China

President Emeritus L. Rafael Reif joins Bloomberg’s Wall Street Week to highlight the importance of university research for the U.S. economy. “The federal government funds research at universities,” begins Reif. “Scientific research advances knowledge. And we do it here. And at the same time we educate the leaders of the future, who bring that advanced knowledge into the marketplace. That has been at the heart of the terrific ecosystem of innovation in this country.” He adds: “We have benefitted in the past 80 years from this terrific system, and not having access to that is going to basically kill the source of ideas that will power our economy for the next 80 years.” 

Prof. David Autor speaks with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria about how China moving into sectors like robotics, AI, quantum computing, fusion power, telecommunications, aviation and more could significantly impact the U.S. economy. Autor notes that by focusing on the last trade war with China, “the U.S. is distracting itself from the really formidable challenge we find ourselves facing now from China’s incredible innovative capacity and very, very intensive investment.” 

Prof. David Autor speaks with CNBC about how Chinese industrial policies could impact the United States. “The U.S. needs to recognize that it would be much more effective if it worked with its allies,” says Autor. 

Writing for The New York Times, Prof. David Autor and Prof. Gordon Hanson of Harvard explore how China is “aggressively contesting the innovative sectors where the United States has long been the unquestioned leader." To avoid a second China Shock, they emphasize that the United States “must nourish industries that have high potential for innovation, funded by joint investments by the private and public sectors.” 

Prof. David Autor joins Possible podcast hosts Reid Hoffman and Aria Finger to discuss everything from the cross-country road trip that helped inspire his research focused on technology, work and inequality to how AI might impact American workers. Autor notes that if AI technologies are implemented in the best way possible for humankind, “we would give people more secure and fulfilling work. We would give them more access to education and access to better healthcare, everywhere. And those things alone would improve welfare in so many dimensions. Not just in terms of material standard living, not just in comfort, but investing in our kids, creating opportunity for the next generation.”

Writing for Foreign Affairs, President Emeritus L. Rafael Reif makes the case that “on the battlefield of technology, Americans must both continue to do what they do best and find new ways to improve competitiveness.” Reif explores the United States’ rich history of creating foundational technologies, innovation that frequently stems from research universities. Reif emphasizes: “To avert scientific and technological stagnation, the United States must significantly increase public investments in university-based research, ensure that it capitalizes on discoveries that emerge from academia, and devise sensible immigration policies that allow the world’s best students to study and then work in the United States.”

Prof. David Autor speaks with Rogé Karma from The Atlantic about the role of tariffs in the American manufacturing industry. “Letting free trade rip is an easy policy,” says Autor. “Putting up giant tariffs is an easy policy. Figuring out some middle path is hard. Deciding what sectors to invest in and protect is hard. Doing the work to build new industries is hard. But this is how great nations lead.” 

Prof. Sarah Williams speaks with Newsweek reporter Micah McCartney about how China’s construction boom lead to largely uninhabited developments dubbed “ghost cities”. Williams explains: “They needed a return on their investment, so they opened up new land and new loans for overleveraged real estate developers, so those developers could use these loans to pay back previous loans. The easy way to describe it is that it is a bit of a Ponzi scheme."

Prof. David Autor joins Danielle Pletka and Marc Thiessen on their American Enterprise Institute podcast to discuss his research examining the impact of China entering the World Trade Organization, how the U.S. can protect vital industries from unfair trade practices, and the potential impacts of AI. “If you say, we're running a race against China, and certainly we are in many ways, we have two tools at our disposal. One is we can try to trip them up and hobble them. The other is we could bulk up and run faster. And we're going to have to do both,” says Autor. “We have to be willing to do the expensive stuff as well as the cheap stuff. The cheap stuff is like, let's put tariffs on them. The expensive stuff is let's invest in ourselves. And those are complementary activities.”

Prof. David Autor speaks with NPR Planet Money host Greg Rosalsky about his working paper exploring “what happened to American communities after China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001,” also known as the “China Shock." Autor and his colleagues found that while regions impacted by the China Shock did eventually recover, the people hurt by the China Shock did not. “The China Shock research suggests that classic, free market economic theory blinded many to the reality that free trade can destroy the livelihoods of many people and that they have a hard time adjusting," says Rosalsky.

A new tabletop exercise, developed by researchers at MIT and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), has found that “a further buildup of U.S. nuclear capabilities would have limited effect on whether China might use its own nuclear weapons should a war over Taiwan erupt,” reports Brad Dress and Ellen Mitchell for The Hill. “The first large-scale war game of such an incident,” they write, “found that a U.S. buildup that goes past current modernization plans would not bolster nuclear deterrence in relation to Taiwan.” 

Researchers at MIT and the Center for Strategic and International Studies have used a tabletop exercise to determine whether a further build-up of US nuclear capabilities would impact China’s nuclear weapon use in Taiwan, reports Kathrin Hille for Financial Times. “The US has 600-plus tactical nuclear weapons, and it is modernizing their delivery means,” explains Principal Research Scientist Eric Heginbotham. “In the game, the one US team that employed tactical nuclear weapons used fewer than a dozen. In no cases did any of the participants ever say: ‘We need SLCM-N or some other system that is not in the inventory or being deployed under the current modernization plan.’”

Writing for The Washington Post, Prof. Daniela Rus, director of CSAIL, and Nico Enriquez, a graduate student at Stanford, make the case that the United States should not only be building more efficient AI software and better computer chips, but also creating “interstate-type corridors to transmit sufficient, reliable power to our data centers.” They emphasize: “The United States has the talent, investor base, corporations and research institutions to write the most advanced AI models. But without a powerful data highway system, our great technology advances will be confined to back roads.”

Writing for The Boston Globe, President Emeritus L. Rafael Reif makes the case that “without strong research universities and the scientific and technological advances they discover and invent, the United States could not possibly keep up with China.” He emphasizes that “punishing universities financially for their failings — real and imagined — would be counterproductive. If anything, the China challenge demands that universities do more than they are already doing — and that they have the resources to do so.”

A research group led by postdoctoral associate Minde An analyzed China’s greenhouse gas emissions over the past decade, finding a substantial increase thought to be primarily driven by aluminum production, reports Ellen McNally for The Guardian. The researchers, writes McNally, say these levels could be reduced “with technological innovation and incorporation of the aluminum industry into the carbon market, or a national carbon trading scheme allowing emitters to buy or sell emission credits.”