> A parallel that was not mentioned has to do with intellectual property. In the 19th century the US did not respect foreign copyrights or patents; smuggled British machinery was cloned to produce the American industrial revolution, and Charles Dickens was the most popular author in the US but he didn't get a dime from American publishers, who could just take and print his works.
I mean where was the railway invented for example.
The point is that the US got a huge jump start in 19C from copying - and often improving - other countries technology. Sure lots of fundamental inventions - like Edison came at the end of that period but it doesn’t negate the jump start.
So ‘the US invented its technology’ really doesn’t describe the position accurately. Nor is the contrast with China as stark as you imply.
Robert Hammond beat Edison to starting a formal electric power supply company by a few months and continued on for a number of years after Edison's first effort folded.
The Pearl Street station began in 1881 and was delivering power to customers in 1882. It was far more advanced than Hammond's which strung a few overhead wires to arc lamps, and Hammond's work never went further and was a dead end. Edison's company evolved into General Electric. By 1884 it was serving 508 customers with 10,164 lamps at 110V.
see "Edison" by Josephson starting page 251
Quoting from page 256:
More than fifty years had passed since Michael Faraday had discovered the mechanical production of induced electricity and had been possessed by a vision of the future electric power. It needed Edison, however, as well as Faraday, Ampere, Arago, and other scientific explorers, to make the Electrical Age.
"Scientists and inventors have more in common than in difference," James G. Crowther has written in discussing the relation of invention to science. A Faraday might discover far more new scientific facts than Edison, and in this their roles were different. "But the importance of
Faraday's discoveries cannot be explained without reference to the work of Edison... This is why Edison is truly a 'man of science.'"83
It was Edison who had finally applied the knowledge of electrical science that had been accumulating during those fifty years in a decisive form (his "system") and boldly imposed it upon the "new" commodity, electricity, which thereafter was introduced to practical usage on a large
scale. Thenceforth, the mass production and sale of electric current was to be carried on in all the world's markets. His successful carbon filament lamp, taken together with his System of electrical distribution, constituted the key invention in this technological drama. More than any other
individual, he gave impetus to the advance of this new art, creating new wealth immeasurable, new convenience and enjoyment, and a new tempo of life.
Edisons contribution was to capitalize on the discoveries/inventions of Volta, Faraday, Siemens, Gramme, and Tesla, helping to popularize and push electricity into the market. Not insignificant certainly, but if we're talking about doing the actual inventing here, I don't think that supports the thesis.
Things that were patented that he then stole, or things he patented that other people really originated at their core? Former is silly, but latter:
Lightbulb, xray, moving camera, phonograph are some things that were originated by others and refined by him, but that are often completely attributed to him. Again, his contributions are not insignificant, but highly misleading in the spirit of the topic regarding China and the trope that they can’t invent new ideas but that America did. All ideas take lots of collaboration so it’s just wrong to make those kinds of statements.
> won all cases
You mean the patent office awarded him patents, not that he is the undisputed originator of the idea, surely? The legal complexity and resource hungry nature of the patent system makes this a pretty moot point. Even today, patents are largely pointless if you can’t wage a long drawn out legal battle. The robber baron era was not a more just time.
Building the first electrical power grid is quite significant, yes, but still irrelevant, because the core tech is still non American. Many innovations must be made to take those foreign ideas and implement them, yes, but how is that different from what’s going on in China?
The original claim is that they don’t invent anything, only copy. Its a common narrative that’s not only an untrue cope, but also blinds people to the fact that they are on a trajectory to surpass in innovation, in addition to implementation.
And on the bandsaw, it’s very international as well.
I didn't write anything like that. I wrote that you can grow faster by copying existing ideas that have been refined and put into practice than by reinventing them.
You might want to read a biography of Edison, not just a summary on the web. The one by Josephson is good, and goes into considerable detail.
Edison did not invent a glowing wire, nor did he invent electric arc lamps. However, both of those were useless as light bulbs. Existing lightbulbs at the time were low voltage, high current. The lightbulbs didn't last very long, and so were useless. They also consumed enormous amounts of power.
Edison's innovation was to go with high voltage, low current. This cut the power consumption way down. The next problem he had was the filament burning up. This problem he managed to solve with a vacuum pump. Voila! A long lasting, cheap, and cheap to operate, light bulb.
This is why he received the credit for inventing the light bulb, as it was the first practical light bulb. This is why all the other patent suits against him on the invention failed.
If you are interested, feel free to read the Josephson book which covers the patent suits. I don't think you can just dismiss them with Edison had the resources to defend his patents, nor can you dismiss them with the litigants being paupers. The litigants who didn't have money got money to pursue the patent cases from investors who knew that if they won the suit, they would get rich.
Everyone was aware that an entire industry was up for grabs, and so they poured money into fighting Edison. These when on for many years. They had every opportunity to make their case(s).
But Edison prevailed.
As for the bandsaw, I said the invention of the circular saw revolutionized the lumber industry, and that invention was I think from the Amish.
What Edison did was make things that were practical.
BTW, Edison invented electronic vacuum tubes, but he failed to recognize what they would be good for. Would you say he invented the entire electronics industry up until 1960? I wouldn't. It was others who turned the vacuum tube into a practical and incredibly useful device.
Edison invented the idea of a commercial invention lab, and produced so many practical inventions that revolutionized life that he is a contender for inventing the modern world. It's hard to understate his impact.
Interestingly, the Wright Brothers inadvertently invented the modern directed research and development laboratory. I'm probably the only person who ascribes that to them, but before the Wrights, people just tried random things (including Edison). What the Wrights did was:
1. research everything known about the topic
2. identify each problem that needed solving
3. develop prototypes to test and solve each problem
4. put the solutions together to solve the whole problem
and voila! it worked! and everybody else has followed that pattern since.
> 19th century US invented its technology. China simply copied it - which enables much faster growth until one runs out of things to copy.
This is what I would rather focus on. If Edison can be credited with inventing as much as you say, I don’t see why you hold this belief regarding China.
If you define “invention” as the core concept of a mechanism/process/etc, then Edison did not invent much at all, and perhaps China has a lot to prove.
If you define “invention” to include all improvements to technologies which at their core already exist, then China is already the leading innovator globally.
Yes, China has been playing catch up, but I hate narratives that would paint an entire nation of 1.4 billion people as some kind of mindless robot state.
I’ve worked at two market leading, trend setting, American flagship tech companies which did competitive analyses on mass market Chinese tech products. Incidentally, they were at times when Chinese products were beginning to overtake the American ones. People were pretty shocked overall, and shortly after both of these experiences, on both occasions, the US imposed trade restrictions on the respective products.
I remember a while ago, the thought that China was innovative would have been laughed at as it was a silly idea. They were just a factory, no more. Now, people get mad at you for stating the truth that China has evolved and is now out-innovating us. I think it’s fear based. The media paints a grim picture about what it’s like there, but breaking out of the western bubble has been enlightening and humbling.
I now firmly believe that China will be the first to some kind of AGI, I think their EVs will dominate all global car markets, they’ll build embodied AI robots at scale first, their chips will eclipse Nvidia’s finest soon enough, their space program will be more advanced, etc
Most importantly however, their green tech is outpacing us. The west really dropped the ball on what is the second greatest threat to long term survival of organized human life. For the sake of humanity, I hope they’re able to continue this advancement trend unimpeded, since they’re the only signatory of the Paris accords who are taking this seriously and not just meeting but exceeding targets. I hope they can equip the world with their inventions soon enough.
Let's take an example. One country invents a tractor, and makes improvements on it for 100 years. Then, another country that does agriculture by hoe and shovel, buys a modern tractor.
Which one is going to experience faster year over year growth in the next year?
If you bring a cellphone to an isolated Amazon tribe, have you just implemented the most rapid advancement of technology known to man? It’s a ridiculous, meaningless question.
Where is their industrial capacity? Where is their university system? Or their self defense capability? A space program on the way tomorrow perhaps?
Why is it that China’s development outpaces India so much? Why does China have 28,000 miles of high speed rail, doubling in the next decade, when the US has 50? Why did China roll out 5G before the west, when there wasn’t anything to steal yet?
Does the US need to steal some high speed rail technology from somewhere so that it can grow?
These aren’t matters of technology at this point. They are growing fast because they’re committed to it. The growth capacity has been there for so long in the west, but we prioritize the wealth of elites instead. At this point they have a better space station and a better moon landing / colonization plan. Their green tech is better, their batteries are better, their robots are better, their EVs are way better.
This idea that they should slow down because there’s no more technology to steal is inconsistent with the fact that they have in so many areas surpassed us rather than asymptotically approaching the status quo.
Comparatively, the trajectory of material conditions leaves the US in the dust, if it hasn’t already for most of the US populous.
It makes me sad because I’m an American, but it gives me hope because the US may finally start competing in areas like infrastructure, housing, and education rather than letting the private sector take the wheel.
That's the literal opposite of the truth and basically just neoliberal propaganda. It's also quite an amusing take more broadly, considering that the market reforms were implemented by the original Communist revolutionaries, people who were deeply committed to Marxism and vehemently opposed to that idea.
China's system is defined by not letting the private sector take the wheel. Capitalists (major owners of capital, the 0.1%) have very little political power vs. in the West, where policies are almost wholly driven by the private sector.
Marx actually believed that Capitalism was a necessary step to Socialism, which would then turn into communism. Lenin added that a vanguard party would be required to oversee that transition. The CCP fulfills that purpose in China. When the Chinese leaders decided to allow some capitalism, they did so with heavy restrictions, referring to it as a "bird in a cage" policy. They quite explicitly did not allow the private sector to take the wheel, and that continues to this day.
The real history of China in the last 100 years is extremely fascinating once you get past all the western propaganda. If you want to see what happens when the private sector takes the wheel, look up "shock therapy in Russia".
> A parallel that was not mentioned has to do with intellectual property. In the 19th century the US did not respect foreign copyrights or patents; smuggled British machinery was cloned to produce the American industrial revolution, and Charles Dickens was the most popular author in the US but he didn't get a dime from American publishers, who could just take and print his works.
I mean where was the railway invented for example.