Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by api 15 days ago
It’s been kind of obvious to me that China did it by copying what America was doing from the post Civil War era until we abandoned the formula in the 1970s.

China calls it “iron and salt” I think. The state makes very large investments in infrastructure and helps build huge globally competitive conglomerates in strategic and bedrock industries. The state builds the “iron.” Then it allows the free market to do the “salt,” because while big state enterprise is good at doing stuff like mass steel production or the three gorges dam it’s horrible at making consumer goods or filling small niches.

(The USSR tried to have the state do the iron and the salt.)

America started doing this in a big way with the railroads. Then came roads, aviation, petroleum, electrification of the entire country, bringing clean water and sanitation to the whole country, huge public works projects, the interstate highway system, the space program, DARPAnet, and so on.

Then we stopped doing this kind of bedrock investment, being sold on the idea that it’s not necessary. Then we lost our lead in all industries except… the ones we still do this in like aerospace.

3 comments

I agree. It’s worth remembering that the Lincoln GOP was an interventionist party. That history was retconned by the Reagan GOP.
>Then we stopped doing this kind of bedrock investment, being sold on the idea that it’s not necessary. Then we lost our lead in all industries except… the ones we still do this in like aerospace.

Where's environmentalism and financializationn in all this?

We didn't "just" stop. We didn't close all those steel plants and whatnot for fun.

I doubt investment in railroads or aviation in the US was anything close to majority-government. I'd be shocked if the government's share of cumulative investment in petroleum production since 1859 (the start of commercial production when Edwin Drake's well near Titusville, Pennsylvania, struck oil) was above 2%.
For railroads, just wrong.

Can’t speak for the rest, but we still subsidize airlines and the infrastructure to make it possible.

As we should.

All of the little industrialists and VCs here on HN wouldn’t have a prayer of striking it rich without the median income workers paying (hard-carrying) your little dreams.

If I'm wrong, Wikipedia is wrong, too:

>Financing of railroads provided the basis for a dramatic expansion of the private (non-governmental) financial system. Construction of railroads was far more expensive than factories: in 1860, the combined total of railroad stocks and bonds was $1.8 billion; in 1897, it reached $10.6 billion (compared to a total national debt of $1.2 billion). Funding came from financiers in the Northeastern United States and from Europe, especially Britain. About 10 per cent of the funding came from the government, particularly in the form of land grants that were realized upon completion of a certain amount of trackage. The emerging American financial system was based on railroad bonds . . .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport

Although neither my quote nor the surrounding text explicitly states that it refers to the US rail system, the sentence that starts, "About 10 per cent of the funding came from the government" has a footnote that is a reference to this book:

>Edward C. Kirkland. Industry Comes of Age: Business, Labor and Public Policy, 1860–1897. The Economic History of the United States, Vol. VI.