Summary

Li Feng uses Porter’s four-stage framework to argue that China entered the innovation-driven stage around 2017. Growth from 2001 to 2015 relied more on imported equipment, processes, scaled investment, and overseas markets; competitiveness today comes from systemic innovation and corporate shakeouts. National competitive advantage is not created by a single technological breakthrough, but by a feedback loop among industries, markets, talent, and policy.
China’s innovation base is a complete vertical supply chain, complex horizontal linkages, and a huge, demanding domestic market that saturates quickly. New-energy vehicle motors inherited capabilities from real-estate elevators and manufacturing, while batteries built on accumulated know-how from phone-battery production. Companies then iterate through intense domestic competition, creating export competitiveness summed up as: “If you don’t lose the race to the bottom in China, you can win the race worldwide”（只要不卷输，就能卷赢全世界）.
Technology innovation is a certainty in the 15th Five-Year Plan, but consumption may receive more emphasis than the market expects—possibly even more frequent mention than in the 13th and 14th Five-Year Plans. The reason is not simply to stimulate demand: the innovation stage needs a sufficiently large domestic market as the “cap” above the system. The discussion attributes the divergent outcomes of Japan and South Korea partly to whether this condition was fully present.
On the program’s rough math, technology and finance could provide a significant growth impulse in the US, but may not be enough to carry China’s economy on their own. Li Feng estimates that finance and related knowledge services account for roughly 20% of US GDP; adding high-value technology could bring the total to about half the economy. If half of that segment grows 10%, it could contribute roughly 5 percentage points. China’s corresponding segment may be only about 15%, so even 10% growth would add just 1.5 percentage points. Technology “must be done well,” but consumption still needs to fill the gap left by weaker contributions from investment and foreign trade.
Consumption may develop along two tracks: the digital transformation of traditional services, and new consumption built around technology embedded in products and services. Luckin and food delivery first use digitization to improve efficiency and value while absorbing labor; AI glasses, robots, autonomous driving, wearables, and home healthcare belong to the second category. Service consumption will focus on “the elderly, children, and women,” with home-based eldercare requiring monitoring, vital-sign tracking, and emergency-response systems.
Industrial policy and the financial system will also reshape the talent mix and society’s value hierarchy. Porter’s explanation of the US is that MBA programs, financial markets, and professional-manager systems steer capabilities toward short-term share prices, ROE, layoffs, and M&A. In China, finance has gone from a hot major to a fallback placement at some leading universities, while financial professionals are moving into technology startups to handle external relations or serve as COOs—roles that connect fundraising with operations.
The investment lesson of the past decade is to prioritize the intersection of major policy directions and large end-consumer markets. New-energy vehicles connect the energy transition, security, and changing consumption patterns, producing a group of companies with meaningful wealth effects; Cambricon is more of a “chokepoint” play, with commercialization constrained by different factors. Li Feng acknowledges that the team invested in solid-state batteries and automotive chips but stayed away from vehicle makers because the projects were too expensive: “So we got a little better when investing in robots.”

Deep dive

1. China Entered the Innovation-Driven Stage Around 2017

Li Feng translates Porter’s first stage as the export of production factors: countries with natural resources or abundant cheap labor sell those factors directly. He maps China’s migrant workers moving into cities after basic subsistence was secured onto this labor advantage.
The second stage is investment-driven, which he broadly maps to China from 2001 to 2015: import equipment and processes, scale up investment, and turn cheap factors into intermediate and finished goods. The market remained primarily overseas, while innovation was sporadic and largely imitative.
The key shift in the third stage is that companies begin pursuing increasingly systemic innovation and undergo clear survival-of-the-fittest dynamics; growth no longer depends only on scaled investment. Li Feng believes China entered this stage “around ’17,” adding that every climb from stage one to two and from two to three is extremely difficult.
Porter calls the fourth stage “wealth,” with the US and Germany decades ago as his main examples. In his framework, countries naturally enter decline once they reach the wealth stage, as both overall and industrial innovation capacity deteriorate. Li Feng declines to judge whether the stage is correct because “the sample is too small.”

2. Industrial Competitiveness Comes From Cross-Sustaining Vertical and Horizontal Linkages

The innovation stage first requires a highly integrated, complete vertical supply chain, supported by industrial policy that keeps upgrading key industries. Strength in a single link does not equal national-level industrial competitive advantage.
Horizontal linkages are easier to overlook. Marketing, finance, and talent services are part of them, but Li Feng places greater weight on technical capabilities contributed by other industries. A target sector may first obtain, say, 70% of the capabilities needed for technological improvement from elsewhere, then complete the iteration within its own industry rather than bearing the full cost of the climb alone.
Lithography machines, wind tunnels, and rare earths can all be understood this way. New-energy vehicle motors did not appear from nowhere: motor capabilities first developed through real-estate elevators, then expanded with manufacturing, and ultimately migrated into autos. Power batteries, meanwhile, built on the accumulated expertise of producing phone batteries for the world.

3. The Intensely Competitive Domestic Market Is Innovation’s “Cap”

Porter requires an innovative nation to have a large, fiercely competitive domestic market with demanding consumers and products that reach saturation relatively quickly. Li Feng renders this as “a unified national market, a fast-growing domestic market, and intense competition.”
This market is not a side effect of innovation but the product-iteration engine itself: complex, demanding consumers force companies to iterate, improve competitiveness, and redefine products. Once companies survive domestic competition, they can sell abroad: “If you don’t lose the race to the bottom in China, you can win the race worldwide”（你在中国只要不卷输，你就能卷赢全世界）.
Li Feng summarizes the diamond model as a cross: vertical and horizontal supply chains intersect, a sufficiently large competitive market forms the cap above them, and a large pool of educated technical professionals—engineers—supports them from below. Outside the structure, it also needs “reasonable and correct industrial-policy support.”
Japan, South Korea, Germany, and Italy arrived at different outcomes depending on whether these elements were present simultaneously and formed a feedback loop. For China, preserving a complex industrial structure and a competitive domestic market may be the entry point for understanding the policy line.

4. Finance and Industrial Policy Reshape the Talent System

Porter’s observation of the US made a deep impression on Li Feng: financial markets and their demands increasingly drive the education system to produce MBAs and people trained in finance, steering talent and values toward financial trading and short-term gains rather than long-term industrial capabilities.
Once boards and management were separated, professional managers learned the same body of knowledge and absorbed similar market and policy-economic incentives. They tended to lift ROE and share prices quickly through mass layoffs and short-term M&A; training, consulting, M&A, and other horizontal services also flourished around finance.
China is now sending the opposite talent signals: finance was the most popular major five years ago, but has become a fallback placement at some leading universities. Li Feng has also seen multiple finance professionals join technology startups founded by Tsinghua and Peking University alumni, taking roles in external relations or as COOs that connect fundraising, capital markets, and operations.

5. Technology Is Necessary, but Technology Alone Cannot Carry China’s Economy

There is no disagreement on the first judgment about the 15th Five-Year Plan: “Technology innovation will definitely be a 100% priority.” The more interesting question is whether consumption will be mentioned with greater frequency and force than in the 13th and 14th Five-Year Plans, because the innovation stage also needs a larger market cap.
Li Feng’s rough US calculation is that finance, law, consulting, financial data, and related knowledge services may account for around 20% of GDP. He initially estimates non-financial high-value industries at 10%–15%; Li Xiang, using Nvidia and the largest US companies by market capitalization as reference points, guesses the figure could be around 30%. Together, the two segments may account for more than half.
This also explains the amplification mechanism behind US growth: global capital flows in, first lifting finance and related services. If technology experiences a boom similar to the GPT-driven excitement at the end of 2022, the two segments could generate real growth while also creating a “huge bubble.” If roughly 50% of the economy grows 10%, the contribution to overall growth could be about 5 percentage points.
If China’s high-value segment accounts for roughly 15%, 10% growth would contribute only 1.5 percentage points, potentially insufficient to offset shrinking positive contributions from investment and foreign trade. Li Feng also cites a statistic related to the Shanghai government’s work results: every 1% increase in science-and-technology innovation industries drives roughly 0.3% growth in Shanghai GDP. He roughly interprets this as implying that those industries may account for just over 20% to 30% of Shanghai GDP. Li Xiang cautions that GDP cannot be inferred directly from market capitalization or a small number of AI specialists; both agree that technology cannot be China’s sole growth engine.

6. Consumption Upgrading Will Follow Digital and Technology-Driven Paths

The first path is the digitization of traditional services across food, drink, entertainment, clothing, housing, and transportation. Luckin versus Starbucks and food delivery versus traditional restaurants both use digital systems to improve efficiency, experience, and value. Until fully automated coffee machines and delivery robots become widespread, these industries will remain the largest sources of employment.
The second path is “technology landing in consumption”: trade-in programs, AI glasses, robots, autonomous driving, wearables, medical devices, and home healthcare products may all qualify. Li Feng cautions, however, that these areas still represent a relatively small share of listed companies.
Service consumption overtook goods consumption several years ago and will increasingly focus on “the elderly, children, and women.” Home-based eldercare cannot mean simply leaving older people alone at home; it also requires smart monitoring, wearable vital-sign tracking, and digital emergency-response systems. Some of these may be explicitly included in the 15th Five-Year Plan, while others may receive only directional guidance.

7. The Value of a Five-Year Plan Is to Calibrate Expectations, Not Guarantee Every Target

After reviewing the 13th and 14th Five-Year Plans, Li Feng’s team acknowledges that not every plan—or even most of its targets—was fully achieved; external variables are always present. The stable function of a plan is to show the public the long-term direction, while giving some citizens, some experts, and most government officials a set of medium-term execution targets.
Companies can use a similar structure: a long-term vision such as Jack Ma’s “a 102-year-old shop,” followed by three- and five-year goals—for example, reaching the industry’s top 10%. But they should avoid an overly instrumental, overly specific promise such as “we will definitely go public in five years.”
Li Xiang asks whether funds, given their 10-year cycles, should make similar plans. Li Feng believes this is particularly meaningful for LPs, because the firm’s initial conviction at the time of commitment may not have accounted for changes over the next 5 to 10 years. At a minimum, investment firms should tell stakeholders that peaks will not stay hot forever, and troughs will not last forever either.
The period from 2020 to 2025 is a powerful counterexample. Before 2020, it was nearly impossible to imagine that the world, economy, international relations, and global liquidity would change so dramatically over the next five years. When Huawei was sanctioned in May 2019, the market had only just experienced the ZTE sanctions; “I think nobody expected Huawei to become what it is today.”

8. A Decade in Review Points to the Intersection of Policy and End Consumption

Li Feng’s summary of a decade of entrepreneurship is that people initially “look up at the stars,” only to discover that “expectations and ideals don’t solve problems”（预期和理想都不解决问题）. First determine what is happening and what is likely to happen, then assess what you can do; stay grounded while also “looking carefully at the road ahead”（仔细地看看路）.
Li Feng mentions that the team appears to have invested in a chip company when it was first formed. At the end of 2015, they approached Cambricon, but the company preferred to speak with investors closer to the state-owned sector. Li Xiang then asks whether Cambricon counts as a success given its current market capitalization. Li Feng says that backing key companies in strategically important sectors at the 2014–2016 industrial inflection point should produce a meaningful wealth effect.
China’s industrial shift from scale to innovation truly took place around 2014–2015, rather than waiting for the 2018 trade war or the 2019 launch of the STAR Market. New-energy vehicles became the more complete investment template: they aligned with the larger policy directions of energy transition and security, while addressing a sufficiently large pool of end consumers. Policy could also reshape consumption through subsidies, education, and public messaging.
Vehicle projects were expensive and capital-intensive, but ultimately “several made it, not just one”（成了若干个，不是成了一个）. Bubble tea also produced a wave of companies, but returns lagged autos. The team invested in solid-state batteries and automotive chips but did not dare to bet on vehicle makers because the complete vehicles were too expensive; the experience informed a somewhat better approach to robot investing later.
Li Feng draws an analogy with real estate: after the market was opened up in 1998, home prices fell for 3 consecutive years. But policy support combined with a major shift in consumption habits, and the sector ultimately became something very large.

Marathon Partners' Mario Cibelli updates the Remitly Thesis $RELY The Secret Engine of AI - Prolific [Sponsored] (Sara Saab, Enzo Blindow)