> You can make money on commodities and low quality products in a developing country with low costs.

The factory owner can make a lot of money, but without advancing technology there is no way to raise the standard of living. The PRC's hold on power is absolutely predicated on raising the standard of living.

> Why are you discounting very small countries exactly?

At least in Singapore's case, being a strategically located trade intermediary stopped a lot. But that only works when huge fraction of ones country is so strategically located; this is impossible with a country of decent size.

> No one would take your deal because the government is the problem holding countries back in the first place.

Saying it's (always?) (usually?) the governments fault is capitalist propaganda. Tell that to Prussia, Meiji Japan, or numerous other countries with top down approach that worked. Raising the standard of living imposes demands on all sectors of society. Indeed, it would seem the most useful thing is a cultural memory of development. This possibly explains why Japan and West Germany post war could use that US money so effectively, whereas say, Italy's postwar miracle sputtered out sooner.

My deal is a good one because it's saying "get yourself going as an exporter, but we will provide you with what you need to keep advance your economy and standard of living to the point that poorer countries undercut your exports but domestic demand makes up for it". Making that last step is crucial, as we need educated societies with leisure time to secure budding democracy.

(The US is failing because both we are uneducated and overworked. There is no enough energy left over for the average person to help maintain their corner of the commons.)

> China is an ancient civilization, not some new child that was just born and needs to grow up yet.

I didn't say otherwise? Yes, my plan is patronizing, but international relations from the Hegemon usually are! (I don't know how to solve that problem.)

I don't think it's relevant to my argument, but FWIW Chinese culture is much more divorced from the past than say India's. Presumably this is due to decades of propaganda, and major disruption both due to politics (Cultural Revolution) and the huge economic changes (tons people living far away from and in very different ways than their ancestors).

> Things that work in silicon valley right now also work everywhere else in the world. It is not magic ground.

Well, I'm suspicious how much SV is "working", and not just something that is a) first mover benefit b) flushed with quantitative easing money when EU didn't do that c) The actual big companies survive off rent seaking.

But let's just ignore all that and say SV is a smashing success.

SV succeeds because it is in America, and hierarchy of needs / standard of development -wise benefits and relies on an already technologically advanced society. Asking why SV occurred in America is like asking why factories came to prominence in Britain during the empire: it was historically inevitable.

If you are nation of subsistence farmers, developing some apps is not going to solve your problems.

A parting example: When people gush about Africa skipping land lines and going straight to cellphones, they should realize this isn't all good. Being able to bury wires and pipes is key signal of internal stability, cooperation, and a technology development that will raise the standard of living, and ability to consume, for all.

> And I'm no fan of IP, but the system using it is clearly able to work here.

IP only work alright when all parties have some. That's fine amongst already-developed countries. You can be sure if some Bangladeshi company steal's Huawei stuff China will throw a fit too.