Imagine waking up in a great empire, living a life your great-grandfather could only dream of. The cities glow and material wealth abounds, you’ve reaped the rewards of being part of the world’s industrial superpower. But something feels different. You see glimpses of the future, not first hand, but in snapshots captured from far across the ocean. There’s a rising power on the horizon, one that has already surpassed you in the industries you once ruled.

You’ve rationalized the shift, attributing it to the fact that those industries are highly competitive and low margin. But now, even with new technologies, they are taking the lead. People are growing anxious about their unstoppable growth. The narrative has shifted—they move faster, produce more, and do it cheaper. They’ve developed overwhelming supplies of critical natural resources and are aggressive, willing to undercut prices to take market share. Endlessly inventive, they constantly tweak, improve, and push their technology further. Their people? Driven, hardworking, efficient. They don’t stop, and they’re being rewarded for it.

Their new roads, railways, and ports are built at breakneck speed, moving people and goods cheaper and faster. Their government has moved forcefully, with vision and ambition. You can feel the shift. It’s in the air. Society is divided over what must be done.

If you’re listening in 2024, you might think this description is about China. But instead, it’s about Britain in 1901, and the rapidly rising power was the United States of America. Ultimately, by World War II, Britain relied heavily on the United States to produce war material to fend off the German assault. Without American industrial capacity, Britain would be no more. As an American, seeing the present day parallels to this previous shift is unsettling. Was this transition an inevitability? Can a transition be halted? I’ve been devouring old books, newspaper clippings and diaries from this period to divine lessons from the past…

At the dawn of the 20th century, the United States emerged as the world’s preeminent manufacturing nation, a position long held by Great Britain for over a century. This dramatic shift in industrial power wasn’t merely a result of America’s vast natural resources or growing population. It came through a combination of cultural attitudes, economic policies, and both technological innovation and appropriation.

The story of America’s industrial rise begins with its natural endowments. Natural resources were one reason the colonies and society were developed. While early explorers came in search of gold, settlers found much more: beavers, fish, timber, then lands to grow tobacco and cotton, followed by iron and coal in great quantities.

As industries developed, and production transitioned from artisanal to industrial scale, the material resource advantage pressed further. At the turn of the 20th century, British Shipping Magnate Sir Christopher Furness observed, “The American has an incalculable advantage in the shape of raw material in boundless profusion; of copper, iron ore, timber, sugar, coal, resin, etc. — all of the best quality obtainable at a low cost; and above all, of food in unlimited supplies.”¹ This abundance of resources provided the raw materials necessary for industrial growth on an unprecedented scale.

Listen to my audio production of Sir Christopher Furness’s 1901 book “The American Invasion”

Sir Christopher Furness – "The American Invasion" (1901) – The Toolkit

"The American Invasion" (1901) By Sir Christopher Furness An unabridged audiobook production of the short book written by shipping tycoon Sir Christopher Furness. This book captures the anxiety of early 20th-century Britain as it faced the rising economic power of the United States. Furness provides a firsthand account of the American industrial giant's rapid expansion, technological innovations, and the looming threat it posed to British industries. With insights drawn from his personal experiences and speeches, Furness explores America's industrial advantages, such as abundant natural resources, large-scale infrastructure projects, and a culture of innovation, while also reflecting on how Britain could maintain its global leadership. Forward by me, Justin Fortier. Links to come.

However, resources alone do not build an industrial powerhouse. Many countries let theirs languish. Or, they leave themselves at the mercy of other nations with the capability to extract, refine and transform them into valuable goods. To make use of those resources, you need to give people the agency to exploit them and those people need to have the mental faculty to do so. In this way, the American approach to education and business played a crucial role.

Speaking to fellow wealthy British industrialists, Furness mused in order “To avail ourselves of every possible improvement it is not only requisite that workmen should be educated, but it is, in my opinion, indispensable that a more practical education should be given those occupying higher places.”² Furness criticized the British emphasis on classical education, arguing that while “These classics, although of great value in preparing the mind and polishing the intellect, will not enable him to cope with the difficulties of the ever-varying phases of manufacture and trade.”³ This diverging approach to education reverberated in broader cultural attitudes.

The rise of American industry can be likened to the analogy of pirates versus a navy (much like LinkedIn Founder Reid Hoffman describes the differences between startups and established companies)¹⁸. If established British industries were the navy – well-organized, traditional, conservatively rigid and risk-averse – then the emerging American industrialists were the pirates – aggressive, risk-taking, and unconstrained by manners or convention.

This pirate mentality was evident in the American approach to acquiring industrial technology. “Trade Secrets” reveals, “The transfer of protected European technology was a prominent feature of the economic, political and diplomatic life of the North American confederation from its first moments as an independent political entity.”⁴ This transfer of technology was not always achieved through legitimate means. In fact, “Smuggling technology from Europe and claiming the privileges of invention was quite common and most of the political and intellectual elite of the revolutionary and early national generation were directly or indirectly involved in technology piracy.”⁴

State and federal governments often supported these efforts, either explicitly or tacitly. As “The Origins of American Industrial Success” notes, “Efforts by individuals, associations, and states to import European technology altered the economic landscape of North America. State governments awarded monopolies, granted bounties, exempted from taxation, and handed out cash gifts to attract skilled artisans to settle in their midst.”⁶ Many of these effective tactics are the same as those deployed by China from 1980 to present day.

While the pirate-like acquisition of technology was crucial, it was America’s ability to develop massive quantities of low-cost raw materials that truly set it apart. The production of pig iron, a key indicator of industrial capacity, grew exponentially in the United States. From a mere 121,223 tons in 1860, it skyrocketed to approximately 16,000,000 tons by 1901.⁷

This dramatic increase in raw material production was not just about quantity, but also about cost-efficiency. American industrialists developed innovative methods to extract and process these materials at scales and speeds previously unimaginable. As Furness observed, “I was much struck with the wonderfully planned and organized facilities for handling material: as, for example, at one works they have arrangements by which steamers of six to seven thousand tons are loaded or discharged in a few hours.”⁸ Aggressive investment in lowering the cost and increasing the abundance of the inputs to manufactured goods creates the foundation for innovation.

“Amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics.” To grow an industrial society you need the rapid movement of people and goods. Following a visit to the US, Furness observed, “I was very much struck with the extraordinary electrical tramway system, which has reached a high state of perfection as regards speed accommodation and the conveyance of passengers.”⁹ Coupled with the heavy rail for transport of oil, coal, iron and the like, the Americans developed a substantial advantage. Moving goods across great distances faster than the British could move goods across their small country.

It would be a mistake to characterize America’s industrial rise as merely the result of copying European technology. Had I read some of these texts earlier, I would have appreciated the widely repeated critique that ‘China is only good at copying, not innovating’ as misleading. Copying is an effective way of short-cutting the learning process. As an example, Ben Franklin advocated for the method of “copy work” (copying great writing by hand) as one of the best ways for learning how to write. If you copy enough, you develop the capacity for creating something new when the opportunity presents itself.

Even more important than having the skills to exploit an opportunity is being open to change in the first place. The fear of change is paralyzing. In the long-term it is petrifying. But doing things in the same way does not allow for rapid growth.

As “The Origins of American Industrial Success” points out, “The absence of artisanal guilds committed to earning their livelihoods from known and tried techniques allowed New World innovators to reject wholesale adoption of imported machinery and processes and opt for selective adaptation and tinkering.”¹⁰ As Furness observed, “The Americans display great ingenuity with tools. They have developed extraordinary cleverness in adapting them to save labour and secure accuracy.”¹¹ This drive for efficiency and improvement permeated all levels of American industry. There also was a ruthlessness. While Britain struggled with labor disputes and rigid class structures, American industrialists, according to Furness, were more pragmatic: “He allows no patriarchal feeling to cloud his judgment. Where a more efficient workman is obtainable, he is procured, and room is found by displacing the less active and intelligent.”¹⁵

The quest for efficiency is not about always selecting the cheapest option today. The American business mindset was markedly different from the British. The American “grasps the fact that immediate expenditure may result in an ultimate saving of cost; in other words, he realises that only the strongest industrially can survive.”¹⁴ At the time, many British industrialists were in the second generation of ownership and beyond. The profits of today become more enticing than the potential for future growth. This leaves opportunity for those willing to delay gratification.

As American manufacturing grew, most British dismissed American products as lower quality. Many were. But, there is a power in quantity. I am reminded of the parable of a pottery teacher:

“There was once a pottery teacher. One month, he decided to split his class into two groups. Group A had to make a pot every day for 30 days (so 30 pots in total). Group B had to work on a single pot for the whole 30 days, instructed to make it the best pot possible.

At the end of the month, he judged the quality of the pots. Without exception, every one of the top 10 pots came from Group A, the guys that made one pot per day. None came from the group that focused on perfecting their single pot.”

The same happened at an industrial scale. While Europe had an early lead in automobile production, the focus remained at the high-end of the market with artisanal production, choosing to serve the rich. Totally opposite to this approach was the view of Henry Ford, who wanted to make a car for the “great multitudes.” Resultingly, “The United States was unquestionably the world’s technological leader in automobile production during the 1920s. At the same time, American producers had enormous cost advantages over competitors in raw materials, especially steel.”¹⁷

Ultimately, America’s industrial rise transformed not just the nation itself, but the entire global economic landscape. It shifted the center of industrial innovation from Europe to North America and set the stage for America’s emergence as a global superpower in the 20th century.

America took the industrial lead by exploiting abundant natural resources, embracing innovation, and aggressively acquiring technology—legitimately or not. Its education system prepared people for practical skills, while businesses prioritized efficiency over tradition. State support, combined with relentless private infrastructure development, created unmatched manufacturing scale. American industrialists were ruthless, driving down costs and increasing output through constant improvement and a willingness to take risks.

China has taken a similar path. They’ve mastered scale, speed, and incremental innovation, much like America once did. While there are some key differences like China’s abundance of labor vs. early America’s shortage and form of government, there are certainly common recipes for growth.

Success breeds complacency. Complacency is the amnesia of what it took to become great. I do not share stories from the past as songs of lamentation, but of invigoration. Reviving to inspire of what can be.

Footnotes & Full Quotes

1. Furness, Christopher. The American Invasion. London: Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent & Co., Ltd., 1902. “The American has an incalculable advantage in the shape of raw material in boundless profusion; of copper, iron ore, timber, sugar, coal, resin, etc.—all of the best quality obtainable at a low cost; and above all, of food in unlimited supplies.”
2. Furness, Christopher. The American Invasion. London: Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent & Co., Ltd., 1902. “To avail ourselves of every possible improvement it is not only requisite that workmen should be educated, but it is, in my opinion, indispensable that a more practical education should be given those occupying higher places. Although the workmen in many instances invent new tools or discover a method of economising both labour and material, it is the employer who must decide upon the purchase. It is his province to discriminate and gauge such matters at their real value. To do this, technical knowledge is required and if he lacks the necessary education, or if, instead of applying himself to the practical side of production, he devotes an undue portion of his time during his youth to the elaborate study of the classics, he is handicapped in the world of commerce.”
3. Furness, Christopher. The American Invasion. London: Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent & Co., Ltd., 1902. “These classics, although of great value in preparing the mind and polishing the intellect, will not enable him to cope with the difficulties of the ever-varying phases of manufacture and trade. The eloquence
4. Ben-Atar, Doron S. Trade Secrets: Intellectual Piracy and the Origins of American Industrial Power. Yale University Press, 2004. “The transfer of protected European technology was a prominent feature of the economic, political and diplomatic life of the North American confederation from its first moments as an independent political entity.”
5. Ben-Atar, Doron S. Trade Secrets: Intellectual Piracy and the Origins of American Industrial Power. Yale University Press, 2004. “Smuggling technology from Europe and claiming the privileges of invention was quite common and most of the political and intellectual elite of the revolutionary and early national generation were directly or indirectly involved in technology piracy.”
6. Wright, Gavin. “The Origins of American Industrial Success, 1879-1940.” The American Economic Review, Vol. 80, No. 4 (Sep., 1990), pp. 651-668. “Efforts by individuals, associations, and states to import European technology altered the economic landscape of North America. State governments awarded monopolies, granted bounties, exempted from taxation, and handed out cash gifts to attract skilled artisans to settle in their midst.”
7. Furness, Christopher. The American Invasion. London: Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent & Co., Ltd., 1902. “The production of American pig-iron in tons is as follows: In 1860, 121,223 tons; in 1870, 1,665,179 tons; in 1880, 3,835,191 tons; in 1890, 9,202,703 tons; in 1900, 13,789,242 tons; and in 1901 approximately 16,000,000 tons.”
8. Furness, Christopher. The American Invasion. London: Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent & Co., Ltd., 1902. “I was much struck with the wonderfully planned and organised facilities for handling material: as, for example, at one works they have arrangements by which steamers of six to seven thousand tons are loaded or discharged in a few hours.”
9. Furness, Christopher. The American Invasion. London: Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent & Co., Ltd., 1902. “I was very much struck with the extraordinary electrical tramway system, which has reached a high state of perfection as regards speed accommodation and the conveyance of passengers.”
10. Wright, Gavin. “The Origins of American Industrial Success, 1879-1940.” The American Economic Review, Vol. 80, No. 4 (Sep., 1990), pp. 651-668. “The absence of artisanal guilds committed to earning their livelihoods from known and tried techniques allowed New World innovators to reject wholesale adoption of imported machinery and processes and opt for selective adaptation and tinkering.”
11. Furness, Christopher. The American Invasion. London: Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent & Co., Ltd., 1902. “The Americans display great ingenuity with tools. They have developed extraordinary cleverness in adapting them to save labour and secure accuracy.”
12. Furness, Christopher. The American Invasion. London: Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent & Co., Ltd., 1902. “To avail ourselves of every possible improvement it is not only requisite that workmen should be educated, but it is, in my opinion, indispensable that a more practical education should be given those occupying higher places. Although the workmen in many instances invent new tools or discover a method of economising both labour and material, it is the employer who must decide upon the purchase. It is his province to discriminate and gauge such matters at their real value. To do this, technical knowledge is required and if he lacks the necessary education, or if, instead of applying himself to the practical side of production, he devotes an undue portion of his time during his youth to the elaborate study of the classics, he is handicapped in the world of commerce.”
13. Furness, Christopher. The American Invasion. London: Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent & Co., Ltd., 1902. “These classics, although of great value in preparing the mind and polishing the intellect, will not enable him to cope with the difficulties of the ever-varying phases of manufacture and trade. The eloquence of Demosthenes may have affected Philip, but it would not have perfected the Davy lamp.”
14. Furness, Christopher. The American Invasion. London: Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent & Co., Ltd., 1902. “He grasps the fact that immediate expenditure may result in an ultimate saving of cost; in other words, he realises that only the strongest industrially can survive; that the best and most modernly equipped works, managed by the most enlightened and scientific intelligence, must lead in the commercial struggle of the race for supremacy.”
15. Furness, Christopher. The American Invasion. London: Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent & Co., Ltd., 1902. “He allows no patriarchal feeling to cloud his judgment. Where a more efficient workman is obtainable, he is procured, and room is found by displacing the less active and intelligent. He gladly and willingly pays good wages for good services (and whilst recognizing a minimum wage, he insists upon a minimum amount of work) and gives a premium for extra labour and efficiency.”
16. Wright, Gavin. “The Origins of American Industrial Success, 1879-1940.” The American Economic Review, Vol. 80, No. 4 (Sep., 1990), pp. 651-668. “By the time the Crystal Palace exhibition opened in 1851 European observers recognized that it was the Americans who were now leading the world in technological innovation.”
17. Wright, Gavin. “The Origins of American Industrial Success, 1879-1940.” The American Economic Review, Vol. 80, No. 4 (Sep., 1990), pp. 651-668. “The United States was unquestionably the world’s technological leader in automobile production during the 1920s. At the same time, American producers had enormous cost advantages over competitors in raw materials, especially steel.”
18. Reid Hoffman of Greylock discusses this in his book called Masters of Scale