia unveiled in early 2024 and the 16-qubit quantum computer that was presented to President Vladimir Putin in 2023.

What has China been doing? 🇨🇳

▪️Jiuzhang, a 76-qubit quantum computer developed by scientists at the University of Science and Technology of China, became the first photonic quantum computer to achieve quantum supremacy.

▪️The Zuchongzhi 3.0 quantum computer, also developed in China, features 105 qubits, while its predecessor Zuchingzhi 2.0 had only 66 qubits.

▪️Another Chinese quantum computer, the 72-qubit Origin Wukong, recently reached an important milestone as it received over 20 million remote visits from more than 100 countries and regions.

How do Western quantum computers compare? 🖥

Western powers have their own achievements in the quantum computing field, which include the superconductor-based 53-qubit Sycamore quantum processor made by Google, the 27-qubit Quantum System One developed by IBM Research (first commercial quantum computer), and the 1,121-qubit Condor quantum processor also made by IBM.

Russia and China, however, are moving to outclass the Western quantum computers by developing more sophisticated and efficient systems that are less prone to making errors.
I have an educational background in computers and work experience as a programmer and I also have an educational background and/or work experience in business/management/finance/economics. I also have a friend who is a computer science professor at a university. We very recently talked about quantum computing and the United States is currently the leader, but China is a significant competitor.
In addition, both China/Russia have some very significant economic problems and both countries are becoming more authoritarian and not less which does not bode well for their economies and entrepreneurial activity. For example, China’s Economic Problem Isn’t Just ‘Japanification’ – It May Be Worse, Forbes 2025. I wish this were not the case, but unfortunately it is. So the odds of either country being the very top technological leader in the world is very low.
With that being said, if you have a different opinion on this matter, I have no problem with that. Conservative (talk) 12:20, February 16, 2025 (EST)
An addendum: I am a big believer in the value of competition. I like the fact that both China/Russia are coming out with some new innovations that could help humanity. It also is force against complaisancy in the the USA. For example, the economic pressure from China probably plays a part in causing more school choice in the USA and federal educational dollars going more to the states via DOGE, etc. Conservative (talk) 12:53, February 16, 2025 (EST)
"I", "I", "I". More narcissism. Step in doggie doodoo. Open mouth. Insert foot. RobSI don’t really care, Margaret 13:04, February 16, 2025 (EST)

Australian Strategic Policy Institute

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute, which is partly funded by the Australian military and is therefore certainly not pro-Chinese, has developed a Critical Technology Tracker with 64 current, critical technologies. The latest report is dated August 2024 and shows that the US was the leader in 60 of the 64 technologies between 2003 and 2007. China was only the leader in 3 technologies. Between 2019 and 2023, the US was the leader in only 7 technologies, while China was the leader in 57 technologies – including semiconductor chip manufacturing, gravity sensors, high-performance computing, quantum sensors and space technology. [4]

Hats off to User:Conservative for retarding students' and childrens' intellectual growth with stupidity and ignorance, making them less competitive. RobSZelensky Must Go! 01:47, March 16, 2025 (EDT)

USA vs. China

Per capita USA is more innovative than China, but China has more people so total innovative output is higher. But China's economy and demographics are in SAD SHAPE so its economy will crash and burn in about a decade. Also, in terms of labor productivity per capita and GNP per capita, the USA still leads China! USA! USA! USA!

See:

Life is a marathon and not a sprint. See: Slow and steady growth over the long term via capitalism and the rule of law versus short-sighted authoritarian economic growth that is costly to the long term economy and How long will the American civilization last? Strong reasons it could be a very long time

JD Vance disagrees with you

“ We were offshoring factories to cheap labor economies or importing cheap labor through our immigration system, cheap labor became the drug of Western economies. And I'd say that if you look in nearly every country, from Canada to the UK, that imported large amounts of cheap labor, you've seen productivity stagnate. [5][6] ”

Once again, again, you do not understand geopolitics or macroeconomics. IMO, you don't understand inflation (which you admitted to me in a phone call) and have inflation confused with your "productivity" figures. RobSZelensky Must Go! 11:14, March 23, 2025 (EDT) I trust this clarifies matters! Conservative (talk) 10:45, March 16, 2025 (EDT)

P.S. The Aussie's are allies with the USA and not China for good reasons! They can see the writing on the wall when it comes to China! For more information, please see: Two doomed nations: China and Russia. The natural disasters of biblical proportions to hit China in the last two decades. And Russia's bad choice to have a "partnership without limits" with a nation under divine judgment
I trust this further clarifies matters. Conservative (talk) 11:03, March 16, 2025 (EDT)
You didn't have to clarify anything. We already know you are an idiot. RobSZelensky Must Go! 12:57, March 16, 2025 (EDT)

Robert Lighthizer, President Trump's Trade Representative in Trump's first term who negotiated tariffs with China, refutes all User:Conservative's liberal claptrap that User:Conservative has added in recent years (beginning with citing the Aussie study). Tucker Carlson interview with Lighthizer. [7] RobSZelensky Must Go! 01:16, March 20, 2025 (EDT)

well duh (again)

US Court of International Trade just declared Trump's global trade war UNCONSTITUTIONAL

🔻 NO 30% tariffs on China
🔻 NO 25% tariffs on Canada/Mexico
🔻 NO 10% universal "tax on the world"

OK smart guy, Are you going to help walk back all your spam or are you going to leave all the big smelly turds you dropped all over Conservapedia for others to clean up?

User:Conservative: Did you bother studying this issue before you went off half-cocked again?

Are you going to follow up reporting by following the case to SCOTUS, if it ever gets there, or are you going to leave our conservative readers hanging with your propaganda BS again, proving how unreliable Conservapedia is as a source?

Or do you care that Trump's "Most Beautiful Word in the English Language" is illegal?

Is it any wonder why your writings help create the impression that Conservatives are unreasonable, illogical, stupid and fascist, not just the way you handle your material, but your arguments in support or (lack of) defense?

Even people who are no more than just "cheerleaders" of conservative causes should be attractive and sexy, not just mindless over-stuffed slobbering dimwitted nitwits. RobSZelensky Must Go! 21:07, May 28, 2025 (EDT)

Army scrambles to improve drone training

Defense One. One unit created its own virtual trainer with software used by Ukrainian troops.

Wow. The Pentagon is scrambling to innovate and has to rely on being a copycat.

Thanks to your false pride and bravado, it is pointless for Conservapedia to alert conservative readers to a vital national security threat. It only creates MORE confusion from what you have already spammed for 3 years. Readers don't know what to believe. You destroyed Conservapedia's credibility at a time of a national security crisis. For 3 years I begged you not to and to stop.

We'll just add it to Conservapedia proven wrong (third time in 3 days 24 hrs). RobSZelensky Must Go! 17:46, May 30, 2025 (EDT)

btw, "virtual trainer with software used by Ukrainian troops". That's brilliant. Copy the loser's training & tactics, huh? RobSZelensky Must Go! 17:53, May 30, 2025 (EDT)

BUREVESTNIK

Smaller fuel source gives greater space for warhead payload. Unlimited range, capable to fly in space. Virtually unlimited flight time. Capable of staying in flight for months. US abandoned similar program a few years ago.

The US made a big mistake when it walked away from arms control and limitation treaties a few years ago. Putin & Trump agree they should be restarted, but that won't happen until a peace deal is worked out in Ukraine to include:

  • demilitarization
  • denazification
  • diplomatic recognition of Russia's borders
  • no NATO
  • no sanctions

Then Putin & Trump can move ahead with joint rare earth mineral deals in Russia, joint oil & gas extraction in the Artic, denuclearization, arms control and limitations, etc. But User:Conservative has done nothing to help persuade conservative public opinion about these matters. In fact, he's only spewed neocon nazi & fascist rhetoric for years. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RobSmith (talk)

The War Zone: U.S. Needs To Be Building Tens Of Thousands Of Shahed-136 Clones Right Now

If the United States is superior in technology and innovation, why the urgent need "right now" to pirate Iranian technology as improved by Russia? RobSZelensky Must Go! 00:34, September 13, 2025 (EDT)

3 weeks. No response. I win. Ole! Ole! Ole! RobSZelensky Must Go! 18:54, October 2, 2025 (EDT)



Olé! Olé! Olé!

I hereby declare total victory over Stupidity from 2022 onward!

Financial Times: Russian missile upgrade outpaces Ukraine’s Patriot missile defenses

  • The interception rate of Russian ballistic missiles by Ukraine sharply dropped to 6% in September, the publication writes.
[It's easy to count how many Iksander or Kinzhals were shot down. Count how many were launched in Sept, and figure what 6% is. Remember, these are precision guided missiles, so the remaining 94% hit their target.]
  • It is claimed that they change trajectory when approaching the target, deviating from the surface-to-air missiles launched from the American Patriot SAM systems.
["change trajectory" see MIRV. A MaRV or "maneuverable" reentry vehicle uses AI to dodge efforts to shoot it down. Also see Oreshnik. The stationary Patriot missile battery, with 24 missiles has a hard time can't shoot down 36 maneuverable warheads from one incoming missile.]
  • "This is a turning point for Russia," says one former Ukrainian official.
  • Kiev is also facing a slowdown in the delivery of air defense interceptors from the US, while Russia "destroyed key military facilities and critical infrastructure ahead of winter."
["slowdown in the delivery", i.e. depleted US inventories. See also False sense of security.]
  • According to Ukrainian officials, at least four drone manufacturing plants in Kiev and its surroundings were seriously damaged this summer.
  • Some Patriot complexes were also attacked and damaged, leading to a weakening of the air defense architecture. Specialists trained to operate such systems were also killed.
["Specialists...killed". How will this effect "labor productivity" to "retrain" "specialists", which take months or years?]
A clear infographic from the Financial Times about how the latest Russian missiles bypass American Patriot SAMs in Ukraine. [1] 436 of 537 shot down in June, or about 80%, compared with only 6% in September. Question: Can American 40 year old outdated Cold War weapons like THAAD, HIMARS, or the Tomahawk missile which take years to build including cost overruns, compete with the existing modern innovations in the Russian arsenal?

No wonder Western globalists are in such a panic over Putin.

User:Conservative: If you think you are up for intelligent discussion, go ahead and call me.

irrelavent, off-topic response

Does the United States have a higher labor productivity rate and innovation rate than both China and Russia? If so, by what degree?:
Summary: "The United States outperforms both China and Russia in labor productivity (2.8–4.5x higher) and innovation rates (GII score 11–110% higher; R&D intensity 31–278% greater), driven by technological leadership and economic efficiency. While China's rapid growth poses a narrowing threat in absolute innovation outputs, Russia's lags are more pronounced due to structural and geopolitical constraints. These metrics underscore the US's global edge, but sustained investment is key to maintaining it."
From 1945 to right up to 1989 and the end of the Cold War, Soviet number crunchers told the Soviet leadership & public the USSR was outpacing the West.
What can $10 buy you in Moscow in 2025? Think about how labor intensive each of these items is, (everybody along the supply chain has to be paid, including the person who milked the cow to get the ice cream, as well as the earlier replacement costs to birth and raise the cow, and all the hands between producer & consumer for only $1.80) and maybe you will learn something about inflation and macroeconomics.

Frankly, your stand-by "labor productivity" argument is lame

How many decades would it take to reach parity, assuming we survive WWIII in the interim?

Most appalling is, it clearly is the neocon warmonger response against those of us in both Russia and the United States who (up until very recently) would have preferred to see Russia aligned with the United States in a potential conflict with China. After the US taxpayer killing 130,000 Russians, Cold War II & a protracted arms race seems unavoidable. Unless the United States shows leadership. RobSZelensky Must Go! 13:21, October 2, 2025 (EDT)

Olé! Olé! Olé!

I hereby declare total victory over Stupidity from 2022 onward!

If Russia raised its labor productivity rate, it would be easier for Russia to raise its ability to innovate

Summary:

"Raising Russia's labor productivity would likely make it easier to boost its innovation rate due to a positive bidirectional relationship: productivity gains generate surplus resources, higher wages, and investment incentives that fuel R&D and patent activity, as shown in BRICS panel data (2000–2012) and economic theory. Russia's manufacturing productivity lags peers (e.g., 40% of Brazil's mid-2000s level), but improvements could accelerate innovation in resource-rich regions. However, structural hurdles—weak IPR, state dominance, brain drain, and siloed R&D—require reforms to fully leverage this link, ensuring productivity surpluses translate into commercial innovation rather than stagnation."

I trust this clarifies matters. Conservative (talk) 21:00, October 2, 2025 (EDT)

If wishes were fishes, we'd all have a fish fry.
What escapes you is, this is all measured in USD, which is collapsing. RobSZelensky Must Go! 21:08, October 2, 2025 (EDT)
Only 48 Percent Of U.S. Adults Under The Age Of 30 Have A Full-Time Job.
(You can take your reliance on US government number crunchers and throw it in the trash). RobSZelensky Must Go! 21:14, October 2, 2025 (EDT)
Uh duh, we've already proven Russia has a superior ability to innovate where it counts - in the field of national security & defense.



Olé! Olé! Olé!

I hereby declare total victory over Stupidity from 2022 onward!

Question: [Grok: If 48% of Americans under 30 are being carried by the 52% gainfully employed, how will the 48% lack of job experience impact the future of "labor productivity" in the United States?] "The premise of the query aligns closely with recent U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data, which shows that in July 2025, the employment rate for youth aged 16-24 stood at 53.1%, meaning roughly 47% were not employed...This "carrying" dynamic—where a smaller share of young adults supports broader societal needs via taxes and economic output—exacerbates fiscal pressures but is particularly concerning for long-term labor productivity, defined as real output per hour worked or per worker. The lack of job experience among this 48% (or ~47% per data) cohort risks creating a "scarring effect" on the U.S. labor market, where early unemployment or underemployment leads to persistent skill gaps, reduced human capital accumulation, and slower productivity growth over decades. Here's how this could unfold:

1. Delayed Skill Development and Human Capital Erosion

Without early work exposure, young workers miss opportunities to build practical skills like teamwork, time management, and industry-specific knowledge, which are critical for efficient output. Studies show that youth disconnected from both school and work (about 5.5 million aged 16-24 in recent years) enter the workforce with lower baseline productivity, taking 1-2 years longer to reach peer performance levels.

This results in an aggregate drag on labor productivity: If 48% of the under-30 population (a key demographic for workforce replenishment) starts with 10-20% lower initial efficiency, national output per worker could stagnate or decline by 0.5-1% annually in the 2030s, per economic modeling from youth employment analyses.

2. Long-Term Wage and Earnings Penalties

A single six-month spell of youth unemployment can lead to $45,000 in lifetime wage losses ($23,000 immediate + $22,000 in reduced future earnings), as workers settle for lower-paying roles and face hiring biases. This not only curbs individual incentives to upskill but also reduces overall labor supply quality, as underemployed youth contribute less to innovation and efficiency gains. Over time, this translates to lower consumer spending and investment in training, creating a feedback loop that hampers productivity growth rates, which have already averaged just 1.2% annually since 2010.

3. Broader Economic and Structural Ripple Effects

Sectoral Mismatches: Inexperienced entrants flood low-skill sectors (e.g., retail, services), displacing more productive workers and underutilizing education investments. For instance, underemployed college grads (7.4% unemployment rate) take jobs not requiring degrees, reducing their output potential by up to 15%.

Demographic Pressures: With millennials and Gen Z comprising ~45% of the workforce by 2030, a less experienced under-30 cohort could widen productivity gaps in high-growth areas like tech and manufacturing, where experience drives 30-40% of output variance.

Social Costs Amplifying the Issue: Higher poverty and reliance on public aid (e.g., $31,000 less in cumulative pay after 14 years for "opportunity youth") divert resources from productivity-enhancing investments like R&D or infrastructure.

If China raised its labor productivity rate, would it be able to easier raise its innovation rate

Summary:

"Raising China's labor productivity could facilitate higher innovation rates, as the two are interconnected. Productivity gains—through efficiency, skills, and capital—free up resources for R&D, skilled workers, and economic surplus to support riskier innovations. In China's context, past surges (e.g., 12% annual growth from 2000–2011) have enabled wage rises and shifts toward tech-driven growth in areas like EVs and AI. Policies like "new quality productive forces" highlight this link, though challenges such as slowing productivity and state-heavy approaches persist. Ultimately, stronger productivity provides the foundation to ease innovation advances."

I trust this clarifies matters. Conservative (talk) 21:05, October 2, 2025 (EDT)

If wishes were fishes, we'd all have a fish fry.
What escapes you is, this is all measured in USD, which is collapsing. RobSZelensky Must Go! 21:08, October 2, 2025 (EDT)
Only 48 Percent Of U.S. Adults Under The Age Of 30 Have A Full-Time Job.
(You can take your statist worship and reliance on US government number crunchers and throw it in the trash). RobSZelensky Must Go! 21:14, October 2, 2025 (EDT)



Olé! Olé! Olé!

I hereby declare total victory over Stupidity from 2022 onward!

American Patriot systems are unable to prevent Russian air attacks — Washington Post

User:Conservative: Now you are going to get that senseless, expensive arms race and New Cold War for the next few decades you have been praying for since April 2022. RobSZelensky Must Go! 15:44, October 5, 2025 (EDT)

Newsweek: A recent Atlantic Council report highlights the "significant and steadily widening" capability gap between American hypersonic weapons and the latest achievements of China and Russia.

Is this Essay intentional error of unintentional error? [9]

I would wager to say the cause of that widening gap is because too many Americans have been feeding on the coprophagic stuff & sources in this and other Essays by the same author.

Of course, No True Conservative would fall for such idiocy.

Retrieved from "https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:_The_USA_is_more_innovative_and_productive_than_China_and_Russia&oldid=2165897"