A fireside chat about industrial revolution

[Hamartia Antidote]

nope you just get cancer alley.

Welcome to “Cancer Alley,” Where Toxic Air Is About to Get Worse

Air quality has improved for decades across the U.S., but Louisiana is backsliding. Our analysis found that a crush of new industrial plants will increase concentrations of cancer-causing chemicals in predominantly black and poor communities.

www.propublica.org

'Almost every household has someone that has died from cancer'

A small town, a chemical plant and the residents’ desperate fight for clean air

www.theguardian.com

After String of Rare Cancer Cases, Pennsylvania Investigates Potential Link to Fracking

An increase in the number of teens and young adults diagnosed with Ewing’s sarcoma in southwest Pennsylvania has prompted the state to look for a link between fracking and the disease.

www.wsj.com

Proximity to Texas oil refineries increases cancer risk, study finds

A multi-year study completed by local researchers found that Texans who live nearest to...

www.houstonchronicle.com

Cancer Cluster Controversy in the Gas Patch - Earthworks

Written with support from Nadia Steinzor, Earthworks' Community Empowerment Project Manager. The news on potential health impacts from the shale gas boom

earthworks.org

What do any of these items have to do with oil fracking????


Why are you suddenly pulling a silly whataboutism????

I never claimed we exported every single hazardous manufacturing plant in the country to China and that every single plant in the US now somehow has no problems.

I'm saying there would be even more problems in the West like Love Canal if we had kept many of those industries here. But now its China's environmental problem. China will have to deal with it.

If you say you have no problem with that then that is awesome. The West was correct to do this as it was a good tradeoff.

I don't think you are fully grasping the long term damage some types of industrialization can cause. Even the soil across the US is contaminated with lead due to decades of using leaded gasoline. This isn't going to somehow magically go away.

The soil in the UK also has high elevations of lead from 200+ years of coal burning plants.

I'm sure there was no issue 50 years ago with lead in the environment in China...but now there is.

Blood lead levels of Chinese children from 1991 to 2020: Based on Monte Carlo simulation - PubMed

Chinese children have been exposed to high level of lead due to polluted air, dust, contaminated foods and water, etc. In this research, we investigated published blood lead levels (BLLs) reflecting 1,057,832 Chinese children aged at 0-12 and teenagers aged at 13-18 in the past 30 years...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

What do any of these items have to do with oil fracking????


Why are you suddenly pulling a silly whataboutism????

I never claimed we exported every single hazardous manufacturing plant in the country to China and that every single plant in the US now somehow has no problems.

I'm saying there would be even more problems in the West like Love Canal if we had kept many of those industries here. But now its China's environmental problem. China will have to deal with it.

If you say you have no problem with that then that is awesome. The West was correct to do this as it was a good tradeoff.

I don't think you are fully grasping the long term damage some types of industrialization can cause. Even the soil across the US is contaminated with lead due to decades of using leaded gasoline. This isn't going to somehow magically go away.

The soil in the UK also has high elevations of lead from 200+ years of coal burning plants.

I'm sure there was no issue 50 years ago with lead in the environment in China...but now there is.

Blood lead levels of Chinese children from 1991 to 2020: Based on Monte Carlo simulation - PubMed

Chinese children have been exposed to high level of lead due to polluted air, dust, contaminated foods and water, etc. In this research, we investigated published blood lead levels (BLLs) reflecting 1,057,832 Chinese children aged at 0-12 and teenagers aged at 13-18 in the past 30 years...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

its simple. oil causes cancer. this is not even controversial, it is proven medical fact. petroleum contains a huge variety of carcinogens. but Texans are proud of their oil industry. In fact Americans in general are very proud of drilling for oil. Drill Baby Drill is a common Republican slogan. Oil is associated with wealth, cars and economic development.

there's nothing wrong with being proud of the oil industry if you accept its downsides.

Chinese are also proud of the manufacturing industry. What's wrong with that?

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

Chinese are also proud of the manufacturing industry. What's wrong with that?

That's perfectly fine as long as 20 years from now the typical Chinese citizen doesn't stand up and say the evil West "tricked us" into taking these industries as they knew full they were polluting to our environment and dangerous...why it's like Opium War part 2..yeah that's exactly what it is!!!

 

[jhungary]

Recently I have a fireside chat with a good friend of mine about Industrial revolution, the role of productivity and cost advantage. We talked about how these basic economical factors underpins the human history over the last 500 years - the rise of Europe, then rise of US and fall of Europe and finally rise of China and fall of US. He has some interesting thoughts and I like to share.

First we discussed how China became so backward and economically collapsed in the recent history. The reason is not so much that China has gone backward in terms of its capability to produce but rather it was outcompeted by European nations through their cost advantage.

China has been a successful producer nation civilization in the world for over 2000 years, evidenced by the popularity of its main exporting products - silk and Proclain. The long success has made China unaware that things has changed dramatically in other part of the world around 1500s - the discovery of America by European nations, initially Spain and Portugal, later British and French. European nations like British managed to transformed itself into a major producer in textile, built on slavery plantation, gold and silver from central America and the vast fertile land in America,

Using the cotton produced from slavery plantation in New America, British has had unparalleled cost advantage against the traditional producer nations in textile. Despite being a low key everyday product, textile production and trade were critical part of economy for many nations in the world, supporting livelihood for mass population. After losing the Opium war, China was forced to open its market to British made textile products, which was obviously much cheaper than locally made textile. The consequence of importing textile in massive quantity had a catastrophic impact to China’s rural economy - many households used to make living by making and selling handcraft textile were driven into poverty. The sudden reduction in demand from low class had chain effect to other part of the economy and caused the overall economy to collapse. The same thing happened to other part of the world. Most part of the world has been colonized by European power, providing raw material and becoming their captive market.

The economic and human misery of China and the rest of the world, colonized or not, paved the way to Europe to achieve industrialization. Its historical impact can be seen to this day - they control the majority of the wealth in the world despite having a small population. Despite Europe’s road to industrialization was full of blood and suffering, my friend was of the view that European nations, particularly British, should be credited to for the accomplishment of taking humanity into industry age. This is because the upgrade from agricultural production to industrial production required such a vast amount of capital and rather unique condition that cannot be created by other nations or civilizations.

It was European’s lust for fortunate and ruthlessness to other races that generated sufficient imbalance and capital to provide the necessary condition that stimulated the first industrial revolution. These are critical characteristics underpining their actions. They annihilated the entire population of native American and turned America into a giant plantation - manned by slaves captured from Africa. These actions provided them the captial and cost advantage that dominated the traditional nations in the world. It is difficult to image that another civilization or race has the same characteristics to carry out the things European have done.

However, after the end of Second World War, the liberation of colonized country removed the cost advantage that European country has enjoyed over the last 200 years. Without the cheap raw material from conlonized countries and slavery, they could no longer compete fairly with new industrial power in US that was built on one thing - scale of economy. The once leading producer nation like British simply regressed over time into a hollow shell, as we can see today.

Fast forward to now, China, once fully industrialized, has regained its power as the most productive country in the global market by the very same formula that US dethrone Europe - scale of economy. US may fight on to keep its share in the niche high value added market but overall it will follow the same path like its predecessor British. It is nothing but a natural revolution of productivity in human society. There will be another country that becomes more productive than China at some point in the future and take its place as the leading industrial power, but it is the topic for another day.

First of all, Trade and Industrialisation are two different concept.

industrialisation is a standard, trade is a physical exchange of goods.

Every country in this world can be industrialised, that does not mean it will dominate trade when it come to fully industrialise, take US as an example. Industrialisation is nothing but a policy. What if the next US government (the one after Biden) have united Congress and formed a partisan government and lower the minimum wages and curb monetary policy, making industrial field priority (Which is exactly what the Chinese are doing)? US can redefine their industrial strength to match anyone. I mean think about it. Can US restart Steel Mill in PA and Industrial Part in the Mid West? It could, and what if the cost is lowered by government decree to a point it is competitive to Chinese, would the world keep buying Make in China or will start buying Make in America again??

Trade, on the other hand, depends on 4 factors. Money, Goods, Market and Trade Route. Industrialised based only give you the edge on Goods, or maybe Money, but it will not do with Market and Trade Route. Market is important because that is where you buy/sell your goods. Trade Route is also important because you need to have a route that you can be secured in order to trade.

Now, the story are going to be the same when Trade is not Hostile or Limited. Free Trade and globalisation give edge to the first 2 (money and goods) while Market and Trade Route are not important, because trade are open and everyone can get access to any market or any trade route. But what if Trade are hostile or limited? Then Market and Trade route would become more important than Goods and Money, because you would not be able to access those market and trade route even if you have enough money and goods.

Say for an example. What if US and UK or EU start getting Hostile to China and stop China from having access to US or UK market? I mean, you can make as much goods as you want, but losing market like this would mean you have no one to sell to. While the opposite is true, the problem is US and UK control most of Trade Route in this world by having territories strategically placed around the world, you cannot make a trans pacific journey without stopping in any US territories. You would either have to stop at Hawaii or Alaska if you are going North or straight across, or You will have to stop at South Pacific (American Samoa or Australia, US allies) to transit to South America. Or alternatively, you are not going to get quick access from the Med to the Atlantic because of Gibraltar. All the overseas territories with US, UK and France are strategically placed so that it control the the trade route to and from US, UK and France. which is what Colonisation is for, problem is, Colonisation is not popular in 21 century, China could not colonise like the West did back in the 18 and 19 century, sure, China can use money to try to open a port in Pakistan or Djibouti or even Solomon Island. But at the end of the day, they are not Chinese overseas territories, which mean the final right to access to those facilities is on the local government. Unless China are willing to invade a country to secure their own Trade Route, China is always going to be under cut by the US and UK and to some extend France for it.

 

[GeraltofRivia]

So they had the whole stack. The land, labor, best seeds, power looms, and permanent chemical color fabric dyes.

It is not shocking that they made a fortune through textiles.

It is well documented that British has all the advantage that help them dominate the textile production and trade in the 1800s. However, we can also be clouded by the perfect hindsight to conclude that they just had all the right elements from the very beginning.

What we are attempting is looking back and deeper into the mechanics of the development of Western capitalism and identify the most fundamental drivers. At the beginning, there was not that much technological difference between UK textile mills and the ones in other parts of the world. The cost advantage of labour and material provided the initial “Energy” that started the movement. The cotton from America means UK producers were at a different price point, providing sufficient profit (even with shipping cost included) for all all the merchants, plantation owner, factory owners to expand. Many plantations were switched from growing tobacco to cotton to meet the demand.

Obviously when power looms came in the play, UK had a compound massive cost and quality advantage than other producers in the world. The production rate from loom power was simple another dimension to manual work.

An aspect that was equally important to the development of industrial revolution in England was market, which provided demand for production. Without demand, there is no incentive to produce and trade. With both Ottoman and China were in a fairly consolidated form, British took advantage of the fragmented political state in the sub-continent and managed to take control of it, which was one of the most populated and once wealthiest area in the world. What the continents provided to British was not the gold or minerals (it did take them) but the people, which consumes textiles. With local production being abolished, it became the captive market for British textile and other products. When colonization was abolished after WWII, British could not keep British India as its captive market but had to compete with a great industrial power in US in the open market. Without all the advantages that it has enjoyed in the first industrial revolution, UK industry power regressed really quickly.

 

[GeraltofRivia]

First of all, Trade and Industrialisation are two different concept.

industrialisation is a standard, trade is a physical exchange of goods.

Every country in this world can be industrialised, that does not mean it will dominate trade when it come to fully industrialise, take US as an example. Industrialisation is nothing but a policy. What if the next US government (the one after Biden) have united Congress and formed a partisan government and lower the minimum wages and curb monetary policy, making industrial field priority (Which is exactly what the Chinese are doing)? US can redefine their industrial strength to match anyone. I mean think about it. Can US restart Steel Mill in PA and Industrial Part in the Mid West? It could, and what if the cost is lowered by government decree to a point it is competitive to Chinese, would the world keep buying Make in China or will start buying Make in America again?

I like you discussion but there are a couple of key errors in it.

Industralization is not a standard or policy, it is a process of a nation transforming from agriculture economy into a industrial production economy in which majority of economy involves mechanized production of goods. Nations has completed industrialization are considered as industrialized nations, like US, Germany, Japan, etc.

Every country can have their own industry development policy but it does not equal to industrialization. It requires massive capital, market access, infrastructure, labor force. A lot of stars have to align perfectly to get it work.

The notion that every country in the world can be industrialized is a economical ideal that is only valid in the development economics textbook. It sounds perfectly logically as undeveloped nations can play catch-up with the excessive capital from the developed nations which looks after investment opportunity. It is not too difficult to develop some low value adding industries like textiles or garments but upgrading to medium or high value adding industries are extremely difficult due to capital and technological constraints.

The only country outside China that has industrialized post WWII is South Korea, which was built on extensive assistance program from US and took them 4 decades to achieve the status. Other countries that tried to industrialize fully simply failed, trapped into so called middle income trap, for example Thailand and Malaysia.

 

[letsrock]

Cost and quality advantages due to tech advances.



Well most of it is still simply cost. If you can run a bunch of machines in some country for a fraction of what it is in your own then you have a cost advantage. It's a lot cheaper for some company like Philips Electronics to outsource lightbulb production to Asia if they can make it cheaper there.

Plus you are unfortunately overlooking a more darker and sinister reason.

Lots of Western countries around 1970 were facing public relations issues with consumer goods manufacturing causing local water/land/air pollution. Basically the "why should we have our rivers polluted and our local resources irreversibly mined/drained so some kid in far away Argentina can wear a new pair of shiny shoes for 7 months which he is just going to throw away anyway". This didn't seem like a good tradeoff in the long term at all for consumer goods manufacturing as it came at an unsustainable environmental cost. Especially when a new generation of plastic in the late 1960's was determined to be the savior in manufacturing (previously it was mostly heavy and thick Bakelite) ...but it was a high chemical waste generator.

1967 foretelling how plastic was about to replace Bakelite as the manufacturing substance of choice.

I saw the switchover in the late 1970's to toys made out of modern lightweight hard and soft plastics. Before then if you dropped something it was likely to chip/crack or shatter like porcelain.

---

So the darker answer agreed upon was: "let's simply outsource manufacturing (especially plastics) to non-western countries and use up their local resources and pollute their land/water/air for that Argentinian kid's throwaway shoes."

Problem solved. Have Western companies outsource manufacturing to developing countries like China with their mostly unsuspecting and oblivious agrarian populations for as long as possible. Let them absorb the local negative impacts.

Here's a river you can now swim in again because the toxic manufacturing has been moved to a different country...likely in Asia.

Here's the New Balance shoe headquarters not far from the above river's edge

Simply when the Chinese people have the same 1970's type realization. Until then you'll happily be the primary manufacturer for the world's companies just like the US was after WW2...and get all the bad that goes with it along with the good.

\Slavery is a tech advantage ? i dont think so. There is a reason why cotton was called King Cotton and White Gold then.

 

[jhungary]

I like you discussion but there are a couple of key errors in it.

Industralization is not a standard or policy, it is a process of a nation transforming from agriculture economy into a industrial production economy in which majority of economy involves mechanized production of goods. Nations has completed industrialization are considered as industrialized nations, like US, Germany, Japan, etc.

Every country can have their own industry development policy but it does not equal to industrialization. It requires massive capital, market access, infrastructure, labor force. A lot of stars have to align perfectly to get it work.

It really depends on how one sees it.

You see Industrialisation as a massive scale operation change from primary industry to secondary industry, that's fine. But repurposing industrialised sector in the west is also industrialisation.

Problem is, both actually are policy, where your government directed the change from one toward the other, ie, developing their industrial system.

And finally, you can still be partially industrialised without a great devotion of capital, labour force and knowledge, saying that is not an industrialisation is probably false pretence. China itself weren't industrialised overnight, it had gone thru 4 (or 5) stage of industrialisation before becoming an industrial powerhouse today.

The notion that every country in the world can be industrialized is a economical ideal that is only valid in the development economics textbook. It sounds perfectly logically as undeveloped nations can play catch-up with the excessive capital from the developed nations which looks after investment opportunity. It is not too difficult to develop some low value adding industries like textiles or garments but upgrading to medium or high value adding industries are extremely difficult due to capital and technological constraints.

The only country outside China that has industrialized post WWII is South Korea, which was built on extensive assistance program from US and took them 4 decades to achieve the status. Other countries that tried to industrialize fully simply failed, trapped into so called middle income trap, for example Thailand and Malaysia.

First of all, multiple country in the world were industrialised since WW2. Most of Middle East (Syria, Jordan and Israel) and most Northern and Southern African nation (Egypt, South Africa and so on) were industrialised since WW2.

Again, the same problem you have before happened here, you tightly defined being industrialised is basically doing what China did during 80s to 2000s, if that is the yardstick, then country like US weren't industrialised as US never enjoy cheap labour and extensive market when they industrialised back in 1800s.

You need to broaden your scope of industrialisation.