I spend a lot of time reading about manufacturing and its evolution, which means I end up repeatedly reading about the times and places where radical changes in manufacturing were taking place: Britain in the late 18th century, the US in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Japan in the second half of the 20th century, and (to a lesser extent) China today.
Very interesting! You could do a follow up piece on the parallels in the political realm — international colonialism/expansionism in the US in the 20th century and what China is attempting here in the 21st… Will require a bit more speculation but would be a useful exercise.
That point about how the United States had few (if any) prominent scientists in the late 19th century, but then went on to dominate in the next few decades, is a really interesting one that I hadn’t thought about as a comparison. But it seems absolutely relevant.
I think of the Michelson-Morley experiment as another important bit of American science in the late 19th century (not to mention Franklin’s work on electricity in the 18th century) but yeah, not much.
According to his biography, Master of Light, he was a brilliant experimentalist. He did a lot of high precision work on diffraction gratings, measuring the speed of light and, of course, his ether detection experiment. However, as physics became more theoretical and mathematical late in the century, he admitted that he was of the old school.
Gibbs, in contrast, did serious theoretical work in thermodynamics and other areas.
Friedrich List wrote the playbook, and it has worked for just about every developed, industrialized nation. The problems come in when the phase change nears completion and political changes are needed to grow demand. In Europe, this process was violent since the old aristocracy fought hard. In the US, there was violence, but some things like a written constitution and an elected government were already in place. I'm curious to see if China can continue its growth with making the requisite political changes. China doesn't push up and coming oligarchs out of windows like the Russians, but they have their own way of imposing party discipline.
It's weird. We seem to have solved the problem of production. The hard problem seems to be balancing it with the demand side. A lot of countries relied on export markets so that supply could grow and scale with the hope that domestic demand would follow.
I keep trying to imagine a steady state world with a roughly fixed population and sufficient supply and demand. My math background keeps suggesting eigenvectors, and its not hard to find a mathematical solution that has a stable worker-dependent ratio. It is much harder to solve the political and social problems. For example, supply side efficiency benefits from centralization, but there are good solid reasons for wanting regional import substitution.
One of the last jobs I would ever want would be ruler of China. Riding a bareback tiger does not sound all that attractive.
I wonder whether China will follow the path of the U.S. in the 21st century by moving from a manufacturing-based economy to a service-based one. If so, which country will be the next China in terms of shifting from agriculture to manufacturing, transforming farmers into urban citizens? India, perhaps?
"Studies of China’s scientific progress often use metrics like number of papers published or number of highly cited publications, where it often ranks much higher, but it seems notable that it does noticeably worse on the hardest-to-fake metrics like prizes."
This is not exactly correct, while many chinese researchers do involve themselves in these acts it still does not disprove the fact that they have made significant strides in scientific thinking and innovation. These metrics do indicate the actual progress that has been made and cannot be simply attributed to faking. But they have become advanced and innovative only in applied sciences (some good examples are renewable energy, solar panels, pharma etc) and still lag behind Europe and the US in "core" sciences (ex. Physics, mathematics, biology, human psychology, economics, computer science, etc) that eventually lands these prizes.
What's the youth unemployment rate at now? Is it still over 50%? They shut down counting it because it got so high. I have a Chinese friend in Beijing. I promise you it is not all roses over there
1. "In the 1870s, the US grew somewhere between 4.5 and 6.7 percent annually in real terms, one of the fastest growth rates ever recorded”. Under embargoes and exclusions that make today's look feeble, Mao grew the economy 6.5% for 25 years and left the country with no debt.
2. "While today China is still behind the US in GDP (without adjusting for purchasing power, at least). China's productive GDP is 2x-3x America's. Everyone uses PPP and so should we.
3. "China, similarly, has not necessarily been a leader in scientific progress”. Chinese researchers lead the world in every science and their institutions occupy seven of the top ten institutions, compared to one in America.
4. " China built its success on the back of inexpensive labor, and it remains a middle income country”. Mebbe, but the average (median) Chinese family has four times the net worth of the average American family. As Carl Icahn observed, “Net worth of median households is basically nothing. We have major problems in our economy.”
Great article. I spent the month of September in China, and I’ve never driven through so many miles of bored tunnels. I worked on the bored tunnel under Seattle, which took too many years and billions of dollars. I asked one of the leading bored tunnel engineers in the world about this, and he said that China learned how to bore tunnels in the early 2000s and now controls almost all of the market. You might want to do an article about tunnel boring. I wish we could bore tunnels like China.
Very interesting! You could do a follow up piece on the parallels in the political realm — international colonialism/expansionism in the US in the 20th century and what China is attempting here in the 21st… Will require a bit more speculation but would be a useful exercise.
Might be interesting to see how the Monroe doctrine compares to China’s ambitions right now.
I'm American, I live in Wuhan, Hubei, PRC. This is spot on commentary, and it's accelerating.
This is great
That point about how the United States had few (if any) prominent scientists in the late 19th century, but then went on to dominate in the next few decades, is a really interesting one that I hadn’t thought about as a comparison. But it seems absolutely relevant.
I think there was Gibbs, and that was it.
I think of the Michelson-Morley experiment as another important bit of American science in the late 19th century (not to mention Franklin’s work on electricity in the 18th century) but yeah, not much.
According to his biography, Master of Light, he was a brilliant experimentalist. He did a lot of high precision work on diffraction gratings, measuring the speed of light and, of course, his ether detection experiment. However, as physics became more theoretical and mathematical late in the century, he admitted that he was of the old school.
Gibbs, in contrast, did serious theoretical work in thermodynamics and other areas.
Friedrich List wrote the playbook, and it has worked for just about every developed, industrialized nation. The problems come in when the phase change nears completion and political changes are needed to grow demand. In Europe, this process was violent since the old aristocracy fought hard. In the US, there was violence, but some things like a written constitution and an elected government were already in place. I'm curious to see if China can continue its growth with making the requisite political changes. China doesn't push up and coming oligarchs out of windows like the Russians, but they have their own way of imposing party discipline.
Thanks for the additional insight.
It's weird. We seem to have solved the problem of production. The hard problem seems to be balancing it with the demand side. A lot of countries relied on export markets so that supply could grow and scale with the hope that domestic demand would follow.
I keep trying to imagine a steady state world with a roughly fixed population and sufficient supply and demand. My math background keeps suggesting eigenvectors, and its not hard to find a mathematical solution that has a stable worker-dependent ratio. It is much harder to solve the political and social problems. For example, supply side efficiency benefits from centralization, but there are good solid reasons for wanting regional import substitution.
One of the last jobs I would ever want would be ruler of China. Riding a bareback tiger does not sound all that attractive.
I wonder whether China will follow the path of the U.S. in the 21st century by moving from a manufacturing-based economy to a service-based one. If so, which country will be the next China in terms of shifting from agriculture to manufacturing, transforming farmers into urban citizens? India, perhaps?
book-worthy research. thanks.
would be interested to see these figures on per-capita basis, vice absolute.
growth of course, is sigmoidal over long terms, not geometric. Where are we on the S curve? Where China?
Of course, the trusty "good times make weak men" trope has some relevance. Will cultural rot set in faster Chez China, than at home, or vice versa?
"Studies of China’s scientific progress often use metrics like number of papers published or number of highly cited publications, where it often ranks much higher, but it seems notable that it does noticeably worse on the hardest-to-fake metrics like prizes."
This is not exactly correct, while many chinese researchers do involve themselves in these acts it still does not disprove the fact that they have made significant strides in scientific thinking and innovation. These metrics do indicate the actual progress that has been made and cannot be simply attributed to faking. But they have become advanced and innovative only in applied sciences (some good examples are renewable energy, solar panels, pharma etc) and still lag behind Europe and the US in "core" sciences (ex. Physics, mathematics, biology, human psychology, economics, computer science, etc) that eventually lands these prizes.
But otherwise, it's a really great article. Thanks for the insight
What's the youth unemployment rate at now? Is it still over 50%? They shut down counting it because it got so high. I have a Chinese friend in Beijing. I promise you it is not all roses over there
It’s probably useful to think about this as talking about China from 1980 to 2019!
wonderful piece!!!! the private capital in the USA during the gilded age explains the current reluctance to tax capital imo....
A wonderful overview! Many thanks. Some quibbles:
1. "In the 1870s, the US grew somewhere between 4.5 and 6.7 percent annually in real terms, one of the fastest growth rates ever recorded”. Under embargoes and exclusions that make today's look feeble, Mao grew the economy 6.5% for 25 years and left the country with no debt.
2. "While today China is still behind the US in GDP (without adjusting for purchasing power, at least). China's productive GDP is 2x-3x America's. Everyone uses PPP and so should we.
3. "China, similarly, has not necessarily been a leader in scientific progress”. Chinese researchers lead the world in every science and their institutions occupy seven of the top ten institutions, compared to one in America.
4. " China built its success on the back of inexpensive labor, and it remains a middle income country”. Mebbe, but the average (median) Chinese family has four times the net worth of the average American family. As Carl Icahn observed, “Net worth of median households is basically nothing. We have major problems in our economy.”
This reads like propaganda and is riddled with half truths and unsubstantiated assertions.
Succinctly written, bravo, in-depth cross comparison. Thanks for sharing!
I'm just so delighted by the Bread Givers reference. I read it again and again as a kid and I seldom run into anyone else familiar with it.
Great article. I spent the month of September in China, and I’ve never driven through so many miles of bored tunnels. I worked on the bored tunnel under Seattle, which took too many years and billions of dollars. I asked one of the leading bored tunnel engineers in the world about this, and he said that China learned how to bore tunnels in the early 2000s and now controls almost all of the market. You might want to do an article about tunnel boring. I wish we could bore tunnels like China.
Do you think China is about to enter a period to similar to America's 1970s as it peaks in energy consumption?