>Probably it's wrong to be teasing; but
>what the history of technology clearly shows, and Nathan and Les just showed
>it again now, is not that, as Doug (wrongly) puts it, 'the US developed
>other people's ideas because they were too stupid, incompetent etc
>to do it themselves' (paraphrasing not much)
Paraphrasing very much. The story of British decline is a very interesting one, and I'm curious why this inventiveness bore so little industrial fruit. I know the story of the ascendance of financial over manufacturing interests and the failure of British firms to get big and professionally managed enough, but I was eager to hear more, either solid history or airy speculation.
One bit of US chauvinism I will confess to related to this thread: one reason British decline interests me is that I'm hoping to find precedents in it for US decline. A delusions-of-reference view of history maybe, but it's hardly the rah-rah school of chauvinism.
Doug