News on China's scientific and technological development.

Bltizo said:

No it certainly is not pedantic.
For every output there is a difference between per capita vs absolute, and distinguishing between the two is very important because it massively changes the argument one is trying to make.

If I described China as the largest absolute greenhouse gas emitter relative to other nations in the world in absolute terms it is very different to if I described China's greenhouse gas emissions ranking in the world in per capita terms. That is just one example. There are many others one can come up with.

Click to expand...

I am not arguing that the distinction between absolute and per capita is pedantic. I am addressing your seeming insistence that "progress" cannot be measured in per capita terms, and instead can only be measured absolutely. Measuring poverty alleviation is a major example where progress is best measured in per capita growth.

The same principle applies for R&D and innovation.
There is nothing in the article which talked about comparing "per capita" R&D and innovation.
Instead, it only talked about R&D and innovation in China at a national, overall manner.

Click to expand...

There is no reason why a discussion of "national," "overall" progress cannot include per capita/proportional increases.

The article attempts to use indicators to measure the overall progress and overall potential of Chinese R&D and innovation.
Some of the indicators it uses are logical and correct.
However, some of them are wrong, namely "researchers as a share of total workforce" and "R&D expenditure as a share of GDP" -- because those indicators only tell us about the per capita and structural nature of China's R&D and innovation, but they do not tell us anything about overall progress or overall potential.

Click to expand...

Again, if you want this information, there is the Science article I linked a few pages back. You are too restrictive with your interpretations of "overall progress" or "overall potential." The CPC uses comprehensive terms in their rhetoric all the time. There is no need to be so narrow-minded, especially with a topic as broad as Chinese development.

The problem is that they never made an argument about comparing the US and China on per capita terms!
Using proportions makes sense if you're comparing per capita or structural differences, but the article never sought to compare those domains of R&D or innovation in a per capita or structural way.

Click to expand...

"never sought to"
If this continues to be the crux of your argument, I have little interest in debating further.

There is nothing subjective at all.
The article doesn't mention anything about comparing per capita R&D or per capita innovation or structural differences between China and the US, yet you are forcing yourself to interpret their incorrect variables in a way to make it seem like it is the case.

Given all of the above, doesn't it make more sense to conclude that the article's authors have simply made a few mistakes, instead of trying to shoehorn variables that are incompatible with the outcome they are trying to measure?

Click to expand...

Again, you only see them as incorrect since you are disappointed that they are not measuring the outcome you (probably subconsciously) wanted, and now you are trying to force the wording of the article to fit your preconception that the authors were only trying to uncover quantitative indicators all along.

Icmer said:

I am not arguing that the distinction between absolute and per capita is pedantic. I am addressing your seeming insistence that "progress" cannot be measured in per capita terms, and instead can only be measured absolutely. Measuring poverty alleviation is a major example where progress is best measured in per capita growth.

Click to expand...

Progress can certainly be measured in per capita terms, but it needs to be specified.
The article did not specify they were measuring Chinese R&D and innovation progress in terms of per capita, and they only talked about progress for China overall.

There is no reason why a discussion of "national," "overall" progress cannot include per capita/proportional increases.

Click to expand...

Without the article saying that they want to look at per capita or proportional increases, we cannot assume that describing national or overall progress means variables other than absolute variables.

Again, if you want this information, there is the Science article I linked a few pages back. You are too restrictive with your interpretations of "overall progress" or "overall potential." The CPC uses comprehensive terms in their rhetoric all the time. There is no need to be so narrow-minded, especially with a topic as broad as Chinese development.

Click to expand...

The article was vague and made a mistake. I think I'm being quite reasonable in interpreting what they have written.

"never sought to"
If this continues to be the crux of your argument, I have little interest in debating further.

Click to expand...

If you can demonstrate to me that the article specified that they were comparing the R&D and innovation between China and the US in a per capita manner then please do so.

Again, you only see them as incorrect since you are disappointed that they are not measuring the outcome you (probably subconsciously) wanted, and now you are trying to force the wording of the article to fit your preconception that the authors were only trying to uncover quantitative indicators all along.

Click to expand...

I couldn't care less whether they chose to measure outcomes that were absolute or per capita in nature.
If anything I would welcome it if absolute and per capita outcomes were both measured, because I think absolute and per capita measures are both important.

The only thing I am disappointed in is that they did not choose to measure a per capita outcome but rather described an absolute outcome to measure using per capita variables. I find that to be a poor mistake on their part.

@Bltizo, brother, you have the patience of a saint.

Let's not lose the forest for the trees. You can define variables any way you like and do whatever analysis you want with them - but what I pointed out was a basic mathematical error. This isn't a matter of opinion; the author is clear that he mistakenly believed China has 75% fewer researchers, not 75% fewer researchers as a share of the percentage of American researchers with Nobel Prizes per kilometer of rail built in Burundi per annum. 75% fewer researchers full stop.

He then proceeded to allege rampant fraud. I'll be generous and presume that it's because the variables he defined are so hopelessly convoluted that they've confused him. The entire "report" is just a piece of propaganda to bolster Washington's hostility and belongs in a trash can. It might be interesting to study how many such reports America produces as a share of the workforce relative to China.

The whole premise of this report is that China competes "unfairly" and that America should do the same (he makes another mistake in assuming it doesn't. Funny how it's not "competing unfairly" when America does it, there it's public-private partnerships advancing innovation for future jobs or whatever other sophistry). America can do whatever it likes and tell itself whatever lies it wishes, but we shouldn't forget a simple, basic fact about fairness: there's nothing more unfair than a head start.

LOL I was curious what's going on here;

one member noticed inside

an interesting wording at p. 17:
"This suggests Chinese government figures for R&D investment may be significantly overstated, as they show Chinese R&D as only 24 percent less than that of the United States, whereas the number of researchers is 75 percent less."

I checked the numbers, from googlefu for 2016:
1096/4255 is the percentage for researchers (number of researchers per one million inhabitant, China/USA), about 26%
370760.5/476460 is the percentage for funding (in millions of PPP USD, China/USA), about 78%
OK, then

in absolute terms, 2016 again:
1379*1096 = 1511384 (about one million and a half) researchers in China
323.4*4255 = 1376067 researchers in the US
then

the number of researchers in the US was about 91% of the number of researchers in China
then

476460/1376067 (about 346 thousand) was an average funding per US researcher, in PPP USD
370760.5/1511384 (about 245 thousand) was an average funding per Chinese researcher, in PPP USD

and this is what appears to have led to the conclusion
:
"A more likely reason is both government labs and Chinese companies, particularly state-owned enterprises (SOEs), have strong incentives to inflate R&D numbers when reporting to the central government because the government has made R&D a top priority (figure 6)."

I mean to the authors it was hard to believe, or they made it sound in the way that it should be hard to believe, the real spending could be that high in China (more or less the same as the US spending)

now I read
China's lunar rover travels over 170 meters on moon's far side
Xinhua| 2019-04-09 21:26:26

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China's lunar rover has driven 170.92 meters on the far side of the moon to conduct scientific exploration on the virgin territory.

The rover Yutu-2, or Jade Rabbit-2, took a "noon break" from April 2 to April 8, as the temperatures on the moon were extremely high, and continued its exploration, according to the Lunar Exploration and Space Program Center of the China National Space Administration.

The rover was sent to the Von Karman Crater in the South Pole-Aitken Basin on the far side of the moon on Jan. 3 for the Chang'e-4 mission. It has worked longer than its three-month design life.

As a result of the tidal locking effect, the moon's revolution cycle is the same as its rotation cycle, and the same side always faces the Earth.

Click to expand...

Icmer said:

Okay, here is the comparison that you claim, it seems, to be solely necessary.



Does this tell you anything about efficiency of resources allocated? Not at all.

Let's look at share of researchers again.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Compared to China, South Korea has a much higher proportion of researchers in the workforce (14.43 per 1,000 people) than China (2.242) despite South Korea's R&D spending being 4.3% of GDP compared to China's at 1.97%. Similarly, the most recent figure for the US is 8.928, while US R&D as share of GDP is 2.84%.

Do you deny that this discrepancy is at all notable? This is exactly the same as what the original article discusses, except in a more distributed form.

Click to expand...

I don't know what you want to say. Maybe you are trying to say that "higher percentage is better", right? Let me put it in an extreme way to illustrate what I think.

Let's say a country (US or SK) is all researchers and engineers (100% of workforce), the country also has 1000 people. So you have 1000 researchers.
The other country (China) has 10,000 people, 10% researchers, that is 1000 researcher and 9000 workers in the factory to produce the outcome of the research.

Does China has less researching power/headcount/budget than US or SK? No, China matches on absolute terms. Can US or SK match the production of things to put into consumer's hand? Certainly not. The only thing that is what your are arguing is the 10% vs. 100%, which certainly shows China being "behind".


For any technology based economy to sustain, there must be a good proportion of every type of work force. The smaller a country is, the higher the percentage of education/research/income, but that does not translate to total national power because of lack of factory workforces. This is to say that US or China has a much better chance to remain or climb to the dominant position in the global tech ladder than SK even with a lower percentage.

taxiya said:

I don't know what you want to say. Maybe you are trying to say that "higher percentage is better", right? Let me put it in an extreme way to illustrate what I think.

Let's say a country (US or SK) is all researchers and engineers (100% of workforce), the country also has 1000 people. So you have 1000 researchers.
The other country (China) has 10,000 people, 10% researchers, that is 1000 researcher and 9000 workers in the factory to produce the outcome of the research.

Does China has less researching power/headcount/budget than US or SK? No, China matches on absolute terms. Can US or SK match the production of things to put into consumer's hand? Certainly not. The only thing that is what your are arguing is the 10% vs. 100%, which certainly shows China being "behind".

That "behind" is only statistically satisfactory to some people, because it takes away the practicality. What is the point for an economy if everyone is good at drawing a plan but nobody is willing or able to make it reality?​

For any technology based economy to sustain, there must be a good proportion of every type of work force. The smaller a country is, the higher the percentage of education/research/income, but that does not translate to total national power because of lack of factory workforces. This is to say that US or China has a much better chance to remain or climb to the dominant position in the global tech ladder than SK even with a lower percentage.

Click to expand...

I focus on this aspect because the educational achievement metrics for the general Chinese population are abysmal. Everyone in this forum seems to want to ram down the narrative that "China can compete, look at our huge population and enormous total spending!," refusing to acknowledge that the Fourth Industrial Revolution will be an incredible disruptor of jobs in the new workforce.

Icmer said:

I focus on this aspect because the educational achievement metrics for the general Chinese population are abysmal. Everyone in this forum seems to want to ram down the narrative that "China can compete, look at our huge population and enormous total spending!," refusing to acknowledge that the Fourth Industrial Revolution will be an incredible disruptor of jobs in the new workforce.

Click to expand...

That aspect is a separate matter and I won't question that.

The reason of my post of objection was strictly limited to the article's method of presenting the numbers and conclusion drawn from it which you seemed to defend. Since you brought it in, I must say that having large number of "abysmally educated" workforce has nothing to do with the absolute outcome of research, not pushing up nor dragging down. That is pure mathematic. These low educated workforces are meant to be in the factory following fabrication procedures designed by researchers, and it is a plus if you want to having something in hand.

taxiya said:

That aspect is a separate matter and I won't question that.

The reason of my post of objection was strictly limited to the article's method of presenting the numbers and conclusion drawn from it which you seemed to defend. Since you brought it in, I must say that having large number of "abysmally educated" workforce has nothing to do with the absolute outcome of research, not pushing up nor dragging down. That is pure mathematic. These low educated workforces are meant to be in the factory following fabrication procedures designed by researchers, and it is a plus if you want to having something in hand.

Click to expand...

I never defended the article's speculation that the statistics may be fake, only that they were justified in noting the discrepancy in the first place.

You're continuing to ignore that this enormous low-skilled workforce will become increasingly irrelevant economically in the near future. It will be harder for China to retain the productivity of most of their workforce compared to other middle-income countries. % of researchers is a proxy for how well China's higher education system is engaging the populace. Surely you cannot believe that in such a future, all these people will be able to switch to selling goods on Taobao or delivering mobile services? It's why Xi Jinping prominently displays Western books about the AI revolution on his desk, and why Premier Li frequently speaks about the Fourth Industrial Revolution (clearly indicating that he agrees with the original author of the term).

Icmer said:

I never defended the article's speculation that the statistics may be fake,

Click to expand...

That's good.

only that they were justified in noting the discrepancy in the first place.

Click to expand...

However, if the statistic foundation is questionable, the conclusion ("discrepancy") would not be justified.

You're continuing to ignore that this enormous low-skilled workforce will become increasingly irrelevant economically in the near future. It will be harder for China to retain the productivity of most of their workforce compared to other middle-income countries. % of researchers is a proxy for how well China's higher education system is engaging the populace. Surely you cannot believe that in such a future, all these people will be able to switch to selling goods on Taobao or delivering mobile services? It's why Xi Jinping prominently displays Western books about the AI revolution on his desk, and why Premier Li frequently speaks about the Fourth Industrial Revolution (clearly indicating that he agrees with the original author of the term).

Click to expand...

How could arguing against the questionable method be interpreted to ignoring something else?

I have only argued that to achieve an economical superiority one need different tiers of skills, in a pyramid shape with top talent doing the design, while the mass lower layers doing the hands-on work. The opposite is de-industrialization by outsourcing which is proven to fail US and Europe, or SK if it continues its current path. Neither did I say that the lower tier should not be lifted along with overall lifting of economy. But one thing remains certain, it is pyramid. Whether we have a difference (my ignoring or not) depends on if you agree with the pyramid model or not, I think.