HI Billy, I agree with pretty much everything in this article, especially the last part:
> Consumers will have little difficulty adapting to the new age of better > products, swiftly delivered. Governments, however, may find it harder. Their > instinct is to protect industries and companies that already exist, not the > upstarts that would destroy them. They shower old factories with subsidies > and bully bosses who want to move production abroad. They spend billions > backing the new technologies which they, in their wisdom, think will prevail. > And they cling to a romantic belief that manufacturing is superior to > services, let alone finance. > > None of this makes sense. The lines between manufacturing and services are > blurring. Rolls-Royce no longer sells jet engines; it sells the hours that > each engine is actually thrusting an aeroplane through the sky. Governments > have always been lousy at picking winners, and they are likely to become more > so, as legions of entrepreneurs and tinkerers swap designs online, turn them > into products at home and market them globally from a garage. As the > revolution rages, governments should stick to the basics: better schools for > a skilled workforce, clear rules and a level playing field for enterprises of > all kinds. Leave the rest to the revolutionaries. > Also, they miss one more critical trend: manufacturing has gotten so cheap, many projects can be jump-started with "crowd funding" before (and in some cases instead of) traditional industrial capital: http://seekingalpha.com/article/470631-3-reasons-crowdfunding-is-good-for-investors No, not every product and company will use 3D printing and crowd funding. But enough will that it will dramatically reshape the market for those that don't. -- Ernie P. On Apr 23, 2012, at 10:35 AM, [email protected] wrote: > Not sure when writers will stop saying "Third Industrial Revolution." > This phrase has been used repeatedly since some time in the 1980s > to denote dramatic changes in the Capitalist system, such as the changeover > to information driven businesses. Regardless, a thought-provoking article > even if some of the assumptions the writer makes > are characteristically British. > > > Sir William of Eugene-on-Willamette > > ============================================== > > > The Economist > > The third industrial revolution > > The digitisation of manufacturing will transform the way goods are made—and > change the politics of jobs too > > Apr 21st 2012 > > > THE first industrial revolution began in Britain in the late 18th century, > with the mechanisation of the textile industry. Tasks previously done > laboriously by hand in hundreds of weavers’ cottages were brought together in > a single cotton mill, and the factory was born. The second industrial > revolution came in the early 20th century, when Henry Ford mastered the > moving assembly line and ushered in the age of mass production. The first two > industrial revolutions made people richer and more urban. Now a third > revolution is under way. Manufacturing is going digital. As this week’s > special report argues, this could change not just business, but much else > besides. > > A number of remarkable technologies are converging: clever software, novel > materials, more dexterous robots, new processes (notably three-dimensional > printing) and a whole range of web-based services. The factory of the past > was based on cranking out zillions of identical products: Ford famously said > that car-buyers could have any colour they liked, as long as it was black. > But the cost of producing much smaller batches of a wider variety, with each > product tailored precisely to each customer’s whims, is falling. The factory > of the future will focus on mass customisation—and may look more like those > weavers’ cottages than Ford’s assembly line. > > Towards a third dimension > > The old way of making things involved taking lots of parts and screwing or > welding them together. Now a product can be designed on a computer and > “printed” on a 3D printer, which creates a solid object by building up > successive layers of material. The digital design can be tweaked with a few > mouseclicks. The 3D printer can run unattended, and can make many things > which are too complex for a traditional factory to handle. In time, these > amazing machines may be able to make almost anything, anywhere—from your > garage to an African village. > > The applications of 3D printing are especially mind-boggling. Already, > hearing aids and high-tech parts of military jets are being printed in > customised shapes. The geography of supply chains will change. An engineer > working in the middle of a desert who finds he lacks a certain tool no longer > has to have it delivered from the nearest city. He can simply download the > design and print it. The days when projects ground to a halt for want of a > piece of kit, or when customers complained that they could no longer find > spare parts for things they had bought, will one day seem quaint. > > Other changes are nearly as momentous. New materials are lighter, stronger > and more durable than the old ones. Carbon fibre is replacing steel and > aluminium in products ranging from aeroplanes to mountain bikes. New > techniques let engineers shape objects at a tiny scale. Nanotechnology is > giving products enhanced features, such as bandages that help heal cuts, > engines that run more efficiently and crockery that cleans more easily. > Genetically engineered viruses are being developed to make items such as > batteries. And with the internet allowing ever more designers to collaborate > on new products, the barriers to entry are falling. Ford needed heaps of > capital to build his colossal River Rouge factory; his modern equivalent can > start with little besides a laptop and a hunger to invent. > > Like all revolutions, this one will be disruptive. Digital technology has > already rocked the media and retailing industries, just as cotton mills > crushed hand looms and the Model T put farriers out of work. Many people will > look at the factories of the future and shudder. They will not be full of > grimy machines manned by men in oily overalls. Many will be squeaky clean—and > almost deserted. Some carmakers already produce twice as many vehicles per > employee as they did only a decade or so ago. Most jobs will not be on the > factory floor but in the offices nearby, which will be full of designers, > engineers, IT specialists, logistics experts, marketing staff and other > professionals. The manufacturing jobs of the future will require more skills. > Many dull, repetitive tasks will become obsolete: you no longer need riveters > when a product has no rivets. > > The revolution will affect not only how things are made, but where. Factories > used to move to low-wage countries to curb labour costs. But labour costs are > growing less and less important: a $499 first-generation iPad included only > about $33 of manufacturing labour, of which the final assembly in China > accounted for just $8. Offshore production is increasingly moving back to > rich countries not because Chinese wages are rising, but because companies > now want to be closer to their customers so that they can respond more > quickly to changes in demand. And some products are so sophisticated that it > helps to have the people who design them and the people who make them in the > same place. The Boston Consulting Group reckons that in areas such as > transport, computers, fabricated metals and machinery, 10-30% of the goods > that America now imports from China could be made at home by 2020, boosting > American output by $20 billion-55 billion a year. > > The shock of the new > > Consumers will have little difficulty adapting to the new age of better > products, swiftly delivered. Governments, however, may find it harder. Their > instinct is to protect industries and companies that already exist, not the > upstarts that would destroy them. They shower old factories with subsidies > and bully bosses who want to move production abroad. They spend billions > backing the new technologies which they, in their wisdom, think will prevail. > And they cling to a romantic belief that manufacturing is superior to > services, let alone finance. > > None of this makes sense. The lines between manufacturing and services are > blurring. Rolls-Royce no longer sells jet engines; it sells the hours that > each engine is actually thrusting an aeroplane through the sky. Governments > have always been lousy at picking winners, and they are likely to become more > so, as legions of entrepreneurs and tinkerers swap designs online, turn them > into products at home and market them globally from a garage. As the > revolution rages, governments should stick to the basics: better schools for > a skilled workforce, clear rules and a level playing field for enterprises of > all kinds. Leave the rest to the revolutionaries. > > > -- > Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community > <[email protected]> > Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism > Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
