21–30 of 66 posts
I find it interesting that the book is available about everywhere save for North America according to the author, but the first distances in the text are given in yards, mainly used only in North America. Ok, this is not the exact book text, but still, it looks as a misfit to the audience of the book.
I find it interesting that the book is available about everywhere save for North America according to the author, but the first distances in the text are given in yards, mainly used only in North America. Ok, this is not the exact book text, but still, it looks as a misfit to the audience of the book.
The UK wasn’t on the metric system during the first world war. https://ukma.org.uk/press/metrication-timeline/
> It's that it is possible to resuscitate dormant or shrinking sectors. It is possible to re-industrialise quickly. China managed to go from peasantry in the grip of communism to arguably the biggest economy in history over a remarkably short period. And it is hard to get a read on exactly what is going on in that country but that seems to be despite heavy state intervention in the economy and without the benefits of…
> despite heavy state intervention in the economy Arguably because of state intervention in the economy. They give generous cash subsidies across various industrial sectors -- and as "investors" they have a remarkably light touch! Their standard modus operandi is to subsidize a number of competing ventures per sector (which number could be somewhere in the dozens or hundreds) and have competition take care of the res…
More than that. It's the closest thing we have to a successful economic experiment replicated multiple times in real life.
It's the Japanese model. Meiji Japan, post-WW2 Japan. South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, China more or less followed the same pattern.
> It's that it is possible to resuscitate dormant or shrinking sectors. It is possible to re-industrialise quickly. China managed to go from peasantry in the grip of communism to arguably the biggest economy in history over a remarkably short period. And it is hard to get a read on exactly what is going on in that country but that seems to be despite heavy state intervention in the economy and without the benefits of…
It's probably obvious to say, but I think a nation's most important resource is people. And if you can just order them around and kill the dissenters and not care about what individuals want, then you can achieve quite a bit, be it industrialization or war or agricultural surplus.
Most of them are much less strategic about what they drive for. But a "more free" state could certainly be more strategic as well about aims, goals, and definition of success; the US has done it before to various extents, for instance.
The claim has often been that it'll eventually collapse like in the Soviet Union—because "not caring about what individuals want—has been believed to be a major limiting factor, not an advantage. But it hasn't yet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The UK wasn’t on the metric system during the first world war. https://ukma.org.uk/press/metrication-timeline/
still isn't for most purposes, and most people are still more comfortable with yards than meters for day-to-day stuff (friends are often looking at me blankly when I give a distance in meters)
I feel this is highly context dependant, too. Hanging out with a rural group of people born in the 80s? yards. Anyone in a city and/or born after 1990 is probably more comfortable with meters
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The UK wasn’t on the metric system during the first world war. https://ukma.org.uk/press/metrication-timeline/
still isn't for most purposes, and most people are still more comfortable with yards than meters for day-to-day stuff (friends are often looking at me blankly when I give a distance in meters)
I find it interesting that the book is available about everywhere save for North America according to the author, but the first distances in the text are given in yards, mainly used only in North America. Ok, this is not the exact book text, but still, it looks as a misfit to the audience of the book.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not despite heave state intervention. Because of it!
Was going to say this. The right form of state intervention can be hugely beneficial
> It's that it is possible to resuscitate dormant or shrinking sectors. It is possible to re-industrialise quickly. China managed to go from peasantry in the grip of communism to arguably the biggest economy in history over a remarkably short period. And it is hard to get a read on exactly what is going on in that country but that seems to be despite heavy state intervention in the economy and without the benefits of…
It's because the free market is not perfect (as is often claimed). "Central planning" has been debunked (at least with 20th century technology), but it's become pretty clear that state control + markets > markets alone.
> Which is to say, policies in the West since the end of the cold war have been an absolute disaster and we are well due some political remove-the-spec-from-your-own-eye reflection on our industrial strategy. And, frankly, the endless reign of military terror that the middle east is subjected to doesn't seem to help. Keeping the military at home has been a massive win for China, all of that money went into investments instead of pointless murder.
I think the "keeping the military at home" has been a marginal reason. The real reason is Chinese government can redirect resources to where they're needed, and they've got a long-term vision for what they want to do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
still isn't for most purposes, and most people are still more comfortable with yards than meters for day-to-day stuff (friends are often looking at me blankly when I give a distance in meters)
> most people are still more comfortable with yards than meters I feel this is highly context dependant, too. Hanging out with a rural group of people born in the 80s? yards. Anyone in a city and/or born after 1990 is probably more comfortable with meters
Maybe posh horsey types are different, but even they're mostly concerned with furlongs and hands and suchlike.
(Not wanting to disparage Conway or his work - it's likely that, as gp suggests, his choice of measurements is simply due to the historic source material)