[practicalpants]

This is a general misconception you hear that America's dominance in the world (and universities) was due to the "old world" imploding in WWII. It obviously helped the US but already in the early second half of the 19th C America was dominating the industrial revolution, by a wide margin, and had cemented it's place as top GDP (overall and per capita), top global talent magnet, and top overall technical education levels.

IMO America has been the center of innovation with top universities because it is the top place where talent, globally, wants to go to make their fortune. This has been going on for more than a century.

Whatever country is the top magnet for global talent is going to have the top university systems as well as be the center of the world scene long term. E.g. if another country, say China, wants to succeed into this role it must be the top destination for global talent.

[orbifold]

This is just factually untrue the GDP of the British empire was much larger than that of the US and in terms of scientific innovation Germany was widely considered to be at the forefront with France and UK as equals. The US was largely a scientific backwater.

[practicalpants]

I do not know what textbooks you read or economic history lectures you took to reach your conclusion. This is the second half of the 19th C, the US was absolutely dominating the industrial revolution in the era that produced the Carnegies Rockefellers JP Morgans and dozens of others of similar stature. Entire new industries and processes like interchangeable parts, telegraph, petroleum products, railraods, rise of malls/retail, electricity, meat packing, industrial farming, investment banking etc. was all either originating from or reaching heights in the US, which also had the highest patents per capita rate, and an international reputation for a general population that was technically competent for the industrial rev.

(Not to mention the gov was essentially giving away 160 acre plots to anyone who wanted to settle elsewhere, which created intense pressure to mechanize due to menial labor shortages, not to mention a broader based prosperity.)

[chrisseaton]

> It obviously helped the US but already in the early second half of the 19th C America was dominating the industrial revolution, by a wide margin, and had cemented it's place as top GDP (overall and per capita)

If you look it up you can see for yourself that you aren’t saying true things.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7174996.stm

The UK’s GDP per capita was still massively higher than the US’s as late as 1870. It didn’t overtake until 1890.

And the US obviously had a relatively late industrial revolution and adoption of things like railroads because they began in other countries and were imported.

[cycomanic]

I think like usual reality is more complex. The reason why America became such a economic powerhouse by the beginning of the 20th century was clearly the large scale immigration to a land that was generally considered the land of opportunities, without the crust of established economic structures in Europe. Someone from any social background could make it there. Due to this background there was a lot of aversion to "elites" forming which I have seen given as reasons for the high top income tax and the strong actions against monopolies . Now the growth founded also by large scale displacement and killing of the native population and slavery would also have contributed.

I don't think that alone would have made the US into the superpower it is today, in particular in terms of science. That was clearly a result of the two world wars that devastated Europe. If you look at the scientific discoveries the US really became the powerhouse after/during WW2.

It's somewhat ironic that the US which was founded on escaping the large "unfair" inequalities of old Europe and a strong anti-establishment/anti-elite basis has since become a beacon of a new elite/establishment and inequality. The "anti elitism" that was always part of the US psyche is now almost completely about intellectual elite (scientific/academic elite) not economic elite.

[Aerroon]

>It's somewhat ironic that the US which was founded on escaping the large "unfair" inequalities of old Europe and a strong anti-establishment/anti-elite basis has since become a beacon of a new elite/establishment and inequality.

It's probably one of those cyclical things in life. Your former greatness ends up becoming a burden that keeps growing. Eventually it'll become so heavy that things fall apart. From the ashes rises a new greatness that eventually...

[mncharity]

US views on China repeatedly remind me of old-regime European commentary on a younger US.

[kmstout]

Here's an example:

"The following comparison will illustrate my meaning. During the campaigns of the Revolution the French introduced a new system of tactics into the art of war, which perplexed the oldest generals, and very nearly destroyed the most ancient monarchies in Europe. They undertook (what had never before been attempted) to make shift without a number of things which had always been held to be indispensable in warfare; they required novel exertions on the part of their troops which no civilized nations had ever thought of; they achieved great actions in an incredibly short space of time; and they risked human life without hesitation to obtain the object in view. The French had less money and fewer men than their enemies; their resources were infinitely inferior; nevertheless they were constantly victorious, until their adversaries chose to imitate their example.

"The Americans have introduced a similar system into their commercial speculations; and they do for cheapness what the French did for conquest. The European sailor navigates with prudence; he only sets sail when the weather is favorable; if an unforseen accident befalls him, he puts into port; at night he furls a portion of his canvas; and when the whitening billows intimate the vicinity of land, he checks his way, and takes an observation of the sun. But the American neglects these precautions and braves these dangers. He weighs anchor in the midst of tempestuous gales; by night and by day he spreads his sheets to the wind; he repairs as he goes along such damage as his vessel may have sustained from the storm; and when he at last approaches the term of his voyage, he darts onward to the shore as if he already descried a port. The Americans are often shipwrecked, but no trader crosses the seas so rapidly. And as they perform the same distance in a shorter time, they can perform it at a cheaper rate.

"The European touches several times at different ports in the course of a long voyage; he loses a good deal of precious time in making the harbor, or in waiting for a favorable wind to leave it; and he pays daily dues to be allowed to remain there. The American starts from Boston to go to purchase tea in China; he arrives at Canton, stays there a few days, and then returns. In less than two years he has sailed as far as the entire circumference of the globe, and he has seen land but once. It is true that during a voyage of eight or ten months he has drunk brackish water and lived upon salt meat; that he has been in a continual contest with the sea, with disease, and with a tedious existence; but upon his return he can sell a pound of his tea for a half-penny less than the English merchant, and his purpose is accomplished."

--Alexis de Tocqueville, "Democracy in America"

http://resources.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/Jurisprudence/E...

[mncharity]

Nice quote, and fun read - thank you.