Putin has just discovered the scale of his latest miscalculation

The Telegraph ^

[adorno]

“That's an easy one, and one that even you should be able to answer.

I guess I was wrong, and you can't even allow yourself to see the truth, even if it's posted right in front of your nose.

No company works outside a country, and countries have governments, and those governments are allowing their IP and sensitive/secret information to be stolen, via the companies that do business in China. “

That's so logical! Who keeps making such gigantic gems of truth???

So you still refuse to tell us which countries Chinese EV companies are supposedly getting “research assistance from foreign governments” from?

It's very simple, but apparently you can't even comprehend the simple stuff.

What Chinese EV maker made their own before any western EV maker sent their EV manufacturing to China?

Anyhow, making EVs is older than the tech for making ICE vehicles, and just about any automaker can do it. Did the Chinese make EVs before any other country?

Some Chinese electric vehicle (EV) companies have been accused of copying or heavily borrowing from Tesla's technology, particularly in areas like design, user interface, and autonomous driving features. However, Chinese EV makers have also made significant strides in battery technology and LFP battery production, where they now hold a dominant global position.

No foreign governments gives “research assistance” funds to any Chinese EV companies,

That's not how it works. The Chinese simply steal and copy the technology, even if it's not given to them.

let alone from Europe.

You're still hung up on that European thing. But Europe is a lot more developed, overall, than China.

The Chinese got where they are through sheer hard work and innovation.

I admit. The Chinese work very hard to find 'innovative' ways of stealing and copying technology from other countries.

The Chinese work much harder than Europeans do and it shows in the results.

In your dreams. Europe is far more developed and more technologically savvy than the Chinese. The Chinese need to steal and copy from others, in order to keep up with the rest of the world. The Europeans have all of what they need and are better off overall. No need for Europeans to steal and copy what is already available to them.

[SmokingJoe]

"What Chinese EV maker made their own before any western EV maker sent their EV manufacturing to China?"

BYD (Build Your Dreams): Founded in 1995 as a battery manufacturer, BYD entered the automotive industry in 2003 after acquiring Qinchuan Automobile Company. It began producing plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) in 2008 with the BYD F3DM, the world’s first mass-produced plug-in hybrid, and started selling battery electric vehicles (BEVs) in 2010, notably the BYD e6. This establishes BYD as an early player in EV production, with significant output by 2010.
Get it? BYD was mass producing plug-in hybrids before anyone else and EVs long before Tesla even established in China.

[adorno]

“The government has invested in building charging infrastructure to address range anxiety and encourage EV adoption. Subsidies are also provided to EV manufacturers and battery producers, lowering production costs and making EVs more competitive. “

So many facts, it's hard to keep up.

Like every European country you mean?

Not all of them have it, but tax breaks is what they do have as incentives, which is not the same as subsidies, which none of them have.

Nobody gives more subsidies to EVs, “green new deal” outfits etc than Europe does.

Tax breaks is not the same as a subsidy,and only Germany and France have subsidies for purchases of EVs. The Chinese have subsidies for all purchases and for the entire infrastructure surrounding EVs.

European industries currently exist on massive subsidies from their governments or from the EU.

We were talking about EVs. If you want to talk about other types of purchases, start another thread.

Don't let China's Communist government fool you. They are very capitalistic.

China's economic system is "state capitalism," which highlights the dominant role of the state in the economy through state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and strategic control over key sectors.

IOW, not even close to capitalism as most western countries know it. It's communism that allows certain forms of free-market methods, but it's still a sham. Only a fool would be fooled.

There are currently tons of Chinese who've started from nothing and created massive world beating companies in all kinds of fields.

Fake! Very deceptive because, only the government controls what happens in China and only those approved by the government are allowed to pretend that China is capitalistic in some form. China does have it's own oligarchs, like Russia, but only controlled by the Chinese government, like Putin controls his oligarchs. If Putin wants to take what you produced, you have no say in it, and the Chinese government works the same way.

Europe? Not so much.

While socialism is rearing its ugly head in Europe, it's not government control that dictates what happens there. China is a tyranny and nobody is allowed to prosper without government involvement, and even then, you don't really have control of 'your' business or of your own life.

One child policy... is that capitalistic or even democratic? If you're a girl/woman, the Chinese men are desperate to find you.

[SmokingJoe]

“Europe is far more developed and more technologically savvy than the Chinese.”

But somehow the Chinese got rovers on Mars and the moon and the “advanced” Europeans still haven't?
Chuckle.
And China is busy clobbering Europe in electronins, consumer electronics, EV’s, even in AI, solar panels, smart phones, HDTVs, you name it.
What's Europe doing?
Oh wait Europe is busy sitting on their butts and acccusing other countries that are doing better than them of “stealing”.

[SmokingJoe]

“Not all of them have it, but tax breaks is what they do have as incentives, which is not the same as subsidies, which none of them have. “

No?
Reality, Europe has subsidies for EVs, “Climate change”, even AI and every “save the planet” crazy projects out there.
That's what Europe does.
Subsidize anything to make their competitive, but still get beaten by the Chinese anyway.

[SmokingJoe]

“Not all of them have it, but tax breaks is what they do have as incentives, which is not the same as subsidies, which none of them have.”

Gork:

“The European Union (EU) subsidizes a wide range of climate change projects to achieve its ambitious goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 55% by 2030 and achieving climate neutrality by 2050, as outlined in the European Green Deal. These projects span renewable energy, energy efficiency, sustainable transport, carbon capture, and biodiversity, funded through various programs under the EU’s Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2021–2027 and NextGenerationEU. Below is a concise overview of the types of climate change projects subsidized by the EU, with specific examples and funding details, incorporating relevant information from the provided search results and addressing the context of EV subsidies discussed earlier.Key EU Funding Programs for Climate Change Projects:The EU integrates climate action across its budget, with over €658 billion (34% of total commitments) allocated to climate finance from 2021–2027, including contributions from the MFF and NextGenerationEU. Major funding programs include:

Innovation Fund:Purpose: Supports innovative low-carbon technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, funded by revenues from the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS).
Projects:Deployment of renewable energy technologies (e.g., solar, wind, ocean energy).
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects.
Energy storage solutions (e.g., advanced batteries).
Hydrogen production and utilization for industrial decarbonization.
Refinery decarbonization through green technologies.

Example: In 2023, the Innovation Fund allocated €319 million to six reserve projects, expected to cut over 24 million tonnes of CO₂, covering hydrogen, ocean energy, and storage.

Funding: Over €905 million annually for innovative climate solutions.

Horizon Europe:Purpose: Funds research and innovation for climate, energy, and mobility, with a focus on energy efficiency and sustainable technologies.
Projects:Energy-efficient building technologies and sustainable urban infrastructure.
Climate-neutral city initiatives (e.g., 100 climate-neutral cities by 2030).
Wildfire response innovations (e.g., FIRERES, Silvanus, TREEADS projects using drones and ecosystem restoration).

Example: Cluster 5 of Horizon Europe allocated €244 million in 2021–2022 for energy efficiency in buildings and industry.

Funding: Significant portion of the €95.5 billion Horizon Europe budget, with specific climate-focused clusters.

LIFE Programme:Purpose: The EU’s primary funding instrument for environmental and climate protection, supporting circular economy, biodiversity, and quality of life.
Projects:Biodiversity and nature restoration (e.g., Natura 2000 sites, Trans-European Nature Network).
Circular economy initiatives for waste reduction and resource efficiency.
Pilot projects like the Biodiversity-Climate Nexus Fund to test new environmental policies.

Example: Supports projects for nature restoration under the Nature Restoration Law, aiming to restore 20% of EU land and sea by 2030.

Funding: €5.4 billion for 2021–2027, with concerns raised about its integration into broader competitiveness programs in the 2028–2034 MFF.

Cohesion Policy Funds:Purpose: Reduces economic and social disparities while promoting sustainable development, with a focus on climate action.
Projects:Energy-efficient building renovations (e.g., insulation, heat recovery, digitalization of building systems).
Support for SMEs to improve energy efficiency and adopt environmentally friendly production processes.
Sustainable urban mobility and low-emission transport (e.g., Interreg projects like TRANSBORDER and DigiTechPort2030 for greener transport and ports).

Example: €12 billion allocated for energy-efficient building renovations from 2021–2027.

Funding: €373 billion total, with significant climate mainstreaming (at least 20% of expenditure is climate-related).

Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF):Purpose: Part of NextGenerationEU, supports green and digital transitions post-COVID.
Projects:Investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency.
Support for green infrastructure and sustainable transport.

Example: Funds projects aligned with national recovery plans, emphasizing green transition goals like building decarbonization.
Funding: €723 billion total, with 37% earmarked for climate objectives.

Just Transition Fund (JTF):Purpose: Supports regions heavily reliant on fossil fuels to transition to climate neutrality.
Projects:Retraining workers for green jobs in coal-dependent regions.
Investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency in vulnerable areas.

Funding: €17.5 billion to address social and economic impacts of the green transition.

Social Climate Fund (SCF):Purpose: Mitigates the social impact of the new ETS2 (covering buildings and transport emissions starting 2027), protecting vulnerable households.
Projects:Subsidies for energy-efficient renovations and low-carbon transport solutions.
Support for low-income households to adopt heat pumps and EVs.

Funding: Redistributes ETS2 auction revenues, with an estimated €13 billion annually needed for heat pump subsidies alone.

Modernisation Fund:Purpose: Supports energy system modernization in 13 lower-income EU member states.
Projects:Energy efficiency improvements in buildings and industry.
Renewable energy deployment and grid modernization.

Funding: Funded by ETS revenues, with significant investments in energy efficiency.

Net-Zero Industry Act (NZIA):Purpose: Enhances EU manufacturing of net-zero technologies to meet 40% of clean technology needs by 2030.
Projects:Manufacturing of batteries, wind turbines, solar panels, heat pumps, electrolyzers, and carbon capture technologies.
Streamlined permitting for strategic projects and training for green tech skills.

Example: Supports battery production, relevant to EV makers like Rivian and Lucid if they enter the EU market.
Funding: Access to funding via a Sovereignty Portal, with relaxed state aid rules for clean-tech firms.

Specific Climate Change Projects Subsidized:Renewable Energy: Projects under the Innovation Fund and Horizon Europe support wind, solar, hydrogen, and ocean energy. The EU’s Renewable Energy Directive targets 42.5% renewable energy by 2030, with subsidies for projects like offshore wind farms and hydrogen production.

Energy Efficiency: Subsidies for building renovations (e.g., €12 billion via Cohesion Policy) and heat pump deployment (€13 billion annually estimated) to decarbonize residential heating by up to 82% by 2050.

Sustainable Transport: Support for low-emission transport, including EV charging infrastructure (€200 million in France alone for fast chargers) and Interreg projects like TRANSBORDER for cross-border low-carbon transport.
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS): Innovation Fund projects focus on CCS for hard-to-abate industries like cement and steel, with specific grants for technology development.

Biodiversity and Nature Restoration: The LIFE Programme and NaturaConnect fund Natura 2000 sites and the Trans-European Nature Network, with €10 billion (10% of the EU budget) for biodiversity by 2026–2027. The Nature Restoration Law targets 20% restoration of EU land and sea by 2030.

Climate-Neutral Cities: Horizon Europe’s mission to make 100 cities climate-neutral by 2030 funds urban infrastructure upgrades and sustainable mobility projects.

Wildfire Response: Projects like FIRERES, Silvanus, and TREEADS under Horizon Europe develop drone-based and ecosystem restoration solutions for wildfire prevention.
International Climate Finance: The EU and its member states contributed €28.6 billion in public funds and €7.2 billion in private finance in 2023 to support climate mitigation and adaptation in developing countries, aligning with the Paris Agreement’s $100 billion annual goal.

Connection to EV Subsidies:As discussed previously, EU countries provide EV subsidies, which are part of broader climate change efforts to decarbonize transport:Purchase Subsidies: Countries like Romania (€11,500 for BEVs), Croatia (€9,200), and France (€4,000–€7,000) offer direct grants, often tied to scrapping old vehicles.

Tax Exemptions: Most EU countries exempt BEVs from CO2-based registration and annual taxes (e.g., Netherlands, Sweden, Finland).
Charging Infrastructure: Subsidies for public and private charging stations (e.g., France’s €68 million for fast chargers, Austria’s €30,000 for DC chargers).

Relevance to Rivian and Lucid: While Rivian and Lucid do not yet have significant EU operations, their EVs could benefit from consumer subsidies if sold in Europe. The NZIA’s support for battery manufacturing could also indirectly aid their supply chains if they establish EU production.

Challenges and Criticisms:Fossil Fuel Subsidies: Despite a pledge to phase out fossil fuel subsidies by 2025, the EU spent €111 billion on them in 2023, with only 43% (€47.7 billion) having a planned end date before 2025. This undermines climate goals.

Insufficient Targets: The EU’s 90% emissions reduction target by 2040 is criticized for relying on foreign carbon credits and falling short of the 90–95% recommended by the European Scientific Advisory Board.

Uneven State Aid: Relaxed state aid rules under the NZIA risk favoring wealthier countries like Germany and France, prompting calls for an EU-level climate investment fund to ensure equity.”
End Grok.

The EU is one huge subsidy addicted monster.

[adorno]

“The truth is never wrong. The truth might be wrong for you, but not to the rest of the world. You must be a democrat, who hate the truth, because the truth is their worst enemy. “

So much wisdom there. Thanks for re-posting.

But then a lie is always wrong, like the big lies you just keep spewing out.

You are not just a democrat, but a communist. communists are the ones that will take the indisputable truth and still try to twist it to try to undo it. But, it's not possible. You can't handle the truth.

China has phased out EV sales subsidies since 2022. That's a fact.

Bald-faced lie. The Chinese people cannot afford to buy their junk, if not for the government making it easier with subsidies. Saying subsidies don't exist is just words, whereas the facts point to the real truth that subsidies is the only way China has attained first place in EV sales.

Europe still has em in most European countries.

Tax breaks are not the same as subsidies, and subsidies are only available in Germany and France.

And China currently has more dollar billionaires than Europe does.

Creating a perception is not the same as truth. Communism does not allow for rich people, even if the government advertises that they do have rich people. Wealthy people only exist as long as it's advantageous to the government to have them, but it's only for appearances.

The Chinese are more entrepreneurial and creative than the Europeans,

Yet, China only became 'modernized' after western countries sent their production and technology to China, for production of cheaper goods. That's not entrepreneurial; it's stealing and copying, and cheating.

that's why China is currently clobbering the Europeans in almost any industry one cares to look

Most scientific research started in Europe, ages ago. And now they are way ahead of China in quantum computing and in particle physics research, and, believe it or not, AI.

China needs to send to Europe a bunch of their 'engineers' who specialize in theft and copying of technology and science.

[SmokingJoe]

“Bald-faced lie.”

They are facts.
You just can't handle it.

“The Chinese people cannot afford to buy their junk, if not for the government making it easier with subsidies. Saying subsidies don't exist is just words, whereas the facts point to the real truth that subsidies is the only way China has attained first place in EV sales.”

Chinese “cannot afford” to buy their EV’s?
Is that why over 62% of global EV sales were in China in 2024?
Because they can't afford to buy em?
That's Chinese domination! Chuckle.

[SmokingJoe]

“Creating a perception is not the same as truth. Communism does not allow for rich people, even if the government advertises that they do have rich people. Wealthy people only exist as long as it's advantageous to the government to have them, but it's only for appearances. “

FACT: China has more billionaires and vastly more entrepreneurs than Europe does.
Despite China being a Communist country. Europe is pathetic.

[SmokingJoe]

“Most scientific research started in Europe, ages ago. And now they are way ahead of China in quantum computing and in particle physics research, and, believe it or not, AI.”

Nope.
Chinese civilization is older than European civilization and the Chinese have been doing scientific research for thousands of years.

“China needs to send to Europe a bunch of their ‘engineers’ who specialize in theft and copying of technology and science.”

Why?
China doesn’t need to “learn about” junk from Europe.

[adorno]

“If the EV market-share of all vehicles in Europe is a measly 2-3%, and the Chinese made EVs are only about 20% of all EVs, it means that the number of Chinese EVs on the road in Europe is almost imperceptible.

Very interesting.

So the Chinese EVs have about 0.5 percent of all the cars on the road in Europe. Quick, get me a microscope! “

Even more interesting.

Actually EV’s make up approximately 15% of cars sold in Europe.

That's new cars sold. But, the EV share of cars on the road is very tiny, a measly 2-3%, and the Chinese share of that is microscopic, like I said before.

And new EVs are somewhat 'popular' right now in Europe because gas prices are very high and imports are hard to come by. With the U.S. upping its oil deliveries to Europe, gas prices could come down again and ICE vehicles could regain market share.

In China its a massive close to 50% EVs , projected to go to 605 this year.

It's easy to be at 50% when most of the sales are to the China market, which is most of the EV market in the world for EVs. What else do the Chinese have as competition for their EVs? When the government controls the whole ecosystem, including manufacturing and prices and sales and back up the sales with subsidies, and not much competition, then, DUH!, Chinese EVs will be the most sold.

It's idiotic to even compare what the Chinese do with the free-market version of anything sold.

China totally dominates in total EV sales.

Of course. Chinese EVs have no competition in China, which is 40% of EV sales. And with the cheap junk they sell, other countries will go for the cheapest option available. But still, in Europe, EV market share is very tiny, and Chinese EVs comprise an imperceptible percentage of all vehicles in Europe, something like 0.4 percent. Not anything to brag about.

Will China like to sell even more EV’s in Europe? Sure.

That's a dumb question. I'd like to sell any Thingamajig too, if any fool was willing to pay for it.

But does China have by far the biggest EV market on the planet at home in China? Yup.

That's a dumb observation.

I bet China has the biggest market in the world for Chinese food too. It's possible that they also have the most Chinese in the world too. When the competition is lacking or not permitted, China will have a monopoly of what they produce.

I bet you had no idea that the U.S. consumes the most hamburgers in the world, something like 55 billion annually.

Maybe China can have its 'engineers' steal and copy our hamburgers too, and then they can claim the title of being the biggest market for hamburgers, with subsidies helping to sell them. Easy to do with over a billion people, and no foreign competition allowed, and made cheaper with subsidies.

[adorno]

“The European Union (EU) subsidizes a wide range of climate change projects

Not exactly the same as a 'direct to consumer' product, like automobiles.

Climate change subsidies are not needed and counterproductive, since all they do is to take funding from more needed purposes and just throwing money down the toilet.

Stupid government spending is not the same as subsidizing consumer purchases.

There are projects which the government needs to be involved in, like defense, but climate change is pure stupidity.

Projects:Deployment of renewable energy technologies (e.g., solar, wind, ocean energy).

When you start with a false premise, and you need to support that false premise, you will come up with stupid projects to show you believe in the premise, even if it's based on junk science, which climate-change/global-warming is.

Climate change projects are not direct to consumer projects, and they're a waste anyway.

But, EVs, just like the major projects devised by government so deal with 'climate change', are for the same reason: to combat climate change. If climate change is stupid science, and EVs came about because of the stupid science, then EVs are extraneous too.

Governments jumped on the idea of EVs, simply to justify and validate to the consumers that climate change is/was real. Nothing could be further from the truth, and climate change is still junk science.

Battling against climate change is the same as battling against ghosts and dinosaurs. EVs were validated by governments to battle dinosaurs and ghosts.

Do you realize that, your arguments against government subsidies for climate change projects, also apply to the support for EVs?

In essence, if there is no need for battling against climate chance, it means that EVs should not even be around either. It's a project with no real need or purpose.

All of your references to climate change and to the projects resulting from it, are IRRELEVANT to the discussion about Chinese theft of IP and company and government secrets.

Renewable energy project and energy efficiency projects, are not related to the discussion about EVs. Those projects can be funded by governments, but that's not the same as subsidizing the private sector or consumers.

Some European countries do provide direct subsidies to consumer for EV purchases. Only a few European countries provide that kind of incentive.

Other countries do provide tax breaks, which are not the same as direct subsidies which reduce the initial price at the dealer of an EV.

Construction of charging stations can be considered a subsidy, but it's not direct to consumer spending. It's direct government support, which is essentially like nutrition assistance. All countries have some sort of nutrition assistance to the less well-off.

The EU is one huge subsidy addicted monster.

Government spending is not the same as subsidies. There are many government projects which are related to climate change, but even those are not directly related to consumer subsidies, as EV subsidies are.

Diversifying the sources of energy, is not subsidies to consumers. Europe is not known for its oil reserves, and they do need to diversify their energy production. But that can have dire negative results, since solar and wind farms cannot meet the demands, and there have been many blackouts and brownouts which can make EVs inoperable, along with industries which will not be able to function. The best course for the Europeans is with hybrid vehicles, but then, that would be contradictory to their idiotic demands to do away with fossil-fuels.

The need for EVs was never there, and only the hoax of climate change made governments start demanding the move away from oil. Many governments are starting to realize the error of their ways, starting with the U.S. Oil and other fossil-fuels are the only way to go for the future of transportation. Even EVs depend on fossil-fuels to run.

If people all over begin to realize that fossil-fuels are not going away, the need for EVs will not be there anymore and China will have to start competing in the ICE market.

But, since China never bought into the climate change hoax, they may be able to provide their EV market with the energy needed to keep producing EVs for THEIR EV owners. The Chinese sales of EVs overseas will drop dramatically.

BTW, before posting anything, long or short, think first about the applicability of the contents to the discussion on hand. As it is, about 95% of the contents you quoted are IRRELEVANT. A HUGE tangent from what's being discussed.

[adorno]

“Bald-faced lie.”

The democrats and YOU, are full of bald-faced lies.

They are facts.

The democrats are just like you, believing that lies are facts.

You just can't handle it.

True. I cannot handle bald-faced lies. It's not in my nature.

“The Chinese people cannot afford to buy their junk, if not for the government making it easier with subsidies. Saying subsidies don't exist is just words, whereas the facts point to the real truth that subsidies is the only way China has attained first place in EV sales.”

It's amazing to hear the truth.

Chinese “cannot afford” to buy their EV’s?

Easy answer. NO!!!

. Is that why over 62% of global EV sales were in China in 2024?

I could afford a Boeing 787 Dreamliner too, if the government were to subsidize my purchase.

Because they can't afford to buy em?
The Chines can't afford most things, but with the government providing what they need, they can afford those most things.

" If the price of EVs are lower when purchased in China,and then the government lowers the purchase price for their citizens with subsidies, I'm sure that the EVs would be affordable. And with China having such a massive consumer base, selling the most EVs is a no-brainer. Anything that was allowed to sell in China, will automatically be selling the most. If I had a billion rabbits customers, I could sell a billion carrots per day, easily.

That's Chinese domination!

When China has the biggest market in the world for EVs, it's easy to dominate in sales, of anything. I could sell a billion hamburgers per week, if I was allowed to operate in China. That's Chinese 'dominance.

I bet you're not aware, but, China also dominates in the number of Chinese. No other country can even begin to compare. And when it comes to the number one language in the world, Mandarin Chinese is the most spoken.

Who woulda thunk it?

LOL ;).

[adorno]

“Creating a perception is not the same as truth. Communism does not allow for rich people, even if the government advertises that they do have rich people. Wealthy people only exist as long as it's advantageous to the government to have them, but it's only for appearances. “

Whoever said that, is a walking encyclopedia of truth gems.



FACT: China has more billionaires and vastly more entrepreneurs than Europe does.

A 'fact' without context, is not a fact at all.

To create the illusion of being capitalist, the communist Chinese government permits many to be known as billionaires,but in reality, they're just useful tools for the government.

Despite China being a Communist country. Europe is pathetic.

The Europeans don't have a need to pretend to be capitalists. They are capitalists, even as they grow more socialist every year. But, they have the most billionaires, per capita, compared to China. Keep reading below...

The country with the most billionaires in 2025 is the United States, boasting 902 billionaires, according to Forbes. China and India follow with 516 and 205 billionaires, respectively. Europe has more billionaires per capita than China. While China has a large number of billionaires overall, its population is significantly larger than Europe's, resulting in fewer billionaires per million people.

In more detail:

China has a very large population and a substantial number of billionaires, but when considering the population size, the number of billionaires per million people is relatively low.

Europe has a smaller population compared to China, but a higher concentration of billionaires per million people.

Per Capita:

When comparing the number of billionaires in relation to the population of each region, Europe has a higher concentration of billionaires per million people.

For example:

A 2025 report by Visual Capitalist lists 814 billionaires in China and 975 in the U.S. However, it also notes that the US leads the world in billionaires per capita.

A 2024 report by World Population Review shows that the US has 2.42 billionaires per million people, while China has only 0.288 billionaires per million people.

Therefore, even though China has more billionaires in total, Europe has more billionaires per capita (relative to its population).

So,when it comes to "pathetic", it's China that takes the prize:

China has only 0.288 billionaires per million people.

Really, really, really, PATHETIC!

So, if those billionaire Chinese do own their wealth, can they leave the country and take their wealth with them?

[adorno]

“Most scientific research started in Europe, ages ago. And now they are way ahead of China in quantum computing and in particle physics research, and, believe it or not, AI.”

Still true, no matter how much YOU want to deny the facts.

Nope.

Your nope makes you sound like a dope. ;)

You need to change your FR handle to "NopeKing". ;).

Chinese civilization is older than European civilization and the Chinese have been doing scientific research for thousands of years.

As a single civilized country, you might be right, but when it comes to what actually defines 'civilization', the Europeans predate the Chinese.

“China needs to send to Europe a bunch of their ‘engineers’ who specialize in theft and copying of technology and science.”

Which they have, along with sending them to America and Japan and S.Korea and many other countries with IP and innovations which China envies and lacks.

China doesn’t need to “learn about” junk from Europe.

But they do, and they have, and China has had to learn from the more civilized regions of the world, and from the more technical savvy countries around the world, including from the Europeans.

It's much easier to steal and copy American technology from the European theater, than from America itself. If China wants easier access to the newest technology, Europe is the place to go.

So, if China wants access to the latest American technology, Europe is the place to go, because America shares a lot of their tech with the Europeans.

Take the F-35 and F-22 fighter jets, for example:

China's J-20: China's first operational stealth aircraft, the Chengdu J-20, made its maiden flight in 2011 and entered service in 2017. There is strong evidence that its design, at least partially, incorporates stolen data from the US F-35 stealth fighter project and elements from Russia's MiG 1.44. The J-20's features, like its stealth design and advanced avionics, show similarities to the F-22 and F-35, and experts believe this rapid technological advancement wouldn't have been possible without obtaining data from other countries' programs.

[CodeToad]

You are really one obsessed gullible gal.