US Innovation?

One of the positive things I noticed, after immigrating to North America in 1978, is the positive effect of standardization. I also noticed the rarity of specialty shops, where you can find non-standard items. In spite of that, I believe that standards are generally a good thing, when done in a timely fashion by industry associations: drafted early, with options and variations, and promoted only after market adoption.

Standardization may have a positive effect on innovation, but it should not hinder progress. For example, governments should not finance what they consider innovation. Governments are unable to react in a timely way to changes in the market and changes in technology. Over regulation can also have a negative effect on innovation.

Front-wheel drive cars were introduced in Europe in the mid 1960s: I learned how to drive in a 1967 Lancia Fulvia, 1300 cc. However, front-wheel drive cars were introduced in the American non-luxury car market many years later (1979 to 1985).

The complete metric system was adopted by some Italian cities in the 16th century, was adopted by most other nations over a century ago, and was finally adopted by the remaining English speaking countries half a century ago, but it is not yet used in the US, apart from its currency, which started as metric in 1792.

The lack of adherence to metric standards isolates the US more than ever, and now the US is the last major nation using the Imperial system of measures (the others are Liberia and Myanmar).

This affects almost all measurements of distances, liquids, weights, speed, forces, pressures, etc. Even for precision measurements, many people still use fractional inches, decimal inches, and thousands of inches. Young people educated abroad, including Canadian and British nationals, do not understand what inches or gallons, or pounds, or PSI are. When dealing with imported materials, the supply chain for many US companies is also affected.

In 1967 Sweden was the last nation in continental Europe to change from driving on the left side of the road to driving on the right, but the UK never switched. Some changes become more expensive, as time goes by.

The US has been a leader in space technology and many other technologies by providing the opportunity and the capital for successful products, often with the lead and help of engineers educated in Europe. Wernher von Braun, Albert Einstein and Enrico Fermi are the best known examples, among many, of European scientists who moved to the US.

I am not suggesting that Europe leads in innovation. I am suggesting that the US could do much better, through individual initiative, more attention to basic education, and less government intervention.

Corradino D’ascanio, an Italian engineer and WW I aviator, started designing experimental helicopters in 1919, had a number of patents, and was successful with his third prototype (the D’AT3) with two coaxial blades in 1930. He then invented the scooter, working with Lambretta, and eventually the Vespa, working with Piaggio. Augusta helicopters, a major US company, is still owned by an Italian conglomerate.

Igor Sikorsky, a Russian designer of airplanes, moved his airplane company to the US in 1929. He then began developing helicopter prototypes. In 1940 he flew his first helicopter prototype (the VS300). He later became very successful in the US, with various helicopter models and company acquisitions.

Airbus, a European aerospace company, is developing a replacement for the International Space Station. It now has several manufacturing facilities in the US, including a helicopter manufacturing facility in Mississippi, and it is partnering with several US companies on space technology.

The US has the environment fostering innovation, but it could do better. Will it successfully compete with European companies developing drone taxis?

For your curiosity, the following are examples of European old innovations that are still uncommon in North America:

• The headlights of cars can illuminate the road in the direction where the driver wants to steer the car. A simple cable system for orienting car lights according to the steering action, was introduced by CITROEN in the 1960s!
• In the 1960s, CITROEN also introduced a shock absorbing system based on oil and compressed air (hydropneumatic suspensions), replacing steel springs, offering a more comfortable ride and other advantages. The system was used by several European car manufacturers, under license, including Maserati, BMW, Peugeot and Rolls Royce. It is now used in many vehicles, including tractors and tanks, but it is not used in American cars.
• In several European countries approximately two thirds of all cars run on natural gas or propane, but a network of natural gas and/or propane distributors was never implemented in the US.
• A bad storm in the US can cause up to a million energy interruptions across the nation. The current distribution network is continuously repaired, after each storm, but seldom replaced with underground cables. In addition, in Europe the standard voltage is 220V. In the US it is still 115V, requiring thicker, more expensive copper wires in all houses.
• While steel and concrete are used for commercial projects, most individual house structures are still built with wood, subject to many problems, including a short life span, risk of fire (e.g., Maui), and insect attacks. In many Mediterranean countries fire is not a hazard for houses, thus few people need house insurance. In addition, fire departments can focus on other types of accidents, saving taxpayers’ money.

Innovation cannot be imposed by governments. Currently the US is going through a long period of regression. Successive US governments have allowed the downgrading of US public education and pushed innovation in certain areas through grants and regulation, instead of fostering innovation through deregulation and free markets.

When governments select and “invest” other peoples’ money into a specific company, they do not promote innovation, because they bypass the wisdom of many individual consumer choices, who can quickly adapt to the circumstances. Such government interventions also make it very hard for other companies to compete in the same sector.

For example, small companies with good and innovative products may find themselves unable to introduce those products in the market and unable to compete against government-financed corporations in the same sector. Furthermore, they are forced, through higher taxes, to finance the government grant given to their competitors! This is bad for all: we miss the opportunity for innovative products, the government risks the peoples’ money, forces companies out of a sector, or possibly out of business. The government creates the illusion of new immediate jobs by paying for them, but in the longer term the jobs which would have been created by one or more successful companies do not materialize, while the companies selected by the bureaucracy often fail (e.g. Solyndra and Proterra).

This is particularly evident in the energy sector. Today’s government ideological priorities and mandates do not match consumers’ requirements, thus the price of energy, in all of its forms, continues to increase.

The situation in the US is further complicated by limitations, political or otherwise, of the supply chain. In many sectors, the US has abandoned and possibly forgotten the technology and the know how to produce basic items such as drugs, baby food, steel, cutlery, light bulbs, clothing, electronics, etc., and has lost more than half of its manufacturing output since 1960.

There is now an opportunity for the US to restore its energy sector, and to repatriate and revitalize its basic industries, without reducing access to those foreign products that people want and need. The US could also fix some of its supply chain obstructions, and this could be the right time for starting to teach and use the metric system.

US companies could invest more in R&D and long term revenue opportunities.

Consumers could do their part: Learn to be more aware, curious, selective and demanding. They can choose a good school for their children.

Perhaps due to peer pressure and massive advertising, people rush to buy the latest model of an established product (e.g., the latest iPhone), and do not research, or trust, what would enrich their life more, at a comparatively low cost. Have we lost our pride in individual decision and choices in life?

In conclusion, we can promote, but not impose, sensible standardization, we should avoid over-regulation, focus on good education in primary schools, and be more aware of useful and innovative products.