Who covered China's rise
The following are some of my immature thoughts on whether the lag in understanding China has prevented the process of consensus formation between the United States and the west, resulting in more time for China's rise.
Sometimes I wonder why the United States didn't start a big trade war against China until 2018 and put a bunch of Chinese companies on the entity list. Don't Americans realize it's a little late?
At this time, the added value of China's manufacturing industry has exceeded that of the United States for eight years (China's added value of manufacturing industry surpassed that of the United States in 2010, ranking first in the world),
In 2018, China has also become the world's largest trading country in goods (China's import and export trade in goods surpassed the United States for the first time in 2013, ranking first in the world),
China's domestic demand market in 2018 has already become the main force of economic growth. From 2014 to 2018, domestic consumption has become the biggest driving force to promote economic growth for five consecutive years. In 2018, the contribution rate of domestic consumption to economic growth was 76.2%, which greatly exceeded the contribution of export surplus to economic growth.
The science and technology war between China and the United States also began in 2018, marked by the beginning of the ZTE event. In the next few years, the United States sent Chinese science and technology companies such as Huawei, CGN, Haikang, Dahua, Kuangshi technology, Shangtang technology, iFLYTEK, SMIC international and so on to the entity list. In September 2020, the chip supply to Huawei will be completely cut off.
However, the problem lies in the repeated analysis of de beautification of the semiconductor industry chain in China. At present, the de beautification production of China's domestic industry chain at the 28nm process node is gradually approaching maturity, which means that Huawei still has great vitality even under extremely harsh conditions.
Domestic manufacturers of head semiconductor equipment and semiconductor materials have begun to take shape in 2020 and have certain technical strength. The domestic 28nm process node lithography machine is also just in the 13th five year plan. According to the time point, it should be developed and completed in 2020, and it can be verified on the production line in 2021.
If the time is pushed back five years from 2020 to 2015, China's semiconductor production equipment and material manufacturers at that time,
Not to mention being listed and having a market value of tens of billions of yuan, the scale of the company is very small, and even the company's revenue and profit information can not be found on the Internet. There are very few news about these enterprises. Few domestic equipment are applied in the production line of domestic chip companies. Changjiang storage and Hefei Changxin company, which are vigorously applying domestic equipment today, It didn't even exist in 2015.
Americans didn't really cut off the supply of chips to Huawei until 2020, which makes me feel that God helps me. That is, if the attack of the United States came five or even ten years earlier, and with the development and perfection of the domestic semiconductor industry chain at that time, Huawei's survival chances would be very small.
This is a puzzling question. Why didn't the United States do it earlier?
For an organization, the longest time-consuming stage is the "consensus formation" stage, because everyone in the organization has different cognition, different views and different interests.
Then there must be a force for the United States to prevent them from making an early response to China. Therefore, they did not start to fully fight against China until the trump administration in 2018 and become increasingly hostile. Especially in the last few months of Trump's term of office in 2020, the hostile behavior against China reached a climax.
This power is first of all the binding of economic interests, which is the famous saying "economic and trade cooperation is the ballast of China US relations".
American multinationals, apple, Qualcomm, Broadcom, Intel, micron, Ford, GM, Boeing, Starbucks, KFC, McDonald's, Coca Cola, Pepsi Cola, Nike and so on, have obtained huge economic benefits from the Chinese market.
Take Starbucks as an example. In the fourth quarter of 2020, the company's sales in the Chinese market reached US $911 million. Note that this is only one quarter's revenue.
There is also Yum China, a company independently operated and established by the Chinese business department of Yum catering group in the United States. It owns KFC, pizza hut, Dongfang Jibai, Xiaofeiyang, Huang Jihuang and other catering brands. In 2020, it achieved a revenue of US $8.26 billion. It is the largest catering group in China, with a revenue far exceeding that of Haidilao,
In other words, China's largest catering company is a foreign-funded enterprise.
U.S. traders, retailers and consumers also benefit from a large number of imported Chinese goods.
However, although this economic and trade relationship is very important and of great interest, it is the "ballast" for the stability of China US relations
However, it exists before and after 2018. Obviously, it is not the sudden great changes in the interests of economic and trade relations that have led to the drastic changes in the attitude of the United States, but mainly the gradual changes in the ideological consensus on China in the United States.
Obviously, the American elites are finally beginning to realize that China is a powerful, difficult opponent and will not collapse on its own. They must abandon some economic interests and contain China.
This reminds me of a problem. The consensus on containment against China in the United States has been reflected so late in action,
Is it because the widespread prejudice and distorted propaganda of Western society against China has largely affected the objective judgment of Western elites and prevented the formation of their consensus on adopting containment policy towards China.
This pervasive, biased and distorted propaganda against China throughout the western society not only makes the western people form a wrong impression of China, but even a large number of Western elites are brainwashed.
This makes those forces who clearly understand that China will continue to develop and become strong, and believe that China must be contained as soon as possible can never obtain the dominant power in the elite.
I saw an article not long ago. The author Huang Yasheng is a Chinese American political and economist who has long studied the economy of China and India in the United States. He was born in China and graduated from Harvard University. He has successively served as an associate professor at the University of Michigan and a professor at Harvard University. Now he is a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of technology. He is an absolute elite. When comparing the paths between China and India in American academic circles, he thought that the Indian model was better. His article (written around 2010) demonstrated why the Indian model was better than the Chinese model, which mentioned an interesting detail“
I have taught a comparative course between China and India at MIT for five years. Every year, people question the statistics of China's economy. So far, no one has questioned India's statistics.
Professor Huang Yasheng actually wants to use this as an argument to demonstrate the advantages of the Indian model and how important a country's transparency and credibility are.
But what I noticed is that in Colleges and universities like MIT, where American elite students gather, these elite students who will control the power of all walks of life in the United States like to question whether the number of China's economic growth is false, but no one questions the number of India.
The professors who teach them are teaching them the view that the Indian model is better than the Chinese model.
In fact, China's economic growth is very obvious, in all aspects, very easy to verify.
For example, the import and export data and the countries and regions that trade with China also have statistical data, which is easy to cross verify with the data released by the Chinese customs;
For another example, economic development needs energy supply, so the annual increase in the amount of oil imported from China can also judge China's development trend. The study of political economics can also see whether oil is becoming more and more important in China's foreign issues through the itinerary of Chinese leaders' visit to the destination country. For example, there is a country in Africa called Angola, If you inquire about the diplomatic interaction between China and Angola, you will find that the level and frequency are obviously high. Why? Because Angola is China's largest oil importer in Africa.
For another example, electronics and automobile are two super wealth making industries in the manufacturing industry. We can judge by analyzing the business proportion in the Chinese market and the number of cars produced in China through the financial reports of the world's top electronics and auto parts enterprises.
In fact, there are too many data in all aspects,
I remember I went to South Africa to attend an exhibition in 2010. Yes, this is a distant place, and the exhibition is not so famous. As a result, almost half of the booths are Chinese companies, and the site is full of Chinese peers and salespeople. You can know the status of China in this industry at a glance.
In fact, in so many aspects, I think the real difficulty for China is that it is too difficult to cover up the fact that it is developing and rising rapidly,
From import and export, foreign investment, the number of infrastructure, energy supply, the financial reports of global listed companies, the number of Chinese companies at international exhibitions, the number of flights to China, China's key diplomatic countries, China's price trend, the number of foreign illegal immigrants and students studying at their own expense
These various dimensions and various aspects of the data can see China's development trajectory. It is really difficult to cover up China's development by reducing the data.
However, during the five years of Professor Huang's teaching, some of these elite students at MIT have questioned whether China's economic development figures are true, believing that China is creating an illusion of economic prosperity through data fraud. On the contrary, no one has questioned India's figures,
This shows that they must be in a highly negative social environment for China's information reporting. These information tell them all the time that compared with the western system, China's system is backward and can not get the support of the people,
So China either exaggerates its growth to deceive the people to maintain its rule,
Either growth is short-term and unsustainable. Only the western system is the highest form of human beings. It is a truly sustainable and leading system. Therefore, it is not considered that China's system can pose a challenge to the West in the long-term dimension.
The above information must be massive and pervasive, so it is possible to form such a cognition.
In short, they live in an environment of "powerful my system", form an instinctive and deep-rooted cognition, question various problems in China, and form a "topic priority" in their brain, so that when China's growth is so easy to verify, These elite MIT students focus on constantly questioning that China's development figures are false. Faced with such a large amount of negative information input, even these elites' cognition of China can not escape and avoid being affected.
The famous video of Zhang Weiwei participating in the debate of the nexus Institute circulated on the Internet on November 23, 2017. Zhang Weiwei debated with western scholars on the issues of Chinese and Western systems,
When Zhang Weiwei said that public opinion surveys show that the Chinese people are very satisfied with the government survey (89%), while opinion surveys in many Western countries show that their people's satisfaction with the government's governance is very low, there is a person on the scene immediately. Said I disagree, and the only woman on the scene, Shaha Riza, a Libyan, works for the National Endowment for Democracy, whose main job is to promote the democratization of the Middle East, she directly said "who dares to tell the truth in China" , demeanor and tone express disbelief in China's data.
In fact, this is a process of communication between the two sides,
The purpose is to exchange and obtain valuable information
. If you are unwilling to think about the merits of the data and opinions put forward by the other party, but instinctively do not think about it, express complete disbelief in the data provided by the other party, and treat everything the other party says as lies, in fact communication is impossible. , nor does it contribute to its own progress.
You can question whether the figure of 89% is inaccurate, but even if it is 79% and 69%, does it mean that the satisfaction is very high? Does this reflect that China has made great development and must do something right?
But it's no use. Shaha Riza, an elite figure of Middle East descent in American society, can be seen from her remarks that she has been trained to resist conditionally, which shows that she has received a lot of negative news and information about China every day, so she doesn't believe that the Chinese people will be very satisfied with China's development, I think it must be the Chinese government's fraud. The Chinese people must not share the benefits of economic development. They must be dissatisfied and dare not tell the truth. Unwilling to think about whether there is merit behind the data, but instinctively deny it 100%.
Not only her, but also other western scholars at the scene have similar views. They always show some disdain in their expressions. There is a feeling that I have insight into everything. The Chinese people can't be satisfied with the overall performance of the country, but you are still lying and sophistry.
This has a lot to do with the public opinion environment in western society for China,
In October 2019, the bodies of 39 Asian stowaways were found in the British truck corpse hiding case. However, on October 24, the BBC took the lead in issuing a report entitled
Essex lorry deaths: 39 found dead dead in lorry were Chinese nationalities
Body is a Chinese citizen, which immediately attracted reprints from Agence France Presse, voice of Germany and other Western media.
British "mirror" and other media immediately sorted out the "Dover tragedy in Britain" in which 58 Chinese stowaways suffocated in containers in 2000 and the "pick-up tragedy in mocham bay" in which 23 Chinese stowaways died at high tide in 2004.
October 25, CNN
At the regular press conference of the Ministry of foreign affairs, the reporter in China asked, "why did Chinese citizens leave China in this extremely dangerous way on the occasion of the 70th anniversary of the founding of new China".
If you are an ordinary reader in the west, seeing the reports from BBC, mirror and CNN in such a short time, does it strengthen your negative perception of China in 2019?
China is so bad that its people will choose such a dangerous way to leave. In fact, it was soon proved that all 39 bodies were Vietnamese stowaways.
So can those Westerners who receive the wrong information get the corrected information?
As China's development has an increasing impact on the world, the western media can not avoid this. Therefore, a large number of reports on China's rapid economic development, industrial upgrading, the expansion of the share of high-tech companies and the enhancement of military power can be found in the western media, but the western media always attach some negative things when reporting such information, Let readers feel that China's development is "partially false", "unstable" and "immoral", which can not be sustained.
Therefore, in western society, the cognition of China's development has formed three kinds of voices,
One group thinks that China's development is actually exaggerated. The economic growth data released by the Chinese government is false or exaggerated. Don't think this is something new before. The following figure is a screenshot of the economist's official website, an article on October 17, 2020, Can China's reported growth be trusted
In 2020, the west is still discussing whether China's development data is credible. This is your most powerful opponent, which may completely subvert your historical position.
One is the theory of "unstable growth",
While acknowledging the fact that China is developing, it also attempts to explain that this development is not sustainable. There are major crises and are not complete, such as high local debt, bad debts of state-owned banks, real estate bubbles, ghost cities, overcapacity, and unstable political systems.
Zhang Weiwei said in an issue of this is China that he was interviewed by the BBC at the London Book Fair in 2012. The host asked a question about whether China's political system can continue to the 19th National Congress. By the way, the 19th National Congress was held in 2017. The host asked this question in 2012, which shows his inner views and daily information, It makes him think that China's system may collapse within five years.
The most famous one in this regard is the new book "China is about to collapse" published by Chinese American mixed race Zhang Jiadun in 2001, which has had a great impact in the United States and even the world. How influential was this book at that time? According to the Global Times report in 2003, not only did the book appear on the New York Times bestseller list, Zhang Jiadun also became a celebrity everywhere who competed to invite speeches, and even the US Congress specially invited him to hold hearings.
At the end of April 2003, the "100 people's Association" composed of more than 100 outstanding Chinese Americans in the United States, including I.M. Pei, he Dayi and Yo Yo Ma, held a forum on "China's opportunities and financial market development" in New York. At the meeting, Zhang Jiadun put forward his consistent view that China's financial system is terminally ill, the medicine stone is invalid, the problems of China's state-owned enterprises are accumulated, and the bank lending objects are limited to state-owned enterprises and enterprises approved by the central government, forming a closed monopoly system, and China's economy will collapse in a few years.
As for Zhang Jiadun's statement, several celebrities on Wall Street - Schwartz, chairman and CEO of Soros Fund Management Company, warworth, honorary chairman and advisory director of Morgan Stanley Asia, and Rogers, an investor (quantum fund was jointly founded by Soros and Rogers) refuted Zhang Jiadun, He pointed out that "your theory of China collapse only exists in your book, not in China's reality".
In particular, Rogers believes that the 21st century is China's century, and the RMB will become a strong currency. China should change the RMB into a freely convertible currency as soon as possible. Rogers also joked that he'd better learn Chinese quickly, or he won't catch up with the trend.
Even several big men on Wall Street are discussing Zhang Jiadun's remarks, which shows its great influence.
Rogers' words and deeds are consistent. His two daughters' Mandarin is very standard. I believe everyone has seen the video. In 2019, the Rogers were also on CCTV, and their two daughters will recite many ancient Chinese poems
Moreover, due to Zhang Jiadun's great influence on US public opinion, he also visited Taiwan in 2003 and was received by Chen Shui Bian, then leader of the Taiwan region. There are still reports of the conversation between the two sides on the official website of Taiwan's "presidential palace".
The Chinese media constantly criticized Zhang Jiadun's theory of China collapse in those years to stabilize market confidence. It can be seen that Zhang Jiadun's book had a great impact at that time. Moreover, on December 29, 2011, 10 years later, Zhang Jiadun published an article "China is about to collapse: 2012 edition" in the Journal of foreign policy of the United States.
Foreignpolicy is an American Journal founded by Huntington and Warren Damian mansher in 1970. It was originally an academic quarterly and later changed to a bimonthly. This is an elite magazine for American higher education groups, and the founder Huntington is the famous Harvard professor who wrote the conflict of civilizations.
Zhang Jiadun's remarks published in such a magazine show that he has entered the mainstream public opinion field in the west, and his theory of China collapse has a significant impact.
As another example, Paul Krugman, a Nobel Laureate in economics, was an economist who successfully predicted the "1997 Asian financial crisis" in the 1990s,
He was in the United States in 2011
New York Times
Will China's economy collapse The article believes that China's export-oriented economy depends too much on the trade surplus to maintain the operation of the manufacturing industry, which is bound to face challenges, and says that China's economy is "becoming another dangerous area of the world economy" and "a new source of crisis".
However, I inquired more about Krugman's comments and found that he is an economist who likes to make "dangerous comments about the prosperous times". He mentioned not only the problems existing in China's economy, including the Asian financial crisis and the economic problems facing Europe. Therefore, for the time being, I'd like to summarize his views into academic views. But his authority also had a great impact at that time.
The BBC, the New York Times and foreign policy have constantly reported on the view of China's collapse, just a few examples,
This is similar in the West
China's economy may go wrong, and China's politics may go wrong
A lot of comments have also formed a faction that believes that China's growth is unsustainable.
The third category is "immoral theory of China's growth"
Most of the accusations are China's theft of intellectual property rights. Others include the employment of child workers, sweatshops, neglect of labor rights, environmental pollution, overfishing of Chinese ocean going fishing vessels, and of course, reports that disgust Chinese netizens that link Chinese meat eating with the destruction of Brazilian tropical rain forests and the growth of global carbon emissions.
In fact, these problems encountered by China in its development exist in the historical development periods of various countries, and are not unique to China,
And with the development of economy and society, these problems are improving on the whole.
As a simple example, the following figure shows the annual death toll of coal mine accidents in China from 2001 to 2018, which decreased by more than 95% from 6995 in 2002 to 333 in 2018.
What does this mean? This is also my view all the time. Development is the last word, the key to solving all problems, and the behavior most in line with moral standards. Long-term non growth or negative growth is really immoral.
Due to the more developed manufacturing industry and the rapid and large-scale construction of infrastructure, the actual living standard of Chinese people is much higher than that of other developing countries. However, the West obviously does not care much about other developing countries, or praises them for choosing the path of democracy and freedom favored by the west, even if their development is not as good as that of China.
In the immoral theory of China's growth, the most exaggerated thing in the United States or western society is China's theft of Western intellectual property rights,
They have long believed that China's development is formed by copying, plagiarizing and stealing the technology of western countries, and firmly believe that China's system is not suitable for innovation. Only a free society like the west can stimulate human imagination and creativity and have the soil for innovation. This idea is deeply rooted.
The case of Li Wenhe in 1999 is a typical example. All the American media and political elites believe that China must have stolen the w88 nuclear bomb technology of the United States to achieve the miniaturization of the nuclear bomb. It is impossible for China to do it by itself, but it must be Chinese born Li Wenhe who leaked confidential technology to the Chinese people, and finally proved that this is an unjust case.
Let's take Huawei as an example. In June 2019, song Liuping, Huawei's chief legal officer, said in an interview with the media that since the establishment of Huawei, from Europe, the United States, Japan to China, the world
However, this does not prevent western journalists from constantly linking Huawei with stealing technology,
The following figure is a report in the Wall Street Journal in June 2019, entitled "Huawei's rise is accompanied by allegations of plagiarism and unfair competition", suggesting that Huawei's technology is obtained by plagiarizing the technology of Western companies.
In June 2019, a reporter from Canada's globe and mail asked this question when interviewing Ren Zhengfei,
Please note that the reporter has no evidence
, I just learned that some people who had worked in Nortel network had changed jobs to Huawei's Ottawa Research Institute in Canada and asked "did Huawei steal Nortel's technology?".
At Huawei's Ottawa Research Institute, there are three senior people. All three of them used to work in Nortel, including some of their subordinates. Did Huawei steal Nortel's technology and recruit the rest of them, then set up its own R & D organization in Canada and gradually grow?
After Nortel went bankrupt, we recruited some personnel from Nortel. At that time, Nortel did not have the current technology, but had talents. It was always necessary for talents to be re employed after they were unemployed. When Nortel went bankrupt, in fact, even 3G in the world had just begun. After 3G, 4G to 5g, these people made progress with the progress of the times. As talents, the way of thinking in their minds contributed, but there was no intellectual property problem.
The greatest contribution of Nortel in that year was to increase the optical transmission capacity to 10G. However, due to the collapse of the IT bubble, Nortel was dragged down. Our current optical transmission capacity has reached 800g. Of course, we must follow the footsteps of our predecessors, but this is a new creation without intellectual property rights. We wanted to buy Nortel, but we didn't do it because of commercial considerations.
Ren Zhengfei made it very clear,
In 2019, mankind has begun to enter the 5g era. When Nortel went bankrupt more than a decade ago, the world didn't even have 4G, and even 3G has just begun. Nortel has no 4G and 5g technology at all, and 3G technology is only in its infancy.
Nortel could only achieve 10G Optical transmission capacity in those years, while Huawei can now achieve 800g.
Why do you say that Huawei has stolen Nortel's technology because Huawei Ottawa studies all employees who have worked in Nortel and has no evidence on hand? Which company in the industry has no employees who have worked in the same industry? Huawei doesn't hire them. Where do they find jobs?
Also at the media Roundtable in June 2019,
Forbes asked this question:
It is often reported that the United States has accused Huawei of being a national intelligence agency and that Huawei will steal intellectual property rights. What is your response?
Liang Hua, chairman of Huawei: these allegations have no factual basis, just a guess. (the following reply is omitted)
In December 2019, Matt Murray, chief editor of the Wall Street Journal, asked Ren Zhengfei this question:
In the course of Huawei's development, it has faced many allegations of theft, including those of large companies such as Cisco and CNEX, as well as individuals. As you may know, this year's Wall Street Journal has a report on this. Why do such accusations persist? Has Huawei solved or ever solved the challenges faced in technology theft?
Ren Zhengfei: accusations are not necessarily facts. Trump has suffered more accusations than us.
We always respect third-party intellectual property rights. Many large companies in the United States pay us a lot of intellectual property fees every year, but we pay more intellectual property fees to American companies. Over the years, we have collected US $1.4 billion in patent fees and paid about US $6 billion in intellectual property fees. Moreover, Huawei invests about US $15-20 billion in scientific research funds every year, and has nearly 80000 or 90000 R & D personnel. It can't lead the world by stealing. Good people will also be blamed. We still believe in the judgment of the American court.
The above shows that even for Huawei, which has the world's first-class innovation ability, Western media are constantly questioning whether Huawei has stolen technology, not just Huawei. Western society generally holds such an attitude towards Chinese science and technology companies and scientific research institutions in Colleges and universities. They generally question China's scientific and technological innovation ability. They believe that China is autocratic, Suppressing free thought makes innovation naturally inactive and suppressed. We must rely on stealing technology from the west to achieve progress.
This universal social atmosphere has caused two negative effects on Western society.
The first is to play the role of "issue setting", which makes them focus on "China's stealing technology" for a long time, ignoring that the main issue that really needs to be concerned is the progress of China's original innovation ability.
Once Chinese companies are accused of secret theft and technology infringement, or Chinese scientists are accused of stealing technology to China, they will always focus on the news. In fact, many of these allegations are finally ruled not tenable by the U.S. court, and many of them are completely political.
For example, Xie Keping, a Chinese American scholar, once worked at the Anderson Cancer Center at the University of Texas Houston, the top cancer research center in the United States. He is a well-known expert in gastrointestinal tumors.
In early 2018, the local police found that Xie Keping's computer contained some pictures involving child pornography in their investigation, so they charged Xie Keping with "illegally holding pornographic photos".
According to the statement of Nathan mays, Xie Keping's lawyer, among the 40tb massive files taken from Xie Keping, the police claimed to find 12 pictures suspected of child pornography, but most of them are thumbnails of "nail size", with very low resolution. After identification by relevant experts, they do not think that the characters in the pictures can be confirmed to be children.
Moreover, the last time these images were viewed was a few years ago. The computer analyst he hired believes that it is not uncommon for such images to be accidentally downloaded.
In November 2018, the grand jury of the court made a decision that the charges "will not be prosecuted without evidence",
Xie Keping was accused of holding child pornography in the background when the FBI accused him of being an economic spy in China.
From the inexplicable accusation of child pornography, it can be seen that the FBI is putting great pressure on him and eager to convict him.
In fact, such cases often form a situation in the United States where schools shout grievances for Chinese professors, but the U.S. government wants to convict them. On January 14, 2021, Chen Gang, a Chinese professor at the school of mechanical engineering of MIT, was arrested in the United States and faced three criminal charges, namely, wire transfer fraud, failure to submit reports on foreign banks and financial accounts, and making false statements to U.S. government agencies, accusing them of concealing their cooperative relations with China. After the incident, MIT president L. Rafael reif wrote that he was "surprised, very depressed and difficult to understand".
Moreover, almost 100 MIT professors signed a joint letter to the president to defend the US government's accusation against Chen Gang.
In any country, there must be institutions, companies and individuals that infringe on others' intellectual property rights. There is no doubt that some people have illegal and criminal acts, which is an objective phenomenon in human society. Otherwise, what should we do with patent and intellectual property protection laws?
However, a large number of such negative reports, many of which are actually political accusations, have formed a "topic setting" effect, which has attracted Westerners' long-term attention to the topic of "China stealing technology and plagiarizing intellectual property rights", but ignored and noticed China's progress in original innovation ability.
Is there any difference in China's original innovation ability in 2000, 2010 and 2020? Of course, and there's a big difference
Note that the difference in time means that China's independent R & D and original innovation capabilities are very different.
This difference and progress will bring great challenges to the advantages of Western led industries. From the sharp increase in R & D expenses of Chinese companies, which leapt to the second place in the world, and from the fact that China paid more than 34 billion US dollars for the use of intellectual property rights in 2019, it can be seen that China is mastering basic science and technology mainly through independent R & D and supplemented by the introduction of foreign technology.
In recent years, a series of major scientific and technological achievements in China, including the space station, underwater robots, three-generation nuclear power plants, lunar landing and return to earth, have been dominated by more negative reports on intellectual property rights. Even for rivals like Huawei, they recognize Huawei's leading position in 5g, However, they also believe that Huawei has developed and grown by plagiarizing Western technology rather than independent research and development. In the absence of evidence, they spend their precious time constantly questioning whether Huawei has stolen technology, rather than focusing on in-depth reporting and Research on why Huawei has succeeded and what successful original management innovation and scientific and technological innovation it has.
This negative topic setting constantly strengthens and maintains the impression of Westerners that "China's system lacks innovation ability", which makes the technology blockade faction prevail in the way the west, especially the United States, treats Chinese technology companies.
It is believed that as long as China's technology source is blocked, the west can maintain its industrial advantage, and there is no need to worry that it will stimulate China's investment in independent R & D, which will increase significantly and drive China to catch up.
In fact, the effect of technology blockade is different in different fields, at different times, and in different countries. Take China for example. Can you have the same effect when you blockade China's semiconductor technology in 2000, 2010, 2015 and 2020? Do you have the same effect in blocking semiconductor technology in China, Vietnam and India?
Due to the blockade of semiconductor technology in the United States, although Huawei's terminal business has encountered great difficulties, SMIC's production expansion and performance growth have also been greatly affected,
However, the three years from 2018 to today (2021) can be said to be the spring of China's "national industrial party",
All core technologies are being developed by Chinese companies, industrial capital is being injected into them, and companies are still using them. The whole road is very smooth, which is really gratifying.
You should know that before, mobile phone operating system, mobile phone mobile service framework, domestic chip production equipment, domestic semiconductor materials, instruction set, EDA software, lithography machine, silicon wafer, analog chip, RF chip, etc,
Or no company is willing to invest resources at all,
Or the companies that want to do can not get enough capital and talent investment from the capital market,
Either it is done, but no one uses it, because downstream terminal enterprises need to use devices from international manufacturers to ensure product competitiveness.
Without the American technology blockade,
HMS, which replaces Google GMS, will not go online in 2020,
Hongmeng system will not start pushing tests for mobile phones to China at the end of April 2021,
The 28nm lithography machine made in Shanghai microelectronics has been made, and there will be no company in such a hurry to try it out in 2021,
The performance of China's major semiconductor companies will not take off gradually in 2018, especially in 2019, and the market value of semiconductor companies will not soar to become the biggest bright spot of a shares in recent years. In fact, as long as they buy the shares of leading companies in the semiconductor industry in recent years, most of them have even reached new highs, and some share prices have risen more than 10 times, The following figure shows the share price of domestic chip leaders in a certain field. From 2018 to 2020, the share price increased by more than 10 times, which shows that a large amount of capital is pouring into China's semiconductor industry.
There will not be so many new companies in the field of EDA tools and software. For example, domestic EDA has poured in a lot of capital and established new start-up companies in the past two years, because a domestic EDA market has been artificially created. In fact, to tell the truth, the EDA market is not large, and the global scale is about US $10 billion. Originally, several giants in the United States did a good job in monopoly management, Now we have to bring in a bunch of Chinese companies, and there are all kinds of capital support behind them.
In addition, the school recruitment salary of domestic chip design enterprises has increased significantly since 2018. Up to now, chip design has become the highest paid post in the manufacturing industry. Engineers who have worked for 10 years have been changing jobs and getting millions of annual salary. I have seen several cases this year. They are not at the supervisor level, which was unimaginable before.
In fact, there are many other voices in the West,
That is to think that China has the ability to realize technological autonomy
, including Bill Gates, President and CEO of ASML, have expressed such views.
In particular, ASML, I think their ideas are similar to those of EDA companies in the United States. In fact, lithography machines, like EDA market, have high technical barriers to entry, are deeply bound to manufacturing process, and the market scale is small,
According to the data of chip insights, in 2020, the sales revenue of lithography equipment of ASML, Canon and Nikon totaled 98.8 billion
RMB, about more than 14 billion US dollars. Of course, this data is only the equipment sales revenue. For example, ASML's annual revenue in 2020 reached 13.978 billion euros, including 10.3 billion euros of equipment sales, and the rest is the income from installation and various basic management services.
These markets have a high degree of monopoly, which not only makes it difficult for new competitors to enter the market, but also giants can be hanged by reducing prices and various means. But now sanctions have created a "de beautifying" market that ASML cannot compete.
In 2018, China already has semiconductor production equipment, EDA and semiconductor production material enterprises, which have a certain technical foundation. What they lack is market application.
I have always felt that the difficulty of localization in the commercial market is higher than that in the military market. As it is related to national security, China will have the national will to promote equipment localization in this field, and 100% of the procurement market comes from the government, and China's military expenditure is a stable domestic equipment purchase market in this field.
However, this logic is somewhat different in the field of far broader commercial market,
Although the Chinese government has made localization plans in every field, what products to buy in the commercial market is not decided by the Chinese government, but by enterprises through the judgment of market competition.
It doesn't mean that if the government makes a special product, there must be buyers and customers in the commercial market. In fact, in the commercial market, the proportion of government procurement in many fields is often so small that it can't affect the overall situation,
The typical example is computers. The government purchases computers with domestic chips and operating systems every year, but how much of the whole market can this account for? I haven't checked, but it should be around 1%, 2%, 3%, maybe more,
At present, China is a country with completely different capabilities from 10 years ago and 20 years ago. The way for the United States to ensure its own interests is to improve the return on investment period and path binding
1: Extend the return on investment period
For those high-tech products used in commercial fields, the way for the United States to maximize its interests is not blockade, because it will stimulate China to invest heavily and create competitors for itself. Instead, it will sell a large number of products to China at a reasonable price, prolong the investment return period of latecomers, and make latecomers face that no one is willing to buy even if they invest a huge amount of capital, Even if someone is willing to buy, it is difficult to make money and unprofitable.
Since the scale of the commercial market is dozens of times larger than that of the military equipment market and a large number of industries are dominated by private enterprises, the Chinese government can not do everything. The R & D of high-tech products itself has a high threshold of technology, capital, quality, market and ecology. It is difficult for latecomers to catch up. In addition, the amount of investment in high-tech industries is large, If the market price is generally not high, it will lead to a longer return period, and the latecomers must bear long-term losses.
Therefore, the logic of the United States should be to raise the threshold in technology and ecology, maintain high availability in supply, and maintain the situation of "long investment return period" in price, which can delay or even basically cut off Chinese companies from entering the commercial market.
In this paper, EDA software with a global market scale of only US $10 billion and lithography machine market with a global market scale of only US $15 billion are typical, and there has been no real powerful Chinese company for a long time.
2: Path binding
Another way is path binding,
China's early warning aircraft is a typical example,
Originally, China wanted to introduce Israeli early warning aircraft. Of course, the next step is likely to be imitation and localization, but anyway, it means that China will invest a lot of investment in this technology path. However, the Americans do not allow Israel to sell early warning aircraft and force China to change its investment from buying Israeli early warning aircraft to independent development, As a result, China Electronics Technology Group took the lead in finally developing the domestic early warning aircraft and won the national special prize for scientific and technological progress.
Another example is Shenfei. The introduction and imitation of Su's series fighters by Shenfei was arranged by the state in the 1990s. Shenfei has invested a lot in the technical route of Su's fighters. It is still on this road for more than 20 years now. It must be difficult to think about it.
Another example is the research and development of hydrogen energy vehicles in Japan. Japanese enterprises have continuously invested a lot of capital, manpower and material resources, and interest groups have been formed internally. If Japanese enterprises want to completely turn to electric vehicles, they must be the first to do so.
The last example is China's automobile industry. In this super scale industry, it can be said that it is an excellent case that developed countries have successfully bound the development path of China's major companies. Chinese companies have invested a lot of capital in joint ventures, which can't go up or down for a long time.
On the contrary, Weilai automobile and BYD, which have the highest market value of electric vehicles in China, are companies that have not engaged in path binding.
On the contrary, from the development history of made in China, Western products are mainly high prices and technical blockade, which greatly improves the difficulty for China to obtain a product, thus giving Chinese companies great motivation for independent research and development, while Chinese companies' R & D ability is actually very strong.
Huawei entered the communication industry at the beginning. The products of this industry were sold too expensive. Similarly, the development of shield machines in China was also due to the high purchase and maintenance costs of shield machines in Germany and Japan.
If a technology blockade is implemented in the commercial market, it will actually greatly expand the originally limited domestic product procurement market. Take chip manufacturing as an example,
First, the equipment is strongly related to the process. Using the equipment of new manufacturers requires new process research and development, which is equivalent to new investment,
Second, there will be a gap between the equipment of domestic manufacturers and international manufacturers at the beginning, and if the price of international manufacturers is reasonable, it is a safer choice to buy products from international manufacturers. For example, the production yield of the fab using the equipment is reduced by one point, two points, or downtime due to failure, which means a great loss to the factory.
If Chinese enterprises are not allowed to buy Western equipment, the possible market proportion of domestic products has suddenly increased from 0%, 1% and 2% to 30%, 50% or even higher, which is commercially feasible. As long as I invest money to make things, they can be used, and there are no strong foreign competitors, because they can't sell because they have to implement the technical blockade, So as to give up a large market. This market not only includes Huawei, SMIC international, Fujian Jinhua and other enterprises on the entity list, but also other Chinese companies will strengthen their localization procurement share to ensure their own supply security.
In addition to market factors, another key factor is the time point. I think it is too late for the United States to block in the field of semiconductor technology. Now China has a good ability to localize the semiconductor industry chain. Coupled with the American blockade, it has suddenly opened a wide localization market and formed a good commercial effect.
Now it seems that the Western prejudice against China has directly radiated the whole field of public opinion in the west, and a large number of Western elites are not spared. Under such circumstances,
In their first step, some people will think that China's figures may be false;
The second step is that some people think that even if China's growth is true, it will certainly not be sustainable in the long run;
The third step is to realize that growth is real and will continue for a long time, but China's system is not suitable for technological innovation. Only by stealing Western technology can we obtain growth power and make continuous progress. Therefore, they can curb China's rise by starting a comprehensive technological blockade, which is their current understanding.
Now looking back, the United States did not really come to the third step until 2018,
It's a little late,
In 2018, China already has a good technical foundation and a large-scale market. Americans do not realize that they are too late,
They believe that China has achieved progress by stealing Western technology and lacks the ability of independent innovation,
Instead, they chose to engage in technology blockade, guide Chinese enterprises to increase investment in key technology fields, force Chinese companies to set up their own doors, and believe that this can effectively prevent China's progress.
It should be said that racial superiority and institutional prejudice are widespread in the western public opinion field,
In addition, after the reform and opening up, a large number of senior intellectual elites from China have entered the western academic and media circles through immigration, and these Chinese elites who grew up in China in the 1960s and 1970s, the 1970s and 1980s and the period of backwardness and political movement,
After arriving in the west, he noticed the great gap in the development level between China and the West. Therefore, many of them generally have a negative attitude towards China's system and development prospects. Many of them teach in well-known American universities and publish articles in top American media and magazines, which have a great influence on the American elite and further affect the public opinion field in the West.
The Western elite's understanding of China has produced a lag effect and split effect, delaying the time to form a new consensus.
For China's opponents, let's take China in 2010 as an example. If you give it five more years, it will grow to the size of Japan. If you give it 10 more years, China's volume will double. For the United States, they don't have much time to waste.
It should be said that the widespread spread of this trend of thought has covered China's rise to a great extent.
The above are some personal thoughts.