Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

"No inventions; no innovations" A History of US Steel

construction-physics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–249 of 249 posts

Re: "No inventions; no innovations" A History of US Steel

#241

Post by michaelt »

l33t7332273 wrote: post #183
michaelt wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The U.S. "won" Korea, Iraq, Vietnam, and Afghanistan in the same sense that they "won" WW2 - those countries were bombed back into the stone age and the existing governments fell. I feel you're overlooking the critical fact that after the allies won WW2, Nazis didn't control Germany. Whereas the Taliban remains in control of Afghanistan. To describe that as a US win doesn't really seem accurate. The US did print a…

The mission accomplished banner was for Iraq, not Afghanistan. USA explicitly achieved its war aims in Iraq 2(and Iraq 1 for that matter).

Yes, I suppose the USA did achieve its goal in Iraq, in the sense that they sought to disarm Iraq of WMDs, and Iraq had no WMDs after the war.

Of course, Iraq also had no WMDs before the war, so I'm not sure the episode proves much about America's ability to win.

Re: "No inventions; no innovations" A History of US Steel

#242

Post by manvillej »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #147
pomian wrote: post #30

One of the ideas that seems to be missed from the study of history and economy, was the effect on the total destruction of the Japanese and German industrial base - during WWII. Britain and USA, were left with their archaic industrial systems. After WWII, the Japanese and the German steel industry had to be completely reborn. (At the cost of primarily USA financing.) Those two countries had no more relics of the past…

It is an interesting narrative but largely untrue. As the article points out, US Steel (and the US steel industry in general) was making enough profit, what they were not doing was re-investing those profits into upgrading their steel making. Instead, the "People in Charge" were giving themselves large bonuses and pay upgrades for being bosses of the "big steel." This was especially true through the 80's and 90's in…

executives forgetting to reinvest into the company and shoving money into the C-suite. Why does that sound so familiar these days.

Re: "No inventions; no innovations" A History of US Steel

#243

Post by ClumsyPilot »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #209
AdamH12113 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government of North Korea did not fall or surrender. You can argue that it was a political win if the goal was defending South Korea, but militarily, it was a stalemate. North Vietnam conquered South Vietnam after we withdrew. It was in no way a victory for the United States. Afghanistan was arguably pretty similar, although we did install a new government while we were there. Germany and Japan, on the other hand…

> You can argue that it was a political win if the goal was defending South Korea, but militarily, it was a stalemate. Korea was a proxy war between the US and China (i.e. Communism). The US wanted a foothold on the mainland and to put a demonstration of the virtues of Capitalist Economics in the Communists' back yard, both of which it got in the form of South Korea. If the US hadn't been involved, "Democratic People…

> The US could have won militarily if they were willing to kill several hundred million people. It's probably best that they weren't.

Could they really? Would the nuclear-armed Soviet Union idly stand by and watch US commit nuclear holocaust against it's close neighbour? They wouldn't. Would US allies back them in a war that turned into genocide? Unlikely.

So no, they probably could not have done that because they would not risk escalation into WW3 where most allies abandon USA.

Re: "No inventions; no innovations" A History of US Steel

#244

Post by ClumsyPilot »

freefrog334433 wrote: post #239
nostrademons wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This all depends on victory conditions. The U.S. "won" Korea, Iraq, Vietnam, and Afghanistan in the same sense that they "won" WW2 - those countries were bombed back into the stone age and the existing governments fell. But WW2 was fought as the U.S. was an ascendant (but not dominant) power among a number of peer rivals, and the U.S. was not the aggressor. It felt like a victory, because we emerged as the dominant p…

It is interesting to compare the Iraq and Afghanistan war (the US didn't militarily defeat Vietnam, and Korea was a military stalemate) with successful recent invasions. China invaded Tibet, and Russia invaded Chechnya, and Tibet is now part of China, and Chechnya contributes soldiers fighting in Ukraine. They differ from the US invasions in that they rebuilt the invaded areas, hence "winning the peace". The US also…

> The US also helped rebuild Japan and Germany, which was sadly lacking in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bingo! There would be no Taliban if USA made Afghanistan an unincorporated territory like Puerto Rico, handed out passports and rebuilt infrastructure / governance.

There was a plan for what to bomb, but no plan for what to build. Basically a huge waste of time.

Re: "No inventions; no innovations" A History of US Steel

#245

Post by davidthewatson »

WhitneyLand wrote: post #22
davidthewatson wrote: post #3

I'm happy to see the link here as I was curious about the subject given that my career started in US Steel's data center in Pittsburgh. I'm saddened by the fact that this retelling seems mostly negative and ignores a large part of US Steel's evolution into USX. The retelling is subtractive whether you view Marathon Oil's involvement as a positive complementary asset play at the time or a negative given the history of…

I don’t doubt you at all, but what kind of innovation was there? Did it tend to be strategic or tactical? How closely was tied to their core competencies? How many innovations were industry firsts? What percent impact did they have on profits / growth / market share? From the article it sounds like innovation and investment were consistently blocked by short term financial goals. I can easily believe there were lots…

Thanks for your response.

There was plenty of innovation clear to anyone with the proximity and education to recognize it, but your questions raise intractable issues of the proprietary information of any large corporation.

From my naive college kid's vantage point, the majority of innovation was tactical and not tied to core competencies owing to the siloed nature of communication between management and technical layers; i.e. it's difficult, if not impossible, for innovation to pass through that gated silo without a catalyst to nurture and support its transformation from tactical to strategic. This is a fundamental problem of complementary assets and the need for interdisciplinary culture that accrues to their composition, complexity, and collaborative community.

We could certainly debate whether this is the crux of "The Corporation" over the last twenty years of acquisitions seemingly aimed at silencing competition.

Of the two companies I worked with in that time period thirty years ago, both of their nail-in-the-coffin, final acquisitions approached $20 billion. Innovation has a way of disappearing in the dark subtext of large corporate acquisitions.

The "never given a chance to thrive" is insightful beyond US Steel. That is, well into modern tech startups that are managed by the same kinds of people who managed GM in the 1970's.

Re: "No inventions; no innovations" A History of US Steel

#246

Post by davidthewatson »

bluGill wrote: post #191
davidthewatson wrote: post #3

I'm happy to see the link here as I was curious about the subject given that my career started in US Steel's data center in Pittsburgh. I'm saddened by the fact that this retelling seems mostly negative and ignores a large part of US Steel's evolution into USX. The retelling is subtractive whether you view Marathon Oil's involvement as a positive complementary asset play at the time or a negative given the history of…

How does technical innovation serve their core purpose of produting steel? The things you name are a distraction from the real business and should have been bought not done in house. or they should have done a pihiot to tech and got rid of the mills to someone who wanted to run then.

Technical innovation in metallurgy plays a significant role. It's easy to say that things are a distraction, but it's also only true in retrospect, unless you're on a spectrum of Turing award winners or the like.

It's not clear to me whether you meant "pivot" or "pilot" but the downstream effect is likely the same. Trying to account for divestitures and acquisitions in such a large corporation is a fool's gold of forensic accounting. Just because the business wasn't more transparent than their incorporation required doesn't mean that they weren't thinking broadly and deeply about the future of their core business.

Re: "No inventions; no innovations" A History of US Steel

#247

Post by snapcaster »

herval wrote: post #150
hef19898 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the wars mentioned have ckear, internationally acknowledged winners and loosers as well as treaties. Vietnam ended in US defeat, and French defeat before that. Afghanistan ended with US / NATO defeat and the Taliban taking over the country. The Korean War isn't over yet technically, all we have there is a cease fire. Stalemate, nobody surrendered. The US won the second Gulf War, Panama and some smaller stuff I am…

Would you mind providing some “clear and internationally acknowledged” sources for the Korean War that stated it’s still ongoing or that Afghanistan was an undisputed loss?

How about the videos of the US military retreating from the country? what other indication would you require?

Re: "No inventions; no innovations" A History of US Steel

#248

Post by herval »

snapcaster wrote: post #247
herval wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you mind providing some “clear and internationally acknowledged” sources for the Korean War that stated it’s still ongoing or that Afghanistan was an undisputed loss?

How about the videos of the US military retreating from the country? what other indication would you require?

You obviously completely missed the point

Re: "No inventions; no innovations" A History of US Steel

#249

Post by snapcaster »

herval wrote: post #248
snapcaster wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about the videos of the US military retreating from the country? what other indication would you require?

You obviously completely missed the point

I guess so? what was your point?

edit: to be clear, you don't dispute that the taliban has retaken the country from US forces right?

Post reply on HN