But the companies are not profitable; their losses are being covered by the Chinese state. The question is whether this is actually an effective strategy long term.
The Chinese market is this way because the people that run chinese companies have deep knowledge of actually how to make products, frequently engage in industrial espionage, and are willing do expend tons of effort just to undercut a competitor by 10 cents.
The magic is not in am i making a different widget. Its how that widget is made, what are all the machines involved in making that widget. Could i design a machine to make the exact same widget, but with reduced vibrations, 10% less electricity, and reduce maintenance by 10% while still maintaining quality?
For example
If they see a company making widgets, and this company makes them by using 10 custom engineered machines with a lifetime production run of 5 each, each of these 10 custom made machines needs to be designed by a army of engineers working for years.
A competitor in china will do espionage, the CEO's and upper management will study these 10 machines in depth, see where they could make improvements and if they see a opportunity like hey machine number 3 , 7 and 10 are designed like X, if we design it like Y we could cut electricity consumption by 10%. This will allow use to undercut their widgets for 10 cents.
The people running US corps are all business bros, and the people are lazy, they aren't interested in doing years of labor, to make a production line of 10 machines to undercut another billion dollar company for 10 cents.
If you go to your local chinatown, the chinese restaurants operate this way always constantly looking to crush their competitors, always trying to improve supply chains, always looking to cut costs and undercut competitors. Looking to cut out middlemen.
The Soviet Union is famous for telling scientists which scientific theories were acceptable to study. Science had to conform to the Party's ideology. This seems to be what you are advocating, and it seems you are mocking literal scientists for being upset by it.
Yes, it is factual. They are overriding peer review to require changes to research scope and design. Did you read the actual article. Allow me to quote:
"For example, according to documentation seen by Science:
* In a project studying factors contributing to depression using many years of observational data from large cohorts, the HHS review recommended adding genetic influences. The project was in its fourth year, when such changes were likely not feasible.
*vHHS asked that an ongoing grant proposing to study obesity in a minority group more clearly explain why certain “stressors” might influence weight. The grant was approved after the investigator added more stressors and other potential factors and described other health outcomes in addition to obesity.
*vAn ongoing study of a health matter in a certain occupation focused on a minority population. The commenter asked whether a specific health problem was more common with this group or its members responded differently to an intervention. The investigator added explanations in response.
In another case described to Science by an NIH program officer, HHS requested the investigator add a new analysis to a study examining factors contributing to obesity in a minority population.
Sometimes, the demands make no sense, NIH staffers say. For example, HHS wanted a scientist training grant in its final year to add a clinical trial—work these awards by definition do not support. “It’s an absolutely bonkers comment,” a program officer says."
Inaccurate, wrong. Did you read the article? to the end? political appointees shouldn't be trying to tell scientists what analyses to do. This is not the Soviet Union.
Here:
"For example, according to documentation seen by Science:
*In a project studying factors contributing to depression using many years of observational data from large cohorts, the HHS review recommended adding genetic influences. The project was in its fourth year, when such changes were likely not feasible.
*HHS asked that an ongoing grant proposing to study obesity in a minority group more clearly explain why certain “stressors” might influence weight. The grant was approved after the investigator added more stressors and other potential factors and described other health outcomes in addition to obesity.
*An ongoing study of a health matter in a certain occupation focused on a minority population. The commenter asked whether a specific health problem was more common with this group or its members responded differently to an intervention. The investigator added explanations in response.
In another case described to Science by an NIH program officer, HHS requested the investigator add a new analysis to a study examining factors contributing to obesity in a minority population."
Sometimes, the demands make no sense, NIH staffers say. For example, HHS wanted a scientist training grant in its final year to add a clinical trial—work these awards by definition do not support. “It’s an absolutely bonkers comment,” a program officer says.
Congress restored funding for it, but they are going to dismantle it anyway?
>The ocean observation system began operating in 2016 and was expected to continue for 25 years... It cost $48 million annually to operate the network. The Trump administration repeatedly tried to shutter it, proposing to cut its funding by 80 percent in both 2025 and again in 2026. Congress pushed back, restoring the money.
Once again Trump and Vought trying to usurp the authority of Congress. A few millions saved ... while Trump wants a billion for his ballroom and a 1.776 billion slushfund for insurrectionists.
> The Coastal Endurance Array off the Pacific Northwest is the first to go, and removal operations at that site are already in process according to the Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI).
> Instead of abandoning the buoys and subsea landers in place, NSF will allocate ship-days to physically remove OOI equipment
