Technological innovation has long triggered diametrically opposed reactions — awe of new possibilities for some; for others, fear of disruptive change. However, most people do not even realize what is happening as change is taken for granted.
Human ingenuity is far too little recognized or appreciated, particularly in financial markets. Investors obsess about more pedestrian concerns — fears about a hard landing in China, the repercussions of falling crude oil prices and the risk that some shock could tip a fragile world economy into renewed recession or deflation.
Obviously, worries about international demand conditions are not unfounded — surely the last thing the world economy needs now is renewed stress. However, for all the angst about excessive debt and policy inadequacy, nothing is as important as human ingenuity for delivering improved living standards and investment opportunities. Indeed, the advent of new technologies holds out the promise of a “fourth industrial revolution,” the theme of this year’s World Economic Forum meeting in Davos.
The “first industrial revolution” was based on the steam engine. James Watt’s invention, introduced about 1775, powered the nineteenth-century expansion of industry from its origins in England to Europe and the US. The “second industrial revolution,” from the last third of the nineteenth century to the outbreak of World War I, was powered by developments in electricity, transportation, chemicals, steel and especially in mass production and consumption. Industrialization spread even further — to Japan after the Meiji Restoration and deep into Russia, which was booming at the outset of World War I. The “third industrial revolution” arrived at the end of the last century with the manufacture and diffusion of information technology.
The promise of a fourth industrial revolution consists in advances in robotics, the Internet of Things, big data, mobile telephony, and 3D printing. According to one estimate, the successful adoption of these new technologies could boost international productivity by as much as the personal computer and the Internet did during the late 1990s. For investors, the fourth revolution offers opportunities for vast profits, similar to those delivered by its predecessors. Already, early movers in fourth-generation technologies command eye-popping valuations.
New eras of rising investment, productivity and living standards are not just possible; they are probable, recurring with increasing frequency — and they are the result of human ingenuity. However, new eras require more than basic science or garage-based entrepreneurial wizardry. To be transformative, technology must be adopted and diffused into everyday life.
This is easier said than done. At the very outset of industrialization, Watt struggled financially and did not successfully commercialize his steam engine until he formed a partnership with the English manufacturer Matthew Boulton.
More important, history suggests that enthusiasm can run ahead of reality. One does not have to be a “productivity pessimist” — arguing, for example, that the indoor toilet was the last great human invention — to acknowledge that many new technologies deliver less than promised or reward investors only with long lags.
It is worth remembering that early steam power predated Boulton and Watt by nearly 100 years and that it took more than 50 years for their invention to overtake conventional water-mill power as the mainstay of 19th century industrial production. Volta first discovered electricity cells in 1800, but it took another 80 years to introduce direct current as a means of power transmission.
Likewise, the Electronic Numerical Integrator and Computer (ENIAC) — the first electronic computer — was developed in secret during World War II. Computing power and usage grew exponentially over the ensuing decades of the twentieth century; but even as late as the 1980s, Nobel Prize in Economics laureate Robert Solow could quip that the computer age was “everywhere but in the productivity statistics.”
For investors, this consideration holds important implications — among them, the need to be patient and to resist the temptation to overpay early.
It is also important to understand how technology can transform seemingly unrelated industries. The advent of computing power enabled “big box” retailers in the US — Walmart, Staples, Home Depot, and others — to supplant both mom-and-pop stores and the established retail chains of the 1950s and 1960s. Computational power, together with advances in the logistics of transportation, storage, and delivery, enabled retailing on hitherto unimaginable economies of scale.
However, these same big-box giants are now under siege from online retailing, which promises even greater economies of scale and logistical efficiencies, undercutting even the most efficient brick-and-mortar operations.
New ways of producing things often kill off old industries and jobs before the full benefits of the successor mode of production are realized. A certain degree of violence inevitably accompanies human progress.
That is why the executives gathering in Davos this month are discussing how to “master” the Fourth Industrial Revolution. For all the awe-inspiring promises of technological advance, theirs is an apt concern.
Larry Hatheway is chief economist at GAM Holding.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath