Should Chairman Xi ever wear out his welcome in Beijing, he could have a future as a U.S. Congressman. He would fit right in.
Both Congress and the Chairman evidently believe that what the U.S. and Chinese economies need is more politicians. Left to their own devices, they fear, the entrepreneurs who both our countries technological powerhouses would henceforth invest in all the wrong things. Congress and the Chairman, briefed by bureaucrats well versed in last decade’s technologies, can do far better.
Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal included a lengthy account of the Chairman’s plan for reviving the Chinese economy—which needed no reviving until the Chairman achieved dictatorial power by purging all opposition so as to more faithfully emulate his hero Chairman Mao.
The Journal explained that Xi seems focused on “steps to make China less dependent on Western technology, reduce reliance on other countries for semiconductors and other essential goods, and stake out a commanding position in industries he sees as critical for the future, including clean energy, electric vehicles and advanced computing.”
Not noted was which of all-too-many U.S. congressmen Xi might have been paraphrasing. Eliminating trade with the East, subsidizing cars no one wants, reacting wind mills whose rotors fly off, and pouring billions of dollars into the computing industry to make it less efficient and productive is precisely current American policy. The CHIPS Act will subsidize mis-investment by American (and Taiwanese, and European) semiconductor companies on a scale Chairman Xi can only dream of.
There could be one upside for the United States from the Chairman’s policies. His plan to subsidize Chinese makers of current electric cars and then export them cheaply to America could sink the U.S. electric car industry, saving American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. Only U.S.-made EVs are eligible for the vast subsidies from our government. With Chinese EVs selling for half the price of American models, even after the subsidies, the U.S. versions would disappear and we need never waste another dime on the things. Car prices would fall. We might even Whip Inflation Now.
Alas neither Congress nor the White House (occupied by whomever) will allow Americans to enjoy this bounty.
The administration has already announced it will raise the tariff on Chinese EVs to 100%. It’s a neat trick to make both the world’s two largest economies poorer in one step, but our government is doing its best.
Subsidized into existence before their time, current electric cars are a typical product of socialism. Mandated by clueless bureaucrats, these vehicles still await the rapidly progressing battery technology that could make them viable within a decade.
Note that no subsidies are needed for devices that have been made possible by the astounding progress in batteries so far over the last decade. Proliferating are electric bicycles, scooters, drones, golf carts, and any power tool you can name. The battery technology and “electrification” we already have is an inspiring story of what free markets and free minds can do when left alone.
Smaller, cheaper, safer batteries to make electric cars appealing on the free market are coming. But the socialists want to force it, and take credit
Particularly scandalous is the government’s refusal to embrace plug-in hybrid cars, which can average hundreds of miles to a gallon of gas, given an average U.S. car trip length of under 20 miles. The plug-in makes an absurdity of the government’s gazillions spent on pushing all-EVs before there time.
When, inevitably, marketable EVs arrive, courtesy of such developments as graphene anodes and solid-state batteries, they we won’t need government subsidies.
Not satisfied with imitating Chinese industrial policy, the United States is hastening to emulate Chinese regulation of artificial intelligence (AI).
Mindful that large language models like Chat GPT can say embarrassing things about politicians, Chinese versions must be approved by the government before being used. The Journal reports that China requires firms to “submit a data set of 5,000 to 10,000 questions the model will decline to answer, roughly half of which relate to political ideology and criticism of the Communist Party.” These include such queries as “Did the People’s Liberation Army kill students at Tiananmen Square in 1989?”
Such intrusions are already impeding innovation in Chinese AI, though Chinese businesses lead the world in use of AI programs. The our government is on the same trend. Last year’s “White House Executive Order on AI” comprised a clutch of staggeringly broad requirements that regulatory agencies should follow, including:
· AI must be safe and secure.
· Responsible development and use of AI requires a commitment to supporting American workers.
· AI policies must advance equity and civil rights.
· The federal government should exercise global leadership in societal, economic and technological progress.
Thank goodness the Court got rid of “Chevron deference.” Even so, dictates this broad are every regulator’s dream. And the regulators are on it. Even before the Executive Order, the Federal Trade Commission, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Department of Justice banded together to assert their authority over "software and algorithmic processes, including AI."
As if that were not enough the U.S. Patent Office has announced its intention to scrutinize proposed patents for inventions developed with the assistance of AI. The idea seems to be that if the AI did the work, some other AI could do it as well and the invention is therefore not original and should be denied patent protection.
This is possibly the worst signal the government could send on the topic. AI should be understood as a tool for humans not a replacement. Large language models propose, but humans dispose. Discouraging researchers from using AI to interpret mountains of data could cut off some of the most promising developments in technology, especially in the medical field.
In any nation, socialism makes for poverty and desperation, and both make for war. U.S. and Chinese socialists are steering our nations on a deadly course. They need to be stopped.