You have likely heard the phrase “Greed is good”. It is from the movie Wall Street.
The full quote is actually “The point is, ladies and gentlemen, that greed -- for lack of a better word -- is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms -- greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge -- has marked the upward surge of mankind.”
The point of the movie producer was to show the destructive attitude within the corporate world. Others have suggested that the quote is aligned with theories on how the free market (through things like Adam Smith’s invisible hand) and how it makes society better.
I was struck when I found that the quote includes the phrase “for lack of a better word”. It opens up the opportunity for the reader to insert their own nuance – and take what they want from the quote. Especially when linked to life, love and knowledge.
For this article, “greed” is going to mean a desire to make the most of what is available. And we will talk about how a capitalistic system based on this greed could be good for engineers.
If capitalism were to be good for engineers, then how would it be so?
Capitalism should allow for anyone with a good idea (and the sense of greed to make the most of it) to start a venture based on that idea. Therefore, capitalism should mean that there are many places for an engineer to work – offering a chance to find exactly the kind of role they want or pursue a change when they want.
This would be measured via the number of startups (ideas being commercialised) and the economic complexity index (indicating the number of different places an engineer could work).
Which countries top these lists?
The three countries with the highest economic complexity index are: Singapore, Switzerland, and Japan. Countries with the largest number of startups (deep tech – because that’s what you and I are interested in) are: the United States, China, and the United Kingdom. Per capita, the countries with the most startups are: Israel, Estonia, and Switzerland. These are countries that one would expect to offer more opportunities for engineers. Certainly, these seem like countries that have engineering activity. And most seem capitalistic. Although China is officially communist – it has been leaning into capitalistic practices in some ways of late.
So capitalism can be good for engineers – offering a diversity of opportunities, and a more satisfying career.
But it is based on the notion of doing what the customer wants, which might not be good for them in the long run, to remain profitable and competitive. And that in turn means looking for every opportunity to squeeze as much out of the resources available so that the customer sees the offering as the best value for money out of all the options on offer.
Therefore, an engineer who has come from a company (or industry or country) that has flourished in a competitive and capitalistic environment, would likely look for more input on what the market (end user, client, customer) wants. This is especially so when working on a larger, less defined, but well-funded project (like those associated with publicly funded research activities and public works). They could tend to create other constraints through goal analysis (where an engineer looks for more opportunities to improve the outcome for the end user) and then satisfy those as well. These efforts, while well-intentioned, are likely to be wasted effort – because there is no competitive advantage to be gained when there is no competition.
So if you are a global engineer moving from a competitive industry to one that is more regulated, then accept that it might very well be that what you initially think is helping the company could be just wasted time. And, if you are employing an engineer from a competitive industry into one that has different drivers, then think about what you can do to help them better understand the changing requirements and where they should now put their efforts. In short, tame that greed!

In this article I am going to write about instances when, thanks to communist governments, engineers were able to achieve remarkable things, enjoy ample employment of opportunities on exciting projects, and contribute to the general pool of engineering knowledge.
The reason for this is to explore how engineering success, at times, can be a result of external factors more than engineering talent. Further, it will help you understand how factors such as politics, economics and national nuances can influence engineering expectations and practices. This will help you in two ways. First, it will help you better understand the inherent tendencies of engineers from other regions who you might work with. Second, it will help you better adapt to new workplaces with different degrees of public ownership and influence.
So let’s start this off by considering some of the engineering-related success from communist places.

• High-Speed Rail Network in China: A network stretching over 45,000 kilometres.
• Moscow Canal in the U.S.S.R.: Linked the Moscow River to the upper Volga River, providing water and turning Moscow into a functional deep-water port.
• Hong Kong–Zhuhai–Macau Bridge: A system of bridges and undersea tunnels spanning 55 kilometres across the Pearl River Delta.
• Shenzhen–Zhongshan Link in China: A 24-kilometer combination of bridges, artificial islands, and underwater tunnels connecting major hubs in the Greater Bay Area.
• Obninsk Nuclear Power Plant in the U.S.S.R.: Launched the world’s first grid-connected nuclear power station in June 1954.
• The FAST Telescope (Five-hundred-meter Aperture Spherical Radio Telescope) in China: The world’s largest single-dish radio telescope, built into a natural basin in Guizhou province.
• Sputnik from the U.S.S.R.: The first artificial satellite.
• JUNO (Jiangmen Underground Neutrino Observatory) in China: A massive underground neutrino detector housed in a giant acrylic sphere submerged in high-purity liquid.
• The Vostok 1 spacecraft from the U.S.S.R.: Took the first person, Yuri Gagarin, into space.
• The EV industry in China: accounts for 75% of the world’s production and was developed after a state directive in 2009 (17 years ago)

The first thing that is clear about this list is that all items are from the U.S.S.R. and China. There would be other examples, but I have, in that list, stuck with those countries that are most obvious as being communist to the average reader.
What strikes me about the above, and maybe you too, is that each item is more impressive when you consider the economics of the broader population. China has a GDP per capita that is about one sixth that of most developed western countries (factoring in purchasing power, it is about one third to one half). In its time, the U.S.S.R. experienced similar relative levels of wealth.
It is hard to imagine how in other countries with similar levels of wealth such projects could succeed.
Therefore, if you were an engineer in such a country, especially if you gained employment in one of these projects, then you would be glad of the government’s actions. And you might think that communism is good for engineers.
So how is communism good for engineers?
Communism essentially has a command economy. Ideas and businesses do not succeed because there is a market that is prepared to pay for them – the demand economy. Instead, it all comes down to the government demanding what will be done. If the government decides that a space program is needed, then a space agency is set up and engineers are put to work making rockets. If the government decides it wants a high-speed rail line from one end of the country to another, then engineers are now laying tracks, building trains and building power infrastructure. There is no need to wait or hope for the fickle market to demand what you can do – it simply happens.
That can be the attraction engineers have to communism at times.
What this means for the global engineer.
If you spent many years working in a command economy, then you might find you need to put effort into remaining mindful of commercial demands and realities if you work in a capitalist economy. And the opposite can be true if you move in the other direction – you might waste your time thinking about commercial realities instead of just getting the project done.
There can also be benefits.
Someone from a communist economy has potentially built a lot of knowledge in a field because it was so well funded that they could keep working in it. Funding that would not be available when a company needs to worry about income, expenses and profits in a capitalist context. Also, someone from a capitalist background could be ideal to ensure that the end users are better considered, for a more useful and beneficial outcome, than would someone who has become accustomed to only worrying about the broader goals laid out by the government – The Tu-144 (the Soviet equivalent of the Concorde), with its reliability issues, high cabin noise, and environmental concerns, comes to mind.
So, is communism good for engineering? It certainly sems it can be at times. A command economy can direct resources toward large technical goals in a way that free markets often would not, and that can give engineers remarkable opportunities. Regardless of what economy you are in though, as a global engineer, consider how that economy could affect:

1. the expertise you can develop (or have developed), and
2. your tendency to factor in broader commercial effects

relative to those working in a different economy. This will help you appreciate your own skills, opportunities to develop further, and make transitions from one region to another much smoother.

​Why was it that the Europeans (and even the Soviets sort of) had supersonic flight, but Americans did not? Did it perhaps all come down to the engineers and their ability? In this article I will consider such questions in more detail so we can better understand how various factors affect your engineering and your chances of success when taking on big challenges.

Some background
Depending upon the newspaper you read, you might have seen this recent article in The Telegraph about the history of the Boeing 2707: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/comment/boeing-2707-america-lost-concorde. The Boeing 2707 is described in the article as “America’s lost Concorde”. Interesting words; how was it lost; circumstance; incompetence; tragedy; or is it about the loss of an engineering race? It leaves the reader wondering just how it is that America never had its own commercial supersonic aircraft.

The article argues that the Boeing 2707 did not succeed because of the following:

1. The Europeans got a headstart
2. The American design was too ambition carrying more passengers and being optimised for slower flight as well with swing-wings
3. Fickle political support
4. Potential for public backlash because of noise
5. Market realities – like those that saw the end of the Concorde

A global engineering lens
Would we reach the same conclusions if we look at this as global engineers? And, could we learn lessons from this consideration?

In my book, I cite another book (The Origins of Turbojet Revolution by Professor Edward Constant II) that compares the efforts to progress aeronautics in both Europe and America. Professor Constant noted that a lot of engineering in the U.S. was guided by commercial realities associated with longer flights (think New York to Los Angeles) carrying more people. This means larger planes with more comfort. In Europe, the focus was purer, and on fast efficient flights.

This offers potential insights into why the American design was too ambitious. There was still the notion of carrying a large number of people, which is congruent with large scale commercial operations. The swing-wing would increase efficiency during the slower portions of a flight – the beginning and the end. This is only significant for shorter flights such as domestic ones (that’s why they worried about people complaining about noise). Thus, it seems Boeing was making the 2707 a domestic and international plane – and thus increasing the potential for sales.

The Concorde on the other hand would get out of one country and stay at top speed until it reached its destination far away – disturbing no-one in between – a purest approach for a very specific (and small) market. Not very capitalistic at all.

Based on the above, we could argue that points 2 and 4 were ultimately more about culture overriding engineering decisions.

Points 1 and 3 can be combined. Indeed, the Europeans had a headstart, but so did the Soviets in the Space Race. The U.S. could have caught up and surpassed if they really wanted to. But there was no perceived national security threat as there was in the Space Race. So political support, being both delayed and then reduced, likely played a role.

And considering point 5, the U.S. government was probably overly spooked to support commercial supersonic flight in the first place, and wise to reduce support later on. Assuming it was all about direct commercial gain and there was no interest in the value of spin off technologies.

Lessons for engineers
Culture can cause you to create an engineering design brief that is not well aligned with the laws of physics. This can sometimes be through your commercial attitudes. Make sure you are realistic about your commercial goals and that they are aligned with engineering realities.
​
And if they are not aligned, then accept that you will need something like government support to succeed. Failure is not a result of engineering skill – or lack thereof. Although it might be a result of engineers not challenging culture with sound engineering principles. You need, at times, to combine engineering and commercial reasoning to find the right direction forward – which might mean ceasing efforts.

So will America have a supersonic commercial airliner?
The Boom Overture, scheduled for release in 2029, has tried scale models already. It shows similarities with the Concorde – delta wings and fewer passengers. And the company seems to be focused on offering a speedier alternative to business class flights along long flights – showing a combination of commercial thinking with engineering thinking.

So yes, I do think there is a good chance that the U.S. will indeed have a supersonic commercial airliner.

But what do you think?

In this article I will talk about cultural shocks and how to handle them. But I am going to talk more about one that few expect. After reading it, you will be better able to manage transitions between roles and, if you are a manager, help other better manage the transition.
First of all, let’s consider some of the different things that can affect engineering practice and culture. The main ones are:

You can probably understand from the above how you could experience significant differences in how engineers go about engineering as you move from one country to another. Especially when those two countries have very different cultures.
However, when the differences are that large, we are often fore warned (and thus prepared) about those differences.
It is the cases where you expect there to be fewer differences that you are more likely to suffer. The cultural consultant and author The Culture Map, Erin Meyer noted that the case where there is the greatest failure in professional transfer is between the U.S. and the U.K. People assume that the cultures are sufficiently similar enough that they do not need to mind those differences – this complacency then causes issues.
In my experience and from my research though, there is an even greater (and less noticed) factor that can cause issues for engineers: typical budget sizes.
This can have a tremendous effect upon how engineers go about their jobs.

• Do you take larger risks on each step of a program so that you spend less on each step?
• Do you have the time and other resources to optimise every aspect?
• Should you be leveraging of the shelf components and system or using custom designs and services?
• Do you conduct hand calculations or do you utilise a dedicated simulation team?
• Do you rework parts or just scrap them and move on?
• Do you try to make it work with run of the mill materials or can you start trying exotic materials from the onset?
• Are independent test laboratories given the final system so only one test needs to be done, or do you send them a full system after you come up with each new feature?

These are just a handful of examples of the things that can be dependent upon how well funded your engineering project is. But, the list still shows how you could tend to take certain courses of action if you have become accustomed to a certain budget size in the engineering roles you have had in the past.
An example from some of my research.
This was some time ago when I spoke with engineers in the automotive industry. It was noticed that Australian and Chinese engineers were better able to work with each other than either could with American engineers. Why was this, given the greater cultural similarities between Australian and Americans? At that time, the Chinese automotive industry was not the juggernaut that it is today – few had heard of BYD, and Great Wall was only just starting to be associated with cars. Instead, it was an industry that ran on much tighter developmental budgets. Much like the Australian industry also was at that time. Today, while the Chinese industry has grown, the Australian industry is essentially dead – so obviously the trends were in opposite directions while at that time there was an intersection.
What does this mean for you?

1. If you are an engineer changing companies, then really focus on how this aspect of the new company is different (if at all) from what you are used to. Then, each time you are thinking about your strategy for an engineering endeavour, double check if you have made any erroneous assumptions based unconsciously on what you think the budget would be.
2. If you are a manager who has new people coming in, then a good way to help them become accustomed to the new company is to talk to them about how they progressed such projects in the past. Do this within the context of budgets so you can be explicit with them if things are different from what they are used to.
3. If you work across global teams, make budget assumptions explicit early. It prevents mismatched expectations and helps align design philosophy from day one.

Budgets can be more of an issue than cultural differences (or even a cause of those differences). Noting the above will help you be more of a global engineer and let better managing this rarely considered issue. ​

​The recent tariffs announced by the Trump administration—imposed on pretty much every other country in the world—have drawn a lot of criticism from economists.
And from other countries.
And from his domestic opponents.
But could things look different from an engineering perspective?
In this piece, I’m going to cover why economists are so opposed to tariffs—and then explore whether there might actually be an engineering opportunity we have not yet noticed.
​
Why Economists Hate Tariffs
Tariffs are supposed to protect local industries and jobs. Intuitively, that seems great—cut out foreign competition, and locals get to keep their jobs. Or, in Trump’s case, bring jobs back.
But in the current U.S. context, two things complicate that picture:

1. Low unemployment
2. A strong currency with high purchasing power

That means if jobs are going to be brought to the U.S., then companies need to do two difficult things:

1. Pay more than they would in another country, to match U.S. dollar purchasing power; and
2. Pay even more again to lure people away from the jobs they already have—because most Americans already are employed.

So any product made in the U.S. under this model comes at a higher cost. And those higher costs get passed on to customers.
And there is evidence of how tariffs do actually put prices up. But not in living memory for many. One of the few places where people in a developed economy can recall the effects of tariffs is Australia. In the 1970’s Australia was only just introducing colour T.V. But this was stifled by tariffs. The tariffs were there to protect the local radio and television manufacturing industry – but the effect was that a colour T.V. would cost around 9 weeks’ pay. Australians were not impressed, but they still wanted their colour T.V. Tariffs dropped from around 180% to 35% to 5%. A lot of industries were lost, but a lot of things became affordable. You can watch a 17 minute video on this topic below.

Adam Smith, almost the first of classical economics, argued over 200 years ago against tariffs — even retaliatory ones — because they only hurt your own citizens.
 
Can Engineering Offer an Alternative?
All of this assumes that the technology of production stays the same. That’s a key point. It’s essentially a zero-sum view.
But what if innovation could shift the game entirely?
In my book, I argue that engineers—when thinking about economics—should be Schumpeterian. Joseph Schumpeter believed that real economic growth doesn’t come from reshuffling jobs or trade balances. It comes from innovation. From finding ways to do more with less. That’s how societies get richer. Fewer people needed to make a car, a fridge, or a bag of doughnuts. More output per person.
But innovation doesn’t just happen. It needs a driver.
And unfortunately, fear has often been one of the most effective motivators.
Take WWII. It produced radar, jet engines, penicillin, and kickstarted the computing revolution. Or the space race—another fear-fueled scramble—gave us satellites, advanced materials, and a cascade of spin-off technologies we now take for granted.
Even in peacetime, we’ve seen what can happen under pressure. During COVID, I was part of a project that turned an empty office space into a factory. And thousands of ventilators were built in a matter of months.
So here's the question: what if the fear of tariffs and economic stagnation could be channeled into a national innovation push? Could the U.S. become dramatically more productive—not by avoiding the cost of labour, but by needing less of it?
 
Why Hasn’t This Happened Already?
We have the tools. Automation, AI, robotics—these technologies exist. As an engineer, you’ve probably noticed just how much day-to-day human labour could already be automated. Diagnosing illnesses. Servicing vehicles. Even preparing food.
So why haven’t we gone all-in?
Two reasons, I think:

1. Economists tend to default to comparative advantage
   They prefer frameworks where countries do what they’re “best” at. That often leads to outsourcing and doesn’t put much value on building new capabilities.
2. It’s just plain hard to imagine an economy without people
   Let’s be honest. The idea of a society where most of us are no longer “needed” economically is both utopian and hard to believe. I must confess, I struggle to envision how it would work.

 
The Trump Thought Experiment
But imagine the benefits if Trump rallied resources to develop this kind of innovation to make as many people as possible redundant. There would be ample people to take on these jobs he wishes to bring into the U.S. And, what’s more, there would be a huge increase in the amount of production per person. The wealth increase would be phenomenal. This would then set an example for the rest of the globe. And all would then enjoy an increase in wealth when they did the same thing.
But that would require two things:

1. Fear
2. Imagination

Not a common combination.

What’s the takeaway?
The above does seem fanciful. Like I said, I can’t imagine an economy free of people. I think it would make for an excellent challenge for economists though. But still, it helps us think about just how much we could improve things if we really focused on seriously on eliminating the need for us.
And who knows, there are times when history takes a turn no-one saw coming