A critical asymmetry exists in the US-China competition: It is far harder for the U.S. to rebuild its complex manufacturing ecosystems and tacit process knowledge than it is for China to improve its scientific research capabilities, where it is already making significant strides.

Counterintuitively, U.S. and global auto firms need to collaborate with Chinese suppliers to reduce strategic dependency. The model involves onshoring Chinese hardware and manufacturing expertise while maintaining national control over sensitive AI software and networks, creating a strategic "co-opetition."

China's durable advantage isn't just its massive workforce but the collective "process knowledge" generated on factory floors. This expertise in solving countless small manufacturing problems cannot be easily written down or encoded in equipment, creating a powerful, hard-to-replicate competitive moat.

Dan Wong argues that the West wrongly separates 'innovation' (its domain) from 'scaling' (China's domain). Chinese workers innovate daily on factory floors, giving them a practical edge. For instance, Tesla's Shanghai Gigafactory workers are over twice as productive as their California counterparts due to superior automation and process improvements.

German automaker Volkswagen can now develop and build an electric vehicle in China for half the cost of doing so elsewhere. This shift from simple manufacturing to localized R&D—the "innovate in China for the world" model—signifies a dangerous hollowing out of core industrial capabilities and high-value jobs in Western economies.

The belief that China's manufacturing advantage is cheap labor is dangerously outdated. Its true dominance lies in a 20-year head start on manufacturing autonomy, with production for complex products like the PlayStation 5 being 90% automated. The US outsourced innovation instead of automating domestically.

China achieved tech superpower status not through invention, but by mastering mass manufacturing and process knowledge. It allows the U.S. to create the initial spark (0-to-1), like solar PV, and then China creates the "prairie fire" by scaling it (1-to-N), ultimately dominating the industry.

China's semiconductor strategy is not merely to reverse-engineer Western technology like ASML's. It's a well-funded "primacy race" to develop novel, AI-driven lithography systems. This approach aims to create superior, not just parallel, manufacturing capabilities to gain global economic leverage.

The US cannot win by simply matching China's manufacturing volume in areas like drones. Instead, its cultural strength as an "underdog comeback king" suggests a strategy of being clever and outthinking the enemy, rather than playing a "Me Too" game of mass versus mass.