4 ms·

And the United States. EDIT: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-01/piracy-and-fraud-propelled-the-u-s-industrial-revolution.html http://www.bloomberg.com/ne

by Niten 14y ago

And the United States. EDIT: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-01/piracy-and-fraud-propelled-the-u-s-industrial-revolution.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-01/piracy-and-fraud-pr...

rayiner 14y ago
What're you referring to? The US is the most technologically productive country in the history of the world. Your article overstates the case: even early on the US innovated in many areas (though textiles was not one of those areas): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_and_industrial_history_of_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_and_industrial_hi...
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- Niten 14y ago
  Err... innovations in Bieber face swaps? Sorry, you lost me EDIT: OK different link now... sure there is a Wikipedia article titled "Technological and industrial history of the United States". But that doesn't change the fact that, yes, the country's early technological growth was based heavily on the same sort of "piracy" that people love to hate modern Asia for. Obviously a ton of great stuff has been created in the U.S. since then. All I'm saying is that if we're going to list countries for whom intellectual property theft has proven profitable, the U.S. belongs on that list just as sure as anyone else.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    My objection is to the use of the word "heavily." Your article uses the example of stealing mill technology. The Wikipedia article gives an accounting of other areas of technology that were home built, even in the early days of the republic. The US was technologically self-sufficient along many dimensions, from agriculture to transportation. It had certain gaps in manufacturing technology because of the nature of British mercantilism (raw materials were exported to Britain and reimported as finished goods into America, which suppressed the development of native manufacturing). In any case, stealing technology has been a much more fundamental part of the recent prosperity of China and India. Their societies are almost wholly dependent on Western technology. In comparison, the U.S. was always a prosperous country, even during colonial times.
    - btilly 14y ago
      The USA was prosperous during colonial times because it imported talent directly from England. Yes, the USA has a long history of innovation (for instance Benjamin Franklin invented the lightning rod, and the Franklin Stove. But if you read up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution you'll find that major technological progress began in England, and the USA was mostly an innovative footnote until surprisingly late. The USA did much more important than exporting of major technology for decades.
      - rayiner 14y ago
        You're overstating the importance of industry at the time. American prosperity was based on agriculture at the time, for the vast majority of people. The US invented the cotton gin around the revolution, which was a game changer in a predominantly agricultural society and gave the country a lighweight exportable textile. Around then, it was also participating in the development of the steam engine and the steam boat. Even when the original invention originated in England or Scottland, the US was improving on the designs (e.g. iron plows cast in one piece). My point isn't that the US sprung fully formed like some technological Athena. My point is that the US had a culture of innovating even when it copied the basic technology. This was by necessity, because perfect copying was not possible at the time. In comparisom, the Chinese and Indians have been so utterly dependent on wholesale copying that there is little innovation out of those societies. What need is there for a Chinese OS when you can just copy Windows, or Indian drug formulas when you can just use American formulas.
        btilly 14y ago
        First of all, the US advantage in agriculture was mostly due to resources such as the availability of large amounts of fertile land/person. Yes, the cotton gin was important. Yes a lot of improvements came from the USA. But this is no different than successful technology transfer anywhere else. People who have problems, find clever solutions to them. This becomes the foundation of long-term growth in innovations. Secondly, you are massively underestimating Asian innovation. Almost all global manufacturing of key technologies, such as RAM, has almost entirely moved to Asia. Moore's Law has not slowed for those technology. There is lots of innovation going on in those fields, and it is all Asian at this point. Mostly covered by trade secrets rather than US patents, but it is still real and your computer wouldn't run without it. Did you hear that Samsung recently got criticized for deciding to budget more on marketing than R&D? They did. When was the last time that you saw a US company criticized for valuing marketing above R&D? What does that say about the innovation culture in South Korea vs the USA? (Yes, innovation in China and India are behind South Korea - but 20 years ago nobody thought of South Korea as more than a bunch of copycats. How will they remember their history in 200 years?) Thirdly you're not acknowledging the fact that the USA historically had a deserved reputation for not respecting intellectual property. For example Charles Dickens had more than a few choice words about how freely his works were pirated verbatim in the USA. Key technologies were taken lock, stock and barrel without compensation - exactly what Americans today complain about Asian countries doing. In short there are good parallels between how the USA behaved and was seen 200 years ago, and what's going on today in Asia.
- btilly 14y ago
  I don't think that it overstates the case. The key technologies behind the industrial revolution (from the steam engine onwards) were invented in England, then imported to the USA, which improved them further. If you trace backwards, part of the reason why England had the economic foundation for that was a major importation of artisans from the Netherlands after William of Orange became king of England. And the Netherlands gained the foundations for its wealth from skills that the Sephardic Jews took to the Netherlands as they fled the growing religious intolerance in Spain as the Inquisition got under its way. And so for hundreds of years each top world power has seen the major foundations of its prosperity be based on knowledge and skills gained from the previous one. Is it any surprise that the cycle would repeat again now that the USA is the top world power? It may feel like history inevitably leads to now, but there is no reason to believe that the economic dominance of the USA will last longer than previous world empires.
  - wololo 14y ago
    "The migration of Byzantine scholars and other émigrés from southern Italy and Byzantium during the decline of the Byzantine Empire (1203–1453) and mainly after the fall of Constantinople in 1453 until the 16th century, is considered by some scholars as key to the revival of Greek and Roman studies and subsequently in the development of the Renaissance humanism and science." --https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_scholars_in_the_Renaissance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_scholars_in_the_Renaissa...

by Niten 14y ago

And the United States. EDIT: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-01/piracy-and-fraud-propelled-the-u-s-industrial-revolution.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-01/piracy-and-fraud-pr...

rayiner 14y ago

What're you referring to? The US is the most technologically productive country in the history of the world. Your article overstates the case: even early on the US innovated in many areas (though textiles was not one of those areas): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_and_industrial_history_of_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_and_industrial_hi...

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
Niten 14y ago
Err... innovations in Bieber face swaps? Sorry, you lost me EDIT: OK different link now... sure there is a Wikipedia article titled "Technological and industrial history of the United States". But that doesn't change the fact that, yes, the country's early technological growth was based heavily on the same sort of "piracy" that people love to hate modern Asia for. Obviously a ton of great stuff has been created in the U.S. since then. All I'm saying is that if we're going to list countries for whom intellectual property theft has proven profitable, the U.S. belongs on that list just as sure as anyone else.
- rayiner 14y ago
  My objection is to the use of the word "heavily." Your article uses the example of stealing mill technology. The Wikipedia article gives an accounting of other areas of technology that were home built, even in the early days of the republic. The US was technologically self-sufficient along many dimensions, from agriculture to transportation. It had certain gaps in manufacturing technology because of the nature of British mercantilism (raw materials were exported to Britain and reimported as finished goods into America, which suppressed the development of native manufacturing). In any case, stealing technology has been a much more fundamental part of the recent prosperity of China and India. Their societies are almost wholly dependent on Western technology. In comparison, the U.S. was always a prosperous country, even during colonial times.
  - btilly 14y ago
    The USA was prosperous during colonial times because it imported talent directly from England. Yes, the USA has a long history of innovation (for instance Benjamin Franklin invented the lightning rod, and the Franklin Stove. But if you read up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution you'll find that major technological progress began in England, and the USA was mostly an innovative footnote until surprisingly late. The USA did much more important than exporting of major technology for decades.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      You're overstating the importance of industry at the time. American prosperity was based on agriculture at the time, for the vast majority of people. The US invented the cotton gin around the revolution, which was a game changer in a predominantly agricultural society and gave the country a lighweight exportable textile. Around then, it was also participating in the development of the steam engine and the steam boat. Even when the original invention originated in England or Scottland, the US was improving on the designs (e.g. iron plows cast in one piece). My point isn't that the US sprung fully formed like some technological Athena. My point is that the US had a culture of innovating even when it copied the basic technology. This was by necessity, because perfect copying was not possible at the time. In comparisom, the Chinese and Indians have been so utterly dependent on wholesale copying that there is little innovation out of those societies. What need is there for a Chinese OS when you can just copy Windows, or Indian drug formulas when you can just use American formulas.
      - btilly 14y ago
        First of all, the US advantage in agriculture was mostly due to resources such as the availability of large amounts of fertile land/person. Yes, the cotton gin was important. Yes a lot of improvements came from the USA. But this is no different than successful technology transfer anywhere else. People who have problems, find clever solutions to them. This becomes the foundation of long-term growth in innovations. Secondly, you are massively underestimating Asian innovation. Almost all global manufacturing of key technologies, such as RAM, has almost entirely moved to Asia. Moore's Law has not slowed for those technology. There is lots of innovation going on in those fields, and it is all Asian at this point. Mostly covered by trade secrets rather than US patents, but it is still real and your computer wouldn't run without it. Did you hear that Samsung recently got criticized for deciding to budget more on marketing than R&D? They did. When was the last time that you saw a US company criticized for valuing marketing above R&D? What does that say about the innovation culture in South Korea vs the USA? (Yes, innovation in China and India are behind South Korea - but 20 years ago nobody thought of South Korea as more than a bunch of copycats. How will they remember their history in 200 years?) Thirdly you're not acknowledging the fact that the USA historically had a deserved reputation for not respecting intellectual property. For example Charles Dickens had more than a few choice words about how freely his works were pirated verbatim in the USA. Key technologies were taken lock, stock and barrel without compensation - exactly what Americans today complain about Asian countries doing. In short there are good parallels between how the USA behaved and was seen 200 years ago, and what's going on today in Asia.
btilly 14y ago
I don't think that it overstates the case. The key technologies behind the industrial revolution (from the steam engine onwards) were invented in England, then imported to the USA, which improved them further. If you trace backwards, part of the reason why England had the economic foundation for that was a major importation of artisans from the Netherlands after William of Orange became king of England. And the Netherlands gained the foundations for its wealth from skills that the Sephardic Jews took to the Netherlands as they fled the growing religious intolerance in Spain as the Inquisition got under its way. And so for hundreds of years each top world power has seen the major foundations of its prosperity be based on knowledge and skills gained from the previous one. Is it any surprise that the cycle would repeat again now that the USA is the top world power? It may feel like history inevitably leads to now, but there is no reason to believe that the economic dominance of the USA will last longer than previous world empires.
- wololo 14y ago
  "The migration of Byzantine scholars and other émigrés from southern Italy and Byzantium during the decline of the Byzantine Empire (1203–1453) and mainly after the fall of Constantinople in 1453 until the 16th century, is considered by some scholars as key to the revival of Greek and Roman studies and subsequently in the development of the Renaissance humanism and science." --https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_scholars_in_the_Renaissance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_scholars_in_the_Renaissa...