4 ms·
I'd argue that you'd have to come up with a VERY suspect definition of "progress" to make that stick. Especially as almost all the major innovation in that time
by abritinthebay 9y ago
I'd argue that you'd have to come up with a VERY suspect definition of "progress" to make that stick. Especially as almost all the major innovation in that time started with tech developed from public funding.
NASA, DARPA, and CERN would like a word with you.
Also most of the private sector innovation was due to public funding and tax code incentives (Bell Labs, Xerox PARC, etc).
So basically technology, science, medicine, and social programs must either not count as progress for your hypothesis to hold... or it's bunk.
- Jabanga 9y agoProgress as defined by gains in per capita GDP, median wages, and life expectancy. And the public sector growth that I view as harmful is growth in social welfare programs and regulations restricting business activity. >Especially as almost all the major innovation in that time started with tech developed from public funding. Quite a bold statement..
- abritinthebay 9y agoBold? Not really. Basically your idea of progress is “pure unrestrained corporatism” which is pretty horrific. Thank god your reality doesn’t exist - we’ve seen what happens when it gets closer to that and the human cost is disgustingly high. Progress my ass.