Hi @SkruszonyBankster and welcome to Pynk!
Thank you! Book recommendations make me happy. (adding them to my to-read list)
I find that your input is valuable. I side with you when asserting that hegemony status relies on well-functioning institutions that foster innovation and creative destruction. Focusing on the latter, I think that the embodiment of creative destruction is not solely dependent on the ability of a nation to create the appropriate environment (from regulatory or financial pov), but also to provide the means for it to scale.
Going down this rabbit hole, I think the issue of scalability comes down to three factors: access to education, economic stability and an investment perspective embracing long-term horizons and a healthy amount of risk appetite.
In economic theory, creative destruction is described as an evolutionary process that rewards innovation and punishes less efficient ways of allocating resources. Truth be told, this as such is great because it leads to an overall higher standard of living. The question is whether the (prospective) workforce has the necessary skill set to support innovation at the desired pace.
For example, if fields are disrupted, people are laid off. If this group of people is not retrained, their chance of working in the field they were trained in drops. Furthermore, if the pool of newly ‘minted’ graduates misses the skill set that emerging industries desire, the accelerated pace of growth would be proportionally lower.
To put it into perspective, the costs of higher education in America are prohibitive in most cases. Not enough efforts are being made to democratise access to high-quality education both in terms of affordability and the number of students universities can educate at any one time. I think that enabling creative destruction comes down to the availability of highly educated people. For instance, China sees about double the number of graduates that the US registers annually. Similarly, about half of Chinese graduates (4.7 million) are STEM graduates, whilst the US lags behind at about 570,000 each year.
Going a bit off-topic, I see many UK funds seizing opportunities in the Asia Pacific region. Be it as a result of the regional pace of growth, young population or lack of legacy infrastructure, I believe that global power in the region is set for exponential growth for decades to come. This ultimately leads to consistent value creation for China and the region in a world where complicated supply chains become undesirable.
(Pynk ought to seize investment opportunities in the region. )