This analysis seems correct but somewhat misleading. Specifically, I think that when a technology is enabled by a change in economic conditions, it is often the case that the change in economic conditions was caused by a different technology. So, the ultimate limiting factor is still insight.
In particular, Gutenberg’s printing press doesn’t seem like a great example for the “insight is not the limiting factor” thesis. First, the Chinese had movable type earlier but it was not as efficient with the Chinese language because of the enormous number of characters, which is why it didn’t become more popular in China. Second, you say yourself that “printing presses with movable type followed a century later”. A century is still a lot of time! Third, coming back to what I said before, why did paper production only took off in Europe in the 1300s? As far as I understand, it was invented in China, from there it propagated to the Muslim word, and from there it reached Europe through Spain. So, for many centuries, the reason the Europeans didn’t use paper was lack of insight. Only when the knowledge that originated it China reached them did they catch on.
The invention of water-powered mills made producing paper much cheaper then it was previously and also resulted in better quality paper.
Previous low quality paper was less able to hold records for long timeframes without fading and when books are very expensive you want a book that you produce to be able to exist for hundreds of years.
It’s a classic case of disruptive innovation. Paper was lower quality and lower priced.
Here’s an alternative hypothesis for why the Chinese didn’t adopt the press, even after the introduction of paper. It also explains why the Chinese didn’t adopt wind/water mills, artillery, the slave trade, and ultimately automation: the cost of capital relative to labor was much higher in China than Europe. Across the board, we see much lower Chinese adoption of capital-intensive technology in favor of labor-intensive alternatives, even when the technical prerequisites were met centuries earlier.
It’s interesting that Gutenberg was running a company on a loan in a free city with 25 employees. It’s was a very modern of operating.
Stromers water-based paper mill near Nürnberg was also build near a free city. In both cases the businesses didn’t run in an area where the aristocracy had power.
I’ve been chewing on that one a lot. I don’t have a satisfying answer yet. The sheer size/density of the population is one hypothesis, and crop yields are another (rice vs wheat). But I don’t feel like I understand it yet.
This analysis seems correct but somewhat misleading. Specifically, I think that when a technology is enabled by a change in economic conditions, it is often the case that the change in economic conditions was caused by a different technology. So, the ultimate limiting factor is still insight.
In particular, Gutenberg’s printing press doesn’t seem like a great example for the “insight is not the limiting factor” thesis. First, the Chinese had movable type earlier but it was not as efficient with the Chinese language because of the enormous number of characters, which is why it didn’t become more popular in China. Second, you say yourself that “printing presses with movable type followed a century later”. A century is still a lot of time! Third, coming back to what I said before, why did paper production only took off in Europe in the 1300s? As far as I understand, it was invented in China, from there it propagated to the Muslim word, and from there it reached Europe through Spain. So, for many centuries, the reason the Europeans didn’t use paper was lack of insight. Only when the knowledge that originated it China reached them did they catch on.
The invention of water-powered mills made producing paper much cheaper then it was previously and also resulted in better quality paper.
Previous low quality paper was less able to hold records for long timeframes without fading and when books are very expensive you want a book that you produce to be able to exist for hundreds of years.
It’s a classic case of disruptive innovation. Paper was lower quality and lower priced.
Here’s an alternative hypothesis for why the Chinese didn’t adopt the press, even after the introduction of paper. It also explains why the Chinese didn’t adopt wind/water mills, artillery, the slave trade, and ultimately automation: the cost of capital relative to labor was much higher in China than Europe. Across the board, we see much lower Chinese adoption of capital-intensive technology in favor of labor-intensive alternatives, even when the technical prerequisites were met centuries earlier.
It’s interesting that Gutenberg was running a company on a loan in a free city with 25 employees. It’s was a very modern of operating.
Stromers water-based paper mill near Nürnberg was also build near a free city. In both cases the businesses didn’t run in an area where the aristocracy had power.
China didn’t have free cities.
Hmm, interesting. But why was the cost of capital relative to labor so high?
I’ve been chewing on that one a lot. I don’t have a satisfying answer yet. The sheer size/density of the population is one hypothesis, and crop yields are another (rice vs wheat). But I don’t feel like I understand it yet.