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.

The 1990s belief that economic liberalization would inevitably make China democratic provided ideological cover for policies that fueled its growth. This hubris, combined with corporate greed, allowed the US to facilitate the rise of its greatest geopolitical rival without achieving the expected political reforms.

To counter the economic threat from China's state-directed capitalism, the U.S. is ironically being forced to adopt similar strategies. This involves greater government intervention in capital allocation and industrial policy, representing a convergence of economic models rather than a clear victory for free-market capitalism.

The U.S. is shifting from industry supporter to active owner by taking direct equity stakes in firms like Intel and U.S. Steel. This move blurs the lines between free markets and state control, risking a system where political connections, not performance, determine success.

The belief that China's manufacturing advantage is cheap labor is dangerously outdated.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.

Unlike the U.S. government's recent strategy of backing single "champions" like Intel, China's successful industrial policy in sectors like EVs involves funding numerous competing companies. This state-fostered domestic competition is a key driver of their rapid innovation and market dominance.

Deng Xiaoping’s reforms, which ignited China’s growth, were based on adopting American free-market principles like private enterprise and foreign capital. China’s success stemmed from decentralizing its economy, the very system the U.S. is now tempted to abandon for a more centralized model.

In trying to compete, the U.S. is mirroring China's protectionism and industrial policy. This is a strategic error, as the U.S. political system lacks the ability to centrally direct resources and execute long-term industrial strategy as effectively as China's state-controlled economy.