View source for Talk:Essay: Communist China’s quixotic quest to innovate: A statist economy can’t make creativity greatly blossom

__TOC__

==[[Liberal claptrap]]==

Apparently, [[American foreign policy]] is run by a bunch of [[Luddite]]s:
{{Cquote|''[https://t.me/Slavyangrad/114718 Any Chinese company innovating too quickly or succeeding too visibly now represents a “risk” in the eyes of the US government]''}}

*[https://www.moonofalabama.org/2025/01/how-the-chinese-beat-trump-and-openai.html How The Chinese Beat Trump And OpenAI]

How come you are always a day late and $10 inflation adjusted dollars short?

You know, if [[America]] is ever to raise up a generation of young innovators to compete with the Chinese and Russians, they need to be smarter than the author of these essays and able to read through all the false pride and cheerleading. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''The Truth. Just Putin It Out There'']]</sup> 23:53, January 24, 2025 (EST)

As Trump said, it's a merit-based society, and not one based on birthright (cause you were lucky enough to be born American, and not Russian or Chinese).

But this seems to a habit with this author - trying to promote himself or his society by tearing others down. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''The Truth. Just Putin It Out There'']]</sup> 23:59, January 24, 2025 (EST)

Do you ever actually do any research for the pap you pollute Conservapedia pages and Categories with? 

[[File:Photo 2025-01-25 23-41-48.jpg|center|600px|thumb|]]

[[File:DeepSeek.PNG|center|600px|thumb|]]

[[User:Conservative]]: You could save both of us countless hours daily if you were to cease your trolling. Most importantly, it would be beneficial to our readers. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''The Truth. Just Putin It Out There'']]</sup> 16:44, January 27, 2025 (EST)

*[https://www.richardhanania.com/p/deepseek-hype-and-reality DeepSeek: Hype and Reality. Understanding the recent earthquake in AI development].
::"According to a McKinsey report, AI could potentially contribute around $600 billion annually to the Chinese economy, which could equate to roughly 3.7% of China's current GDP". - McKinsey & Company, 2022[https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/quantumblack/our-insights/the-next-frontier-for-ai-in-china-could-add-600-billion-to-its-economy]

::What about the rest of the economy? In 2023, the USA was over 200% more productive in terms of labor productivity than China when measured using purchasing power parity.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_labour_productivity]

::And [[labor productivity]] leads to economic stability and wealth generation. Right now China has a property crisis, deflation and high youth unemployment. [https://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:_It%27s_time_to_be_very_bearish_about_China%27s_long-term_economy China's economy is a mess] so it's not surprising that the USA has over 300% higher GDP (PPP) than China per capita in 2024.[https://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:_Why_the_USA%27s_per_capita_income_is_MUCH_higher_than_China%27s#Key_statistics_and_information_related_to_USA.27s_per_capita_income_being_over_300.25_higher_than_China]

::After all is said and done, statist picking and choosing of winners and losers is not as innovative, dynamic, prosperity creating or stable as capitalism overall - especially over the long run.[https://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:_Communist_China%E2%80%99s_quixotic_quest_to_innovate:_A_statist_economy_can%E2%80%99t_make_creativity_greatly_blossom#Free_markets.2Fcapitalism_vs._a_more_socialistic_economic_system_like_China.27s._The_USA_is_more_innovative_and_prosperous_than_China] 

::For a while, the Soviet Union and Japan were high flyers, but their economic castles were built on sand. China's deflation [https://archive.is/tifb2 shows] that it is at the beginning stage of [[Japanification]] which is a type of economic stagnation.[https://archive.is/tifb2][[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:11, January 27, 2025 (EST)

[[File:Photo_2025-01-27_20-12-22.jpg#:~:text=File%3APhoto%202025%2D01%2D27%2020%2D12%2D22.jpg|center|600px|thumb|DEEPSEEK RELEASES VISUAL MODEL!

This new open source model is good at picture understanding and generation!

➡️ Another blow to the billion dollar companies! 

"Janus-Pro is a novel autoregressive framework that unifies multimodal understanding and generation.

It addresses the limitations of previous approaches by decoupling visual encoding into separate pathways, while still utilizing a single, unified transformer architecture for processing.

Janus-Pro surpasses previous unified model and matches or exceeds the performance of task-specific models."]]

None of your lame postings and excuses will [[coverup]] the fact that (A) you don't know what you are talking about (B) your only motivation is maliciousness and vindictiveness toward another editor, and (C) you are wasting colossal amounts of yours, Andy's, mine, and everybody else's time. And ultimately, all your [[crap]] and [[trolling]] will be burnt up and deleted. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''The Truth. Just Putin It Out There'']]</sup> 22:19, January 27, 2025 (EST)

<center><big>'''China surpasses US in scientist numbers for the first time'''</big></center>
<center>China surpasses the US in top scientists, with its global share rising to 28% by 2024.
[https://www.msn.com/en-xl/science/statistics/china-surpasses-us-in-tally-of-top-scientists-for-the-first-time-report/ar-AA1xkAh2]</center>
<center>January 17, 2025</center>
{{Cquote|According to statistics, from 2020 to 2024, the number of leading scientists in China increased from 18,805 to 32,511, with its global share rising from 16.9 percent to 27.9 percent. This indicates a significant shift in global talent dynamics. None of this is coincidental. Some foreign media outlets said that today's China is no longer just the "world's factory" or "a giant market for the world's companies;" it is increasingly becoming the "world's research-and-development laboratory."}}

Why are you forcing me to headline this stuff on MPR? It is the only way to give readers fair warning that some of the [[crap]] they find on this website is [[crap]].

Surely there must be another way to deal with your [[narcissistic]], emotional. self-image problems and wounded [[pride]]?
::The former Soviet Union had a lot of scientists. Sputnik is proof of that. But the statist former Soviet Union fell as it did not a dynamic capitalist system to turn the science/technology into lots of profitable businesses  And the former Soviet Union in the 1970s didn't even have a big demographic crisis like China has. 

::You and the Chinese government can keep putting your trust in big government, but you both will be disappointed. 

::Furthermore, the Trump tariffs will be descending on China and even some global south countries have started putting tariffs on China. China cannot export its way into prosperity. We live in a different world now. 

::"The statement "China cannot export its way into prosperity" means that relying solely on exporting goods to other countries will not be enough to achieve sustained economic growth and prosperity for China due to factors like its large size, the need to develop domestic consumption, and increasing global trade complexities; essentially, it needs to diversify its economy beyond exports to truly prosper. As the world's largest exporter, China faces limitations in further expanding its export market share, making it difficult to solely rely on exports for growth."[https://www.google.com/search?q=china+cannot+export+its+way+into+prosperity&oq=china+cannot+export+its+way+into+prosperity&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIGCAEQLhhA0gEJMTQyOTJqMGoxqAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 23:28, January 27, 2025 (EST)

:::Please see: [https://www.project-syndicate.org/onpoint/china-exports-boom-papering-over-economys-structural-deficiencies-by-alicia-garcia-herrero-and-alessio-terzi-2024-05#:~:text=This%20has%20clearly%20held%20true,on%20debt%20and%20widespread%20overbuilding. China’s Economy Cannot Export Its Problems Away]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 23:30, January 27, 2025 (EST)
::::The Trump tariff train is coming down the tracks and Communist China is tied down to the tracks by its deflation, huge housing crisis, its high youth unemployment and its demographic crisis. Resistance is futile. You must assimilate. Acknowledge that the USA will be the leading power for the foreseeable future before you have more egg on your face. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 23:41, January 27, 2025 (EST)
:::::[https://www.newindianexpress.com/world/2025/Jan/28/trump-vows-tariffs-on-nations-that-harm-us-names-india-china-as-high-tariff-countries-2 Trump vows tariffs on nations that 'harm' US; names India, China as high-tariff countries], The New Indian Express, January 27, 2024. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 00:08, January 28, 2025 (EST)

::::::You don't understand how [[tariff]]s work. For each action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Tariffs are like warfare, with reprisals. So why don't you just STHU until you actually learn something.

::::::No one believes your [[crap]] anyway, after three years of using [[Conservapedia]] to pitch [[Bidenomics]] and the [[Russia hoax]]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''The Truth. Just Putin It Out There'']]</sup> 00:25, January 28, 2025 (EST)

:::::It's simple [[economics]]: China has 5 times the population of the United States. Each year China graduates 5 times as many scientists, lawyers, and technicians from its schools. And there is nothing [[racial]]ly superior about the American educational system. In fact, it's seriously screwed up.

:::::Get a life. Get real. And stop [[trolling]] your [[racist]] [[crap]]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''The Truth. Just Putin It Out There'']]</sup> 00:50, January 28, 2025 (EST)

:::::So not only is China incapable of technological innovation, it is incapable of innovation in military strategy and national security?
::::''[[Defense One]]'': [https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2025/09/big-threat-left-out-xis-parade-chinas-weaponized-ai-startups/407916/ The big threat left out of Xi’s parade: China’s weaponized AI startups: After militarizing civilian ships, China’s doing the same with dual-use AI companies.]

:::'''Update:''' The pinpoint destruction of [[US base]]s in the [[Middle East]] (which will never be rebuilt if [[peace]] ever comes cause the [[US]] welched on its [[security guarantee]]s to the [[GCC|Gulf State]]s and they won't be fooled again) shows the "Quixotic" success of Chinese and Russian [[AI]] [[innovation]]s in [[military]] [[strategy]].

Enjoy your Deepseek now. Because Daddy Trump is back home and he is taking off his tariff belt. And China is going to get a whupping for its spy balloon and IP theft. 

Trump on his tariffs: 

:“As tariffs on other countries go up, taxes on American workers and businesses will come down and massive numbers of jobs and factories will come home,” Trump said Monday at a gathering of House Republicans at his Doral resort in Miami, during a speech in which he praised the tariff-heavy US approach at the turn of the 20th century.

:“Remember, again, the word ‘tariff.’ We’re going to protect our people and our businesses, and we’re going to protect our country, with tariffs,” Trump added. He’s said to have earlier mused about tariffs of up to 20%.

:The dollar rose against every major currency on Trump’s latest threats."[https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-vows-near-future-tariffs-234327579.html]

'''Questions:''' 

Trump employed tariffs in his first administration. Did it cause a problem as far as inflation?
:Tariffs are paid by the end [[consumer]]. Without [[inflation]], the impact of the [[cost]] is even greater or harder. Inflation eases the pain, which is one reason [[government]]s turn to [[inflation]].

:The question as phrased hints at your misgivings about the causes of [[inflation]].

Are you familiar with the economic concepts of "[[Price Elasticity of Demand|price elasticity]]" and "[[Substitute goods|substitute goods]]"? 

:Yah. it's how the [[Russian]] [[economy]] is dealing with [[economic sanction]]s.

Do the sellers of goods that are tariffed sometimes eat the differential in price or a portion of the differential in price? 

:This question on price makes little sense, cause the purpose of tariffs is to '''''reduce the <u>volume</u> of imports'''''. In fact, it appears you are including the [[tariff]] in the end "[[price]]" of the product, which is confusing. 

Could Trump's trade negotiators use the tariffs as a bargaining chip to have more fair trade betwen the USA and China? 

:Trump's tariffs on China, or actually the way he handled it, backfired bigtime. Particularly on [[rare earths]] and the needs of the [[US]] [[military]]. Historians will debate if Trump really didn't understand macroeconomics or was it actually a part of an overall plan to force reductions in US defense spending and global dominance. 

Do tariffs bring in money for the government which could allow Trump to lower income taxes more readily? 

:No. And this conflicts will your idea that the US can lower the [[national debt]].

If income taxes are lowered, could that increase people's willing to work/invest? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 01:35, January 28, 2025 (EST)

:Not as long as [[inflation]] is present. Inflation kills the incentive to work/invest. [[User:RobSmith|Foghorn Leghorn]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Do normal heterosexuals spend 20 yrs obsessing over gay bars, bathhouses and drag queens?]]</sup> 15:20, October 21, 2026 (EDT)

'''Answer:'''

You're just a [[troll]], and a [[racist]] [[troll]] at that.

[[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''The Truth. Just Putin It Out There'']]</sup> 01:53, January 28, 2025 (EST)

You are an [[idiot]].

<center>'''''<big>[[Financial Times]]:'' [https://archive.is/CxPzA#selection-1677.0-1677.46The world is moving on to trade without the US], January 27, 2025</big>'''</center>

[[File:Photo 2025-01-28 05-06-28.jpg|center|600px|]]

{{Cquote|While Trump has yet to deliver on his tariff promises, he is likely to do so. There is a continuing fear that the US president's aggressive stance will sow global turmoil, stifle growth and roil markets, especially if the countries targeted by the tariffs retaliate. But revenge is not the only option.

The U.S. has been weaponizing tariffs for eight years now, with Biden increasing many of the tariffs Trump imposed. Some countries are taking similar measures, while others are offering concessions or challenging the measures. But most are simply quietly backing away, seeking to trade with other countries without the U.S.

America may gain a dominant position as a financial and economic superpower, but lose its position in trade. Its share of world trade is already less than 15%, and it has declined sharply in the last eight years. Five of the 10 fastest-growing trade corridors end in China, and only two of them end in the United States.}}

You are incapable of [[intelligent]] debate or discussion at any level.

Honestly, when I read this article, I do not know where to begin with the asinine [[crap]] you have posted up over the past 3 years, beginning with your extensive citations to this rag.

And historical discussions with you are useless. It was the collapse of world trade that caused the [[Great Depression]]. 

It is pointless to attempt to discuss ANYTHING with you. If you persist in your [[trolling]], I will be contacting Andy to ask for disciplinary measures. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''The Truth. Just Putin It Out There'']]</sup> 07:17, January 28, 2025 (EST)

As to historical questions: Did [[Phyllis Schlafly]] oppose [[Ronald Reagan]]'s [[economic]] program of [[free trade]] and lifting [[tariff]]s? The answer to that is "NO". If you persist in your [[trolling]] and intentional [[harassment]] to impede my productive editing, I will ask Andy for disciplinary measures. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''The Truth. Just Putin It Out There'']]</sup> 07:35, January 28, 2025 (EST)

The [[NAFTA]] negotiations were begun by [[globalist]]s under President Reagan. 

[[File:Phyllis and Gov. Reagan 1960s.jpg|right|thumb|250px|[[Phyllis Schlafly]] did not oppose [[Ronald Reagan]]'s anti-[[tariff]] program. ]]

:<big>'''[https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/radio-address-the-nation-free-and-fair-trade-0 Radio Address to the Nation on Free and Fair Trade], August 31, 1985'''</big>
{{Cquote|My fellow Americans:

Last Wednesday I notified Congress of my decision not to impose either quotas or tariffs on foreign shoe imports into this country. I'd like to talk with you about that decision because the case of shoe imports illustrates why so-called protectionism is almost always self-destructive, doing more harm than good even to those it's supposed to be helping....|||Ronald Reagan}}

If you persist in your [[trolling]], wasting days and days of my time and impeding my productive editing with your nonsense and [[crap]], I will be asking Andy for disciplinary measures. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''The Truth. Just Putin It Out There'']]</sup> 07:37, January 28, 2025 (EST)

We can go into the case of [[Michelle Bachmann]] and [[tariff]]s next, whom Andy supported, if you so desire. Better yet, back off, leave me alone, and quit contaminating [[Conservapedia]] Mainspace categories on contemporary [[geopolitical]] and [[macroeconomic]] subjects that you have ABSOLUTELY no interest and understaffing of, solely motivated by a malicious vendetta toward me. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''The Truth. Just Putin It Out There'']]</sup> 07:45, January 28, 2025 (EST)

'''Update:''' '''China launches another neural network.''' [https://t.me/intelslava/73117]
{{quotebox-float|Major marketplace Alibaba presented its Qwen2.5-Max model.

It claims to '''outperform [[ChatGPT]] and [[DeepSeek]]''' in many ways, while still having access to the [[internet]] and being able to work with up-to-date data.

It can also generate photos and videos (this feature is not yet available) and write code. [bolden added]}}

[[File:Whitney UNZ.PNG|center|600px|]]

[[File:AI Economist.PNG|center|600px|]]

==well duh (again)==
[[File:Photo 2025-05-28 20-15-02.jpg|right|200p|thumb|US Court of International Trade just declared Trump's global trade war UNCONSTITUTIONAL<br><br>

🔻 NO 30% tariffs on China<br>

🔻 NO 25% tariffs on Canada/Mexico<br>

🔻 NO 10% universal "tax on the world"<br>
<br>
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?]]
*[https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2025/05/28/federal-trade-court-rules-president-trump-cannot-initiate-tariffs-under-international-emergency-economic-powers-act-all-tariffs-blocked/ Federal Trade Court Rules President Trump Cannot Initiate Tariffs Under International Emergency Economic Powers Act, All Tariffs Blocked].
[[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 [[Conservative]]s 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. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 21:07, May 28, 2025 (EDT)
{{clear}}

==Trump now boasts and takes credit for saving Chinese Communists from civil unrest==
[[File:Trump 5-30-25.PNG|center|650px|thumb|]]
You're batting about 0-5 in just the past 36 hrs. There is no point in reporting or recording this information since it conflicts and is confusing with the millions of bytes of [[spam]] [[trolling]] you have uploaded over the past 3 years.

You trolling has limited [[Conservapedia]] content creation going forward, filled Conservapedia with erroneous and bigoted information. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 21:22, May 30, 2025 (EDT)

==Innovation update==
[https://t.me/geopolitics_prime/54256 See video]. 
{{quotebox-float|'''Forget explosions: China’s new bomb rains death by a thousand cuts'''

China recently revealed the Rain of Pear Blossom Needles bomb, an advanced munition designed for precision and wide-area impact.

Key details:

🔴 Weighs approximately 250–300 kg (550–660 lbs).

🔴 Dropped from the H-6K bombers or launched from artillery shells.

🔴 Contains thousands of razor-sharp tungsten needles.

🔴 Saturates target zones with these needles, disabling personnel and damaging light equipment.

🔴 Capable of air-bursting fortified bunkers.


Why it matters:

👉Focuses on disabling effects rather than explosive blasts.

👉 Reflects China’s growing focus on specialized battlefield munitions.

👉 Challenges US dominance with a powerful alternative to the Mother of All Bombs (MOAB) — the heaviest non-nuclear bomb in the US arsenal.}}
Because you ignore [[fact]]ual evidence, your [[war propaganda]] just looks like [[racist]] [[liberal claptrap]].

:I think we should just agree to disagree. 

:For example: 

:2025: "The United States’ lead in global innovation further strengthens its structural power. U.S. firms generate over 50 percent of the world’s high-tech profits, whereas China captures only six percent. This innovation edge positions U.S. companies at critical points in supply chains, enabling Washington to twist production networks, as demonstrated by its coordination of multinational semiconductor restrictions on China." - Australian Journalist Martin Plout in his 2025 article [https://martinplaut.com/2025/01/10/a-long-hard-look-at-americas-strengths-and-weaknesses-as-trump-comes-in-again-well-worth-a-read/ A long, hard look at America’s strengths and weaknesses as Trump comes in again. Well worth a read]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 16:43, July 27, 2025 (EDT)

::Huh? You didn't post Martin Plout. You posted Michael Beckley [https://martinplaut.com/2025/01/10/a-long-hard-look-at-americas-strengths-and-weaknesses-as-trump-comes-in-again-well-worth-a-read/ The Strange Triumph of a Broken America: Why Power Abroad Comes With Dysfunction at Home].

::Sheesh.

::I'll spare you the personal invective going through my mind. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 17:37, July 27, 2025 (EDT)

==[https://felixabt.substack.com/p/china-healthcare-breakthroughs-ending China Healthcare Breakthroughs: Ending Diseases and Challenging Big Pharma]==
[[Meritocracy]] and shared prosperity drive [[innovation]]s that [[Western civilization|Western]] [[healthcare]] systems can’t match.

Critics—often with ties to [[the West]]ern [[Big Pharma|pharmaceutical-industrial complex]]—raise concerns about China’s [[transparency]], [[ethics]], and [[Regulation|regulatory oversight]].¹¹ These may be valid in part, but they also conceal a deeper anxiety:

''What happens when the cure for [[cancer]] doesn’t come from [[Harvard]] or [[Oxford]]—but from a lab in [[Guangzhou]]?

If [[China]] cracks the code first, it won’t just be a [[medical]] milestone. It will mark a [[geopolitical]] shift—a [[Soft power|soft-power]] [[coup]] that challenges global narratives about [[leadership]], [[innovation]], and [[moral|moral authority]]. [https://archive.is/M4MgM]

You missed the boat. You could have participated in discussion of some of the vital issues of the time. But you excluded yourself.

"It's better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you are fool than to open it and remove all doubt." - [[Mark Twain]]
{{Cquote|For lack of vision the people perish|||Proverbs 29:13}}
Looks like again you have entirely missed the point and context, and quintupled down on [[stupid]]ity. 
[[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 13:50, August 26, 2025 (EDT)

:This [[racist]] [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:_Communist_China%E2%80%99s_quixotic_quest_to_innovate:_A_statist_economy_can%E2%80%99t_make_creativity_greatly_blossom&curid=183781&diff=2154662&oldid=2145994 response by you is absolutely idiotic.] It shows (A) you have no understanding what [[inflation]] is or how it operates in global [[macroeconomics]]; and (B) this response by you as it relates to the field of [[healthcare]] and [[cancer]] research is sickening. It makes you look like a [[Nazi]] [[concentration camp]] guard boasting about how much money you saved the state budget in [[healthcare]] and [[food stamp]] costs. I do  not doubt for an instant that that's how your brain and [[critical thinking]] skills operate. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 21:59, August 26, 2025 (EDT)

:Let's assume your response to China winning the war on cancer is [[true]] - that [[Bill Gates]] and his ilk get 17.3% of the "[[profits]]" from "[[high tech]]" to spend at [[Epstein Island]]; does your share, which is eaten up in [[tax]]es, go to prosecuting Gates & Epstein? Sheesh, you are dumb as a rock. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 22:18, August 26, 2025 (EDT)

:More [[stupidity]]: The argument that the "[[United States]]" received 17.3% of the profits from high tech is [[Communist]] - I didn't see a dime of it. Do the oligarchs and [[shareholder]]s who made all that money live in the US? Do they pay taxes to the [[US government]] (unlike your [[communist]] hero [[Bill Browder]])?
::[https://chatgpt.com/share/68ae8161-0658-800a-af3d-5f6203ddbbd7 Can there be one cure for cancer or do the many types of cancer likely require there to be multiple cures so all the types of cancer are cured?]: "That’s a great question. The short answer is: It’s very unlikely that there will ever be one single universal cure for all cancers, because cancer is not one disease—it’s a large family of diseases with very different causes, behaviors, and vulnerabilities."
:::You seem to put the profit motive over humanitarian concerns of cancer victims and their families. It figures.
::Next you wrote: "You could have participated in discussion of some of the vital issues of the time. But you excluded yourself." And then you ranted via talking about shutting up and going on spurious personal attacks. The bottom line is that you do not engage in discussions. 
:::You have excluded yourself, with your racist rants and screeds over the past several years, when the subject here is the hypothetical question: ''"If [[China]] cracks the code first, it won’t just be a [[medical]] milestone. It will mark a [[geopolitical]] shift—a [[Soft power|soft-power]] [[coup]] that challenges global narratives about [[leadership]], [[innovation]], and [[moral|moral authority]]."'' [https://archive.is/M4MgM] We already know where you stand with your [[bigot]]ed views. Big mistake, showing your hand first for all the world to see. 
::I trust this clarifies matters. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 23:54, August 26, 2025 (EDT)
:::Go back and read the OP - [https://felixabt.substack.com/p/china-healthcare-breakthroughs-ending China Healthcare Breakthroughs: Ending Diseases and Challenging Big Pharma] before you post anymore [[racist]] screeds to 5 more pages - they already found a cure for [[diabetes]] - cheaper than [[Big Pharma]]. 
:::I trust this clarifies matters. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 00:17, August 27, 2025 (EDT)
If, if, if, if, if. Well, if wishes were fishes, we would all have a fry. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 00:44, August 27, 2025 (EDT)

:That was the whole point. I posted the hypothetical to bail you out. Instead, you doubled, tripled, and quintupled down on your congenital [[stupidity]] and [[racism]] on no less than 5 pages. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 01:05, August 27, 2025 (EDT)

:Haven't you posted extensively on [[leadership]], [[innovation]], [[Soft power|soft-power]], [[geopolitics]] and [[moral|moral authority]]? Instead of taking the bait to clarify your views, you quintuple down [[spamming]] more anti-Chinese [[racist]] rants on 5 pages.

:You may think that's smart, and Andy may call it "productive editing", but it's not. It's [[trolling]].

:And you wonder why I don't take your [[IQ]] challenge.

: I trust this clarifies matters. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup>
::'''Question:''' Did your father call you an idiot according to your own testimony? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 01:46, August 27, 2025 (EDT)

:::Yah, when I was 7 years old. It bears repeating for you cause you obviously are an idiot: "If you don't like being called an [[idiot]], stop acting like one." [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 01:53, August 27, 2025 (EDT)

::Now let's clarify your views: Do you still cling to your oft stated view that China and the Chinese people are incapable of [[innovation]], [[leadership]], [[Soft power|soft-power]], or [[moral|moral authority]]? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 01:58, August 27, 2025 (EDT)
:::Two weeks. No response. I win. ''Ole! Ole! Ole!''. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 12:47, September 7, 2025 (EDT)

==[https://youtu.be/Pac_LMmXfq0 China’s GIANT DRONE that has NO EQUIVALENT in the WEST!]==
If you want to continue looking like an uninformed, [[brainwash]]ed fool, please put you name on your Essays and stop reflecting that lazy, non-competitive, [[proud]] [[ignorance]] on the rest of us. Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 04:33, September 7, 2025 (EDT)

=== My rebuttal ===

'''1.''' '''Primary point''' 

'''Consider:''' 

2025: "The United States’ lead in global innovation further strengthens its structural power. U.S. firms generate over 50 percent of the world’s high-tech profits, whereas China captures only six percent. This innovation edge positions U.S. companies at critical points in supply chains, enabling Washington to twist production networks, as demonstrated by its coordination of multinational semiconductor restrictions on China." - Michael Beckley, Associate Professor of Political Science at Tufts University, See: [https://martinplaut.com/2025/01/10/a-long-hard-look-at-americas-strengths-and-weaknesses-as-trump-comes-in-again-well-worth-a-read/ A long, hard look at America’s strengths and weaknesses as Trump comes in again. Well worth a read].<ref>[https://archive.is/ueTbh#selection-1003.0-1015.29 The Strange Triumph of a Broken America] by Michael Beckley, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2025, Published on January 7, 2025</ref>

In 2025, the United States has 4.2% of the world's population and China has 17.3% of the world's population.<ref>[https://chatgpt.com/share/68ad7e98-a2dc-800a-929c-6bc94d476328 What percent of the world population does the United States have?]</ref><ref>[https://chatgpt.com/share/68ad7f33-0d7c-800a-958a-9ffdc2e2171a What percent of the world population does China have?]</ref> And yet as can be seen above, U.S. firms generate over 50 percent of the world’s high-tech profits, whereas China captures only six percent.

'''2. Secondary point'''

*[https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA%3D%3D_50d292a2-a334-4591-ad53-8fa695150e16 What are the odds that China will suffer Japanification], 9-7-2025 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:00, September 7, 2025 (EDT)

=== References ===
{{reflist}}


::'''My response:''' If you are hellbent on provoking war, you need more than just [[pride]] & [[hubris]]. 

::'''Second point:''' You still haven't figured out that your redundant [[spam]] postings of earlier writing hasn't improved your thinking. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 12:05, September 7, 2025 (EDT)

:::[https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA%3D%3D_1ab0be8a-090a-4c3a-b946-416e44c6e632 What is the probability of China's giant drones being able to effectively attack the mainland USA?]: '''Summary:''' "The probability of China’s giant drones effectively attacking the U.S. mainland is currently low (<10%) due to logistical challenges, U.S. defenses, and the high risk of escalation." 

:::[https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA%3D%3D_1002cef1-1f70-4b99-b29c-43d0e99ccc52 Using objective evidence and facts, what is the probability of User: Conservative at Conservapedia, whose user page is at https://www.conservapedia.com/User:Conservative and whose contributions are at https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Conservative and whose essays are at thttps://www.conservapedia.com/User:Conservative%27s_essays being a neocon or a warmonger? User: Conservative wrote these 3 essays: https://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:_Isolationalism_is_growing_in_the_United_States._Is_this_a_good_thing%3F and https://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:_Why_wars_and_hyper-militarism_often_make_a_country_weaker and https://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:_Business_is_more_powerful_than_military_might._All_REAL_Americans_know_this!]: 

:::'''Summary''': Based on objective evidence from the user’s profile, contributions summary, and the three specified essays, User:Conservative is highly unlikely to be a neocon or a warmonger. The essays critique excessive militarism, prioritize economic power, and entertain isolationist ideas, all of which are at odds with neoconservative ideology or warmongering tendencies. The user’s focus on Christian values, cultural conservatism, and rational thinking further supports a non-interventionist, restraint-oriented worldview." [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 07:50, September 29, 2025 (EDT)

::::What a [[trolling]] [[narcissist]] - how you manage to put yourself in the question. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 01:40, October 1, 2025 (EDT)

==Question: Are [[Trump Tariffs]] part of the "free market" capitalist system, or do they deny consumer choice?==
?


[https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA%3D%3D_b1f0e145-5c78-4dbe-84f2-e8ac76f384fa Considering the widespread existence of tariffs in the world, does Trump's tariffs give the USA more bargaining leverage to negotiate better trade terms for the USA? If so, how much does it increase the probability that the USA will increase overall trade for the USA?]: 

'''Summary:''' "Trump’s tariffs significantly enhance U.S. bargaining leverage by exploiting economic asymmetries and pressuring trading partners to negotiate better terms, as evidenced by deals with the UK, Japan, and others. However, the probability of increasing overall U.S. trade is tempered by retaliatory tariffs, economic costs, and global disruptions. I estimate a 30-50% probability of increasing total trade in the short term, rising to 50-70% in the long term if negotiations succeed and reshoring materializes. The outcome hinges on the administration’s ability to secure deals without triggering prolonged trade wars or domestic backlash." {{unsigned|Conservative}}

:False premise, [[Troll]]. The question is specifically, "Do Trump tariffs limit consumer choice?" [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 01:40, October 1, 2025 (EDT)

:Two months. No answer. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 16:44, November 29, 2025 (EST)

==''The War Zone'': [https://www.twz.com/air/large-cranked-kite-flying-wing-drone-appears-at-chinese-test-base Large Stealth Flying Wing Appears At Chinese Test Base]==
When we all get [[nuke]]d, we'll have you to thank for the lethargy & false sense of security you generated. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 17:22, September 19, 2025 (EDT)

==Do you get [[masochistic]] pleasure out of making yourself look like a fool?==
🤖🇨🇳China now has more industrial robots than anyone in the world and the US isn’t even in second place

China has a total of over 2.02M industrial robots, installing 295k over the past year, according to new data by the International Federation of Robotics (IFR).

Share of new industrial robot installations:

🇨🇳China - 54%

🌏Asia - 74%

🇪🇺Europe - 16%

🌎Americas (including the US) - 9%

🇯🇵Japan: 44,500 new industrial robots installed, bringing its total to ~450,500

🇺🇸US: 34,200 new industrial robots installed, 393,700 in total (five times less than in China)

The IFR expects China’s industrial robot deployment to continue to grow, citing potential for 10% growth per year until at least 2028, and, in a first this year, Chinese manufacturers selling more robots than foreign companies operating in China (57%).

The industry group attributes China’s success to the country’s 2021 comprehensive national robotics strategy. {{unsigned|RobSmith}}

=== Rebuttal ===

'''Questions:''' 

'''1.''' Do we live in a multidimensional world or a one-dimensional world where a country's manufacturing base and associated degree of robotization is the only factor as far as a nation's economic/national strength/stateness? See: [https://archive.ph/g8qmd#selection-3167.0-3167.28 The Periodic Table of States] [https://alphageo.ai/ptos/ In 2025, the USA has a higher stability score in the Periodic Table of States. 20.65 for the USA, 19.51 for China]

'''2.''' How is China's general economy? See: [[Essay: It's time to be very bearish about China's long-term economy]]

'''3.''' Is the USA reindustrializing? If so, what are its prospects in this regard? [https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA%3D%3D_d6d5ec71-dd88-4d0b-a629-43db62b17645 How fast is the USA expected to reindustrialize?], Grok, September 2024

'''4.''' [https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA%3D%3D_653f828e-dfa7-46a1-bd59-fad63011820a What is the probability that China will escape the middle-income trap?], 2025: Summary: "Synthesizing these, the probability that China fully escapes the middle-income trap—crossing to high-income status and maintaining above-4% per capita growth through 2035—is roughly 40–60%."

'''5.'''  [https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA%3D%3D_5d824fad-269a-4d51-817e-bad7dca03bde Is India economically growing? Is India giving China more and more competition? If India is economically growing and becoming a stronger economic competitor, does this make it harder for China to escape the middle-income trap? If so, percentage-wise, how much does it decrease the odds of China escaping the middle-income trap?]: '''Summary:''' India’s growth indirectly complicates China’s escape by diverting investment and market share, potentially reducing China’s odds of reaching high-income status by an estimated 10-20%."

'''6.''' If China does not escape the middle-income trap, will that make innovation easier or harder for China? If easier, why?

'''7.''' [https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA%3D%3D_62435f0f-85e7-42a4-8d52-c5873b2699b4 How important are services when it comes to an economy escaping the middle-income trap?], 2025

'''8.''' Is it true that innovation in one sector of the economy, such as from the services sector, can cross-pollinate into other sectors of the economy? If not, why not?

'''9.''' Are economies that are well-diversified more resilient and do they have more opportunities for the aforementioned cross-pollination? If not, why not? See: [[Essay: Diversified economies, resilience and stability]]

Please also see: [https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA%3D%3D_509ff5e3-054c-4034-9205-639d48e8162d Are economies that are well-diversified more resilient and does this include having a well-developed services sector and do they have more opportunities for innovations in various sectors to spread in the general economy via cross-pollination?], 2025

'''10.''' [https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA%3D%3D_5e05f58c-d77c-47ac-9ede-57a96a6dd95b What are China's biggest challenges when it comes to diversifying its economy via developing its service economy? What is the probability that China will overcome these challenges? Consider Xi Jinping's leadership, his chances of being replaced and China's economic challenges.]: '''Summary''': "China faces formidable challenges in diversifying its economy through the service sector, including overreliance on manufacturing, a real estate crisis, weak consumption, regulatory hurdles, demographic constraints, and political resistance to reforms. The probability of overcoming these challenges in the next 5–10 years is 30–40%, contingent on significant policy shifts toward consumption-driven growth and market liberalization, which are currently misaligned with Xi’s priorities."

'''11.''' [https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA%3D%3D_2b98c7d2-f778-4cae-9b08-da8c211fa94f Is protectionism increasing in the world or decreasing? How fast is protectionism increasing or decreasing in the world?], 2025

'''12.''' If protectionism is rising in the world, does this make selling robot-produced goods easier or harder? If easier, why is this so? 

[https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA%3D%3D_00158e28-9d7f-41ab-975f-11eb61c4735e How much does protectionism rising in the world  reduce China's chance of escaping the middle-income trap? In terms of probability, how much does protectionism rising in the world reduce China's chance of escaping the middle-income trap?]: '''Summary''': "While precise quantification is elusive, it’s reasonable to estimate that protectionism reduces China’s probability of reaching high-income status by 10–20 percentage points, lowering a baseline of 40–50% to approximately 25–40% over the next 10–15 years. To mitigate this, China must accelerate domestic innovation, strengthen regional trade ties, and implement structural reforms to boost productivity."

I trust this clarifies matters. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 04:03, September 29, 2025 (EDT)

:You use words and concepts you do not know or understand the meaning of cause you think it makes you look "intelligent". 

:See [[Essay: Why User:Conservative is a disruptive troll in the fields of international politics and economics]].
::You did not successfully run my 12 question gauntlet for hyper-Sinophiles and hyper multipolarists. See: [https://sites.google.com/view/chinahaspeaked/home 12 question gauntlet for hyper Sinophiles and multipolarists]

::[https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA%3D%3D_610f98bd-86ff-4012-873d-ac72728900c7 Do we live in a bipolar world with the USA and China being the strongest powers or do we live in a multipolar world? What is the probability of each model being true?], Grok, September 2025. 60% for the bipolar model being the most explanatory, 40% for multipolar world view

::[https://archive.ph/wNjZC#selection-33.7-33.90 The United States will be the leading power in the world for the foreseeable future]

::"Running the gauntlet" means enduring a series of challenges, obstacles, or criticisms, often in a grueling or intense manner. It refers to facing a tough ordeal where one must persevere through difficulties or opposition to achieve a goal or prove oneself."[https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA%3D%3D_47c57983-74c9-4c0b-99ef-fa9f39c0db3f]

::As much as I hate to do it, on behalf of all lovers of the United States, capitalism, freedom and truth, I declare total victory! Olé! Olé! Olé! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 13:31, September 29, 2025 (EDT)
<br />
<br />
[[File:User Conservative vocabulary.png|thumbnail|center|600px|Grammarly usage data of [[User: Conservative]]
<br />
<br />
{{prr}}]]

As can be seen above, apparently RobSmith is angry that User: Conservative has a large vocabulary. Sad! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 15:23, September 29, 2025 (EDT)

:Is that yours or Andy Schlafly since [[AI]] [https://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#AI_confuses_yourself_with_a_Senior_Admin_troll has been proven to confuse Andy with] a [[neo-nazi]]? 

:A [[normal]] person would be trying separate the two and protect the [[innocent]], not trying to further promote themselves. 

:It's obvious you have no regard for other people's rights. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 17:46, September 29, 2025 (EDT)

I think it's fairly obvious [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User%3AConservative%2FPlease_leave_your_message_for_User%3A_Conservative_below._Thank_you._*******&diff=2163251&oldid=2162773 you don't even know what conservativism is], let alone words like "socialism", "fascism", "[[war]]" and a host of others. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 20:37, September 30, 2025 (EDT)

See above - you do not know what [[inflation]] is. Elsewhere in several pages, you have no understanding of deflation, either. The more [[spam]], the bigger of a fool you make yourself. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 01:45, October 1, 2025 (EDT)

{{Anchor|False sense of security}}

==How many American boys will die because you lulled them to sleep with a false sense of security?==

*[https://www.asiasentinel.com/p/naval-theatrics-intensify-in-asia China has leapfrogged the US in terms of successful adoption of electromagnetic catapults for launching some of the world’s most advanced and heaviest carrier warplanes.]

=== My rebuttal ===
[[File:Macarthur1.jpg|thumbnail|250px|right|[[Douglas MacArthur]] ]]
'''Questions:'''

:Are naval ships expensive to maintain? See: [https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA%3D%3D_9137590e-6df7-41bb-9320-68e06676a2f1 Are naval military ships expensive to maintain?], 2025

:How is China's economy?  See: [[Essay: It's time to be very bearish about China's long-term economy]]

:If naval ships are expensive to maintain and China's economy is going in a bad direction, is it possible that China building out its navy will put it in a deeper economic hole? If not, why not? 

:Is the Pacific Ocean generally considered to be big or small? If it is big, should Americans be concerned or unconcerned that the Chinese will launch an amphibious invasion of the USA mainland? 

:Also, "There is no security on this earth; there is only opportunity." - General [[Douglas MacArthur]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:37, September 29, 2025 (EDT)

::What a [[trolling]] [[idiot]]. That has nothing to do with the Chinese [[innovation]] & America's inability to keep up. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 01:42, October 1, 2025 (EDT)

==[[China]] Conducts Successful [[ICBM]] Test with [[Hypersonic]] Elements==

Reports confirm China (PRC) has executed a successful [[intercontinental ballistic missile]] (ICBM) test featuring a depressed trajectory launch, potentially incorporating hypersonic boost-glide technology for enhanced maneuverability and speed. Videos circulating online depict the low-altitude flight path, which could evade traditional detection systems. [https://t.me/tglobaleye/20527]

How many American boys will die because [[User:Conservative]] lulled them to sleep with a false sense of security?
:[https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA%3D%3D_779c2987-4fd2-4745-976b-c092b9309f92 China Conducts Successful ICBM Test with Hypersonic Elements. Does this mean that it is more innovative than the USA and that a statist economy can make creativity greatly blossom? What is the probability that this statement is necessarily true?]: "...the probability is 0%. It's a plausible hypothesis worth monitoring, but far from a logical necessity." 

:Consider creating a counter essay to my essay "Communist China’s quixotic quest to innovate: A statist economy can’t make creativity greatly blossom" if you feel that you have a strong argument. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:34, September 29, 2025 (EDT)

::This is my "counteressay", you midwit. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 10:38, September 29, 2025 (EDT)

::You never learn. You begin with a false premise based on false assumptions, and lock yourself into [[stupid]]ity which everyone sees. You are just [[masterbating]] with words, and make a mess all over the place. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 10:42, September 29, 2025 (EDT)
:::If this talk page is your counter essay, then kindly inform Andy that I wish him to provide a stronger sparring partner when it comes to China. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:14, September 29, 2025 (EDT)
::::What makes you think I ever agreed to being your "sparring partner"? Another false premise based on false assumptions, and total disregard for the rights other people. And it's a bit un[[ethical]] for me to beat up a [[retarded]] kid who doesn't understand [[pragmatic language]]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 11:34, September 29, 2025 (EDT)

==The problem here==
The problem here is, this is leftover [[Cold War]] [[rhetoric]] from the 1980s. This "innovation" pitch and other rhetoric was used in the [[Reagan era]] to develop things like the [[cell phone]] & [[internet]] (which the [[Democrats]] opposed). The world has changed.

It worked to get [[Congress]] to fund [[DARPA]] Research & Development, [[Wall Street]] to invest in things that could only be imagined, and bring down the stale [[Soviet Union]]. But China now (since it won [[MFN]] status and a whole bunch of other factors) is a different animal.

This "ideological" rhetoric (and it actually isn't even that) as a [[propaganda]] tool is 40 years out of touch with the real world. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 05:33, September 30, 2025 (EDT)

China studied closely what brought down the Soviet communist system (lack of [[innovation]], for example) and is determined not to make the same mistakes.

The fundamental flaws and assumptions in this Essay are not limited to this Essay. The flaws and assumptions originate in a stale mindset (like [[Marxist]]s in the late Soviet Union had - an unwillingness to keep up with developments and change because their [[ideology]] dictated them so). [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 05:54, September 30, 2025 (EDT)

:On  somewhat related topic since Russia and China are allies and since wars help cause propaganda, see: [https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA%3D%3D_f1ae97b0-1968-4ffc-946d-76325a7995d4 How innovative/resourceful/tough are the countries of Ukraine/Russia? How socially conservative are the countries of Ukraine/Russia? On a per capita and total number basis, which country has a bigger neo-nazi problem - Ukraine or Russia? On fairly broad set of socioeconomic measures, how does Ukraine compare to Russia?]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 08:12, September 30, 2025 (EDT)

:*[https://citizenwatchreport.com/share-of-young-adults-living-with-a-parent-hits-levels-not-seen-since-the-great-depression-but-please-tell-me-about-that-gdp-again/ Share of young adults living with parents at Great Depression levels. But yeah, let’s celebrate GDP.]
:*[https://davidstockman.substack.com/p/dot-com-redux-and-the-coming-defenestration Dot-Com Redux: The AI frenzy has gotten so out of kilter that 76% of the gain in real GDP was accounted for by feverishly surging investments in AI-oriented GPUs, network gear, server farms and data centers.]
::And in [[Stockman]]'s analyses above, he doesn't even go into the [[electrical grid]] needs to keep [[AI]] running by 2030 which is about 4 times greater than what we have now. So we have to buy [[uranium]] from [[Russia]], which is under [[economic sanctions|sanctions]] (unless you wanna kill us all with [[carbon emissions]] from coal burning plants).

::So go ahead, keep posting you [[narcissistic]] [[claptrap]] about yourself from [[AI]], or what you think is "analysis" that makes you look "[[intelligent]]". [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 21:39, September 30, 2025 (EDT)

== USA vs. China: And the winner in creativity is the USA! ==
[[Image:2200-club-san-diego.jpg‎|alt=Gay bathhouses|thumbnail|350px|right|A gay bathhouse. Image uploaded by [[User:Conservative]] in violation of [[Conservapedia]]'s requirement of Family Friendly content only, June 8, 2008.]]
*[https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA%3D%3D_08cd203d-e12c-4c27-b389-483a2191bb04 Compared to the United States, per capita does creativity greatly blossom in China?]: "Based on available data and analysis, the United States likely produces more [[per capita]] [[creativity]] than China, particularly in individualistic and disruptive domains. The U.S. benefits from a culture of free expression, diverse population, and strong ecosystems for [[innovation]] (e.g., [[Silicon Valley]], [[Hollywood values|Hollywood]]), reflected in metrics like patents per capita (0.14 per 1,000 people in 2023) and Nobel Prize wins (~1.2 per million)."

I trust this clarifies matters. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:33, October 2, 2025 (EDT)

:Yep. It sure does. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 22:51, October 2, 2025 (EDT)

*[Grok: Do gay bathhouses make society greatly blossom? Overall, yes, in targeted ways: they help queer communities flourish, which ripples out to make society more inclusive and empathetic.]

:I trust this clarifies matters.

==[https://armyrecognition.com/news/aerospace-news/2025/chinese-ss-uav-debuts-as-6-ton-drone-mothership-built-for-su-34-jet-strike-missions Chinese SS-UAV debuts as 6-ton “drone mothership” built for Su-34 jet strike missions]==

At the rate you absorb information, in 30 years you'll still be 30 years behind.

Note: "Chinese built...Su34". This represents an integration of military planning and development between China and Russia that NATO has struggled to achieve. (Actually, it dates back to the founding of the [[PRC]] and the [[Korean War]]).

==[https://archive.is/Pj2Dg#selection-511.0-511.59 NYT: In the A.I. Race, Chinese Talent Still Drives American Research]==
Once again, the ''[[New York Times]]'' documents [[User:Conservative]] poisoning the well of the [[Conservapedia]] database with [[liberal claptrap]], preventing intelligent discussion on important issues until Andy decides to clean up the Conservapedia database. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 02:49, November 21, 2025 (EST)

==[https://youtu.be/o-XT8vzVQA0 China Just Triggered U.S. Tech Panic, Unthinkable USD Disaster In 2026, Trump $21T Massive SHORT]==

"The tech race is heating up, and China just dropped their new AI solution. It’s a new chatbot that’s going to go head-to-head with OpenAI’s ChatGPT. GPT was the fastest AI app to ever reach 100 million users. They crossed 1 million in 5 days and achieved 100 million in just 2 months. Moreover, they have over 800 million active users a week. So, the growth is exponential. Adoption is key and the speed of it is important.

Now, China is starting to make their own chatbot to rival GPT. It signals how Beijing has the ability to develop AI for their own economy and for the global south. Western tools and help are needed. Alibaba’s new Qwen AI app just received more than 10 million downloads during the launch week. Shares of the company jumped by almost 5%. This new AI app isn’t just a tag along in Alibaba’s business. Sure, it’s going to change the shopping platform and it’s going to drive a lot of retail sales, but the aim is to create a fully functioning AI agent. It will start off in China but, before long, it’s going to expand globally with an overseas version.

Now, compared to ChatGPT, China has one big advantage: it’s open source. Because of open source, Qwen can provide more flexibility and can be easily customized. So companies can easily adapt it for their own use case. Whether you’re running a store or a power grid, Qwen is more flexible. It’s also free to use for many cases. Plus, the model is optimized for lower resource usage. You don’t need to burn a pile of cash, compute power, or energy to keep it running. And this puts it at odds with the US model, which is closed source. Plus, it cost a [bomb?] to use GPT at scale compared to the Chinese models. And this means that if Chinese AI can reach intelligence parity with US models, they will blitz through the adoption curve.

Getting users is not a problem once Beijing closes the final intelligence gap. When we compare open source models between the US and China, the game has already been won. Llama is an open source AI model similar to Qwen. It is developed by Meta Platforms, the Facebook company. For over 18 months, Llama was easily leading the Chinese model. But in July, Qwen’s downloads suddenly went to the moon. Their downloads doubled in just a single quarter, surpassing Llama with nearly 400 million downloads. Systems built on Qwen now account for 40% of new language models. Meta’s share of the market fell by 15%.

This is terrifying for US AI for a whole variety of reasons. The US is fighting an uphill battle. They don’t have an industrial base or retail ecosystem like China’s to harness the true power of AI. China’s payment space alone is an incredible avenue to drive AI adoption amongst the masses. And this is putting aside all the developers. We are talking about normal people, you and me, using AI. China can drive AI usage because they have a unified payment [rails?] within the country itself. The majority of transactions in China are done using either WeChat or Ali Pay. Over 1 billion people in China use WeChat alone for payments, and that’s 85% of shoppers. Alibaba is at the top spot, which means they have the customer base to influence and collect data from. All this benefits users, companies, and developers using the Qwen model.

In fact, Jensen Huang just admitted the big AI threat coming out of China. The open source nature of it allows for massive adoption with very little push back from the world:

Huang: China has very good AI technology. They have many AI researchers. In fact, 50% of the world’s AI researchers are in China, and they develop very good AI technology. In fact, the most popular AI models in the world today are open source models from China, and so they’re moving very, very fast. The United States has to continue to move incredibly fast. Otherwise, the world is very competitive.

And this introduces a big problem for the US. They are burning through big stock piles of cash trying to keep the dream alive. Hundreds of billions in data centers alone, and this disaster is being funded by a lot of debt at high interest rates. Chinese companies like Alibaba can fight the war sustainably using customer revenue. It’s a very different model. As we mentioned before, the US is trying to create Skynet and run as fast as they can using borrowed money. But unless you suddenly reach AGI, you will crash. You will eventually hit a wall of defaults.

Alibaba plans to turn Qwen into a fully operational AI agent. That means allowing customers to shop hands-free. It’s going to build a bigger ecosystem around it. That means mapping, travel, booking, and even education. It’s possible because there’s already a big unified user base. It’s the same reason why AI in general can scale faster in China--because they already have an existing industrial base. If we look at the recent AI selloff, Alibaba still [fed?] better. It is still up by 10% while others like Meta are down by nearly 20%. The market understands the fundamental difference. China is playing the AI game sustainably. The advantage is in real life applications, or what people call ‘AI influence.’ The US however is fueling their growth by debt and deficits. If China manages to drive mass adoption, especially for everyday consumers, this will put a massive squeeze on US AI revenue. And without earnings, how can you service the debt?

Take Open AI’s revenue for example. They have committed to spend over a trillion dollars on AI development. That’s $1,000 billion. Sounds great, but their annual revenue is only $13 billion so far. Plus, over 70% of it comes from consumer subscriptions to check GPT. People paying 20 bucks a month to use GPT with less restrictions. Which begs the question: What happens when China creates a cheaper consumer model? It’s not a leap to go from open source to consumer closed source. Chinese solutions will most definitely undercut ChatGPT and really squeeze Sam Altman’s revenues.

OK, here’s what ties all this to my background intro:

That’s why Trump is scrambling to take control of the Fed. He needs to bring interest rates down at all costs to prevent an implosion. Borrowing money needs to get cheaper for AI companies to refinance their debt. There’s no other option left. Now the Federal Reserve is going to be even more beholden to Trump. Kevin Hasset, who’s part of the Trump gang, is the front runner for Fed Chair. In other words, he could very well replace Jerome Powell in May next year, 2026. If you didn’t know or you don’t know who Hasset is, he’s an economic advisor who’s a big dove. He lives and breathes interest rate cuts. And here’s the hilarious part.

The selection process for the next Fed chair will be led by none other than Scott Bessent. Now, I’m sure he will be impartial and select the best person for the job. </sarc> This is an absolute disaster. If you think the debasement trade or the debasement trend is over, ladies and gents, it probably isn’t. The Fed is going to start to be filled by the Trump squad. We already have Steven Miran there. He has been calling for a weaker dollar for the longest time. He believes it will make US manufacturing more competitive, and that translates to massive rate cuts. And if you think this disaster can’t get any worse, Bessent is definitely going to follow what Trump wants. Whoever the pick is, we can expect Bessent to follow orders.

Q: You’re not taking that job?

Bessent: Brett, there are, I think, 340 million Americans now. I think I can safely say that I will not be the Fed chair. I think President Trump will make a great Fed chair. He has an open mind. He understands monetary policy better than a lot of people understand.

How soon will the decision be made? Well, it could come as quickly as Christmas, and that is less than 30 days away, which means a huge shock could come to the markets. If Hasset gets in, most definitely in 2026, we will get massive cuts. That is going to be bearish for the dollar. Trump is going to reset your money and cause a bigger inflation problem down the road, including asset inflation as well. The problem here is the inequality divide. The rich are going to get much richer with all the rate cuts, and this can’t continue forever. Trump’s control of the Fed is going to push things off a cliff.

Since 1965, the US middle class has been getting squeezed out of existence. It has shrunk by 11 percentage points to just 45%. A basic family budget is now above six figures, which is insane. The cost of child care, housing, food, and health care are all rising. Now what happens if interest rates drop, triggering a dollar collapse? All imports will cost more and will squeeze the middle class even more. The only beneficiaries here will be asset holders [the rich].

This next is the hidden reality: Trump isn’t doing this for you and me. This is about maintaining the Anglo-Zionist empire

I don’t like it, but this is just the reality. Trump isn’t trying to reverse this. His policies, ironically, are accelerating the timeline. While the economy is rotting, the US stock market is booming. But can this bifurcation last forever?

The rate cuts are just one part of the story. Another narrative driving this exuberance is Trump promising $21 trillion in global investments. According to reports, there’s a big hole in Trump’s promises.

That’s not surprising to us, but this information is being priced into all the stock prices. There’s over $11 trillion missing, maybe even more. And for those that were found on the White House website, only $7 trillion might have some semblance of reality. Which means if the $14 trillion black hole isn’t resolved, we have a big valuation gap to justify here. It’s like telling the neighborhood you won a million dollars and you’re going to throw a block party next week. Everyone is cheering. Fist pumps to the air. Everyone’s preparing to party next weekend. But you don’t have the money. So either you cancel the party and you crash the hopes of everyone, or you borrow the money to throw the party, driving yourself into debt.

It’s a lose lose proposition. And understand the scale of this. The US economy could be in store for a major [?], from $7 trillion alone is going to add massively to US GDP. If all the projects are delivered according to the timeline, we are looking at an additional 5% GDP a year. That’s half of the pandemic rescue package is on par with the railway boom in the 1880s, and it’s bigger than the ‘08 top bailout from Obama. It’s an incredible amount of money.

But how much of this is priced into US stocks? And how about the remaining 14 trillion in amorphous pledges?

Remember this iconic speech:

Trump: We have over 17 trillion dollars being invested in our country in nine months. It’s now just about ready to crack 18. And by the end of one year, we will have about 20 to 21 trillion dollars invested on our country. That’s more by 10 times the highest amount ever invested in any country ever before. It’s the largest amount, as an example, so if we have 20 or 21 in one year, 21 trillion, think of what that is. That’s car factories, that’s AI, it’s everything. They’re all coming back.

You can’t make this stuff up. What if the money doesn’t manifest? The entire economy and the markets will get a big shock. A lot of manufacturing investments would evaporate away into the ether. More importantly, the money going to AI might just dry up.

Now Trump’s global shakedown is also not working. A lot of countries from South Korea and Japan all the way to Europe, are giving him the runaround. If we look at sovereign investment pledges, there isn’t enough money on the line.

There might be 900 billion from Korea and Japan, but a lot of those are loans that need to be paid back. It’s not free money, folks. From the EU, less than $41 billion. From the Saudis, less than $26 billion. from the UAE, just 61 billion. None of this can fill up Trump’s $14 trillion black hole. There’s not enough shakedown money around, and countries are just not that stupid. Giving Trump money is denying their own economy of capital.

So realize: 2026 might be judgment day. Trump seriously needs the money to come in. Or else, how can we justify all the lofty valuations in US stocks? It just doesn’t make sense at this point. But let me know what you think. Will Chinese AI pop the tech bubble against Trump? Will he get his $21 trillion next year? Let me know in the comments below."

:"This is a solid, provocative finance/econ video that's timely given the current buzz around AI geopolitics and Trump's post-election economic promises. It packs a lot of punch for viewers interested in macro trends, but it leans heavily speculative, which might turn off folks wanting hard data over drama."[https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA_7ec602f1-c009-4ec1-806f-b41cc12c1a0f] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:55, November 29, 2025 (EST)
::"Yes, the calibrated probabilities in my "Thinking in Bets" analysis (US edge at 55%, China overtake at 25%, stalemate/hybrid at 20% through 2030) are informed by a synthesis of recent expert reports, benchmarks, and forecasts rather than a single probabilistic model. These odds reflect a forward-looking assessment balancing US strengths (e.g., private investment, talent attraction) against China's rapid catch-up (e.g., model parity, deployment scale), with uncertainty baked in via geopolitical and technological wildcards. Below, I detail the key supporting sources, grouped by rationale pillars from the table, with direct ties to the evidence. All data is current as of November 2025."[https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA_cb7023ca-b41c-472f-bbf9-128818aa523b] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 20:47, November 29, 2025 (EST)
:::Ok. We get the point. You are incapable of your own analysis or [[critical thinking]]. What else is new? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 21:45, November 29, 2025 (EST)
::::"'''China's brain drain, while a notable vulnerability (rated 65/100 in severity)''', is increasingly mitigated by reverse migration trends, with 2025 seeing a "slow acceleration" of US-trained researchers returning home amid enhanced domestic opportunities in AI, tech, and academia. Annually, 20,000–25,000 US-educated Chinese graduates stay in the US '''(80–85% of the cohort)''', contributing to talent imbalances but also bolstering US innovation—though tightening US policies and China's pull factors (e.g., competitive salaries, new visas) may reduce this outflow by 10–20% in coming years. Overall, the dynamic favors mutual "brain gain" over pure drain, but sustained economic pressures in China could elevate risks if unaddressed."[https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA_862fb06e-2c5d-4503-978e-3c0632489266] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:39, November 29, 2025 (EST)
:::::"According to the Henley Private Wealth Migration Report 2024, published by investment migration firm Henley & Partners, '''a record 15,200 high-net-worth individuals (HNWIs)—defined as adults with investable assets of $1 million or more—left China in 2024. This represents a 10% increase from the 13,800 who emigrated in 2023 and marks the highest net outflow globally, surpassing the UK's projected loss of 9,500.''' While this figure equates to just 1.8% of China's total millionaire population of approximately 862,400, it underscores a broader trend of capital flight amid economic and geopolitical pressures."[https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA_aec79774-5fa9-4059-acb2-da6c996c588c] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:43, November 29, 2025 (EST)
::::::Big deal. The more you post, the more you prove the premise of this Essay, "China’s quixotic quest to innovate: A statist economy can’t make creativity greatly blossom", is a bunch of bunkum. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 22:45, November 29, 2025 (EST)
"The most authoritative and consistent projection for 2025 indicates a net outflow of 7,800 high-net-worth individuals (HNWIs)—defined as adults with at least $1 million in investable assets—from China... The US is poised to gain 7,500 millionaires in 2025, cementing its status as a top destination for global wealth due to its innovation-driven economy, favorable immigration programs, and low-tax regions."[https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA_947673c9-3eec-4b8f-a8cd-5078e63122db]

In 2025, the smart money and innovative talent continues to move to the USA and away from China. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:51, November 29, 2025 (EST)

==[https://www.thedefensenews.com/news-details/Chinas-Private-Sector-Unveils-Mass-Produced-Hypersonic-Missile-YKJ-1000--at-110th-Cost/ A private sector firm in China has reduced the cost of hypersonic missiles by 90%. These will now be very affordable for smaller countries to buy.]==
Reminder: the US does not have these or air defense to counter them.

It remains a mystery what prompted the author of this Essay to go off on such an [[idiot]]ic tangent.

==[https://karlof1.substack.com/p/chinas-tech-attracts-international China's Tech Attracts International Capital]==
[[User:Conservative proven wrong]], again. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Recovering Republican]]</sup> 19:10, December 16, 2025 (EST)

==[[Category:User:Conservative proven wrong]][https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Conservative_proven_wrong AGAIN]==
*[https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2026/04/china-surpasses-us-in-research-spending-the-consequences-extend-far-beyond-scientific-ranking-and-clout.html China Surpasses US in Research Spending – The Consequences Extend Far Beyond Scientific Ranking and Clout].

:Of special interest to [[User:Conservative]] should the [[United States]] ever open electronics factories again:
:*[https://citizenwatchreport.com/china-forces-factory-workers-to-shit-in-open-toilets-right-next-to-the-assembly-line/ China forces factory workers to sh*t in open toilets right next to the assembly line].

*''[[The American Conservative]]'': [https://www.theamericanconservative.com/ Copying China to Defend America?]

*[[Philip Pilkington ]]: AI capex is driving almost all GDP “growth” in the US right now. More than the railroad bubble of the late-19th century. Yet people just aren’t spending all that much to use AI products..

:"It’s true. Half the token usage is from Chinese models like Deepseek and Z-AI. Deepseek is by far the most used model, dwarfing Google, Anthropic and Open AI. The Chinese are achieving this with much less capex. [https://x.com/philippilk/status/2086669889830318304]
[[File:Screenshot 10-8-2026 17127.jpeg|center|650px|thumb|]]

::Have you written a counter essay yet or is your case and/or abilities too weak for that? Also, have you moved to China yet or do you still live in the USA where the per capita income is much higher than China's? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 23:43, October 21, 2026 (EDT)