4 ms·

The division between the Industrial Revolution and the Second Industrial Revolution is a silly one in my opinion. The late 19th century is what I'm referring t

The division between the Industrial Revolution and the Second Industrial Revolution is a silly one in my opinion. The late 19th century is what I'm referring to, and it's the one with the most substantial economic growth. We had 70+ years with no central bank whatsoever (and over 120 with a weakened bank on the gold standard). From that point until 1913, we saw the telegraph, telephones, railroads, mass industrial manufacturing, electricity, radio, airplanes, and cars. Most of these innovations were adopted most aggressively in the U.S., despite not all being invented in the U.S.. Even with railroad booms and busts and routine recessions, nothing remotely close to the Great Depression happened. Once again, there was 4% compounded growth a year for a century, and without the advantage of "leapfrogging" legacy technology.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> The division between the Industrial Revolution and the Second Industrial Revolution is a silly one in my opinion. The late 19th century is what I'm referring to, and it's the one with the most substantial economic growth. The late 19th Century one was the Second Industrial Revolution, which led directly and fairly immediately into the late 19th Century Long Depression; the First Industrial Revolution was late 18th to early 19th Century (usually timed from about 1760), and since you are clearly specifically talking about the Second and not the First, it's odd that you say that you find the distinction silly. > We had 70+ years with no central bank whatsoever 1870 (the generally accepted date for the start of the Second Industrial Revolution) to 1913 is only 43 years, and about half of those were the Long Depression.