IMO, the failure in the US here is the fact that money can no longer flow towards innovation because far too much of it is trapped in the hands of a very small

IMO, the failure in the US here is the fact that money can no longer flow towards innovation because far too much of it is trapped in the hands of a very small elite that are fearful of taking _real_ risk. Freeing up those cash flows, some of which would flow into government (which can take huge risks that the free market simply can't, since the profit motive doesn't exist: example: educating _everyone_), and also would put more money into the hands of recent college graduates, who are definitely more in touch with the current technological trends of the day than I am with my 20 yo comp sci degree, and probably more so than those who have captured the vast majority of wealth and power and are now just sitting on it, or use it to prevent advancements in society, energy, and scientific endeavors. The inertia that this has created frustrates me deeply. Of course there is value to a broad liberal education that includes STEM, philosophy and art. That should be obvious. The fact that our economic system cannot reward the great effort that people go through to get them is a failure of the economic system, not of the education system (edit: there is plenty to condemn in the education system, for instance the cost, and the fact that many college degrees are only job preparation programs now, and the general free market/business take over of education). The "employers" are at fault. Until we can release the stagnation of monetary flows in the US, we are going to have these issues. Unfortunately, based on the current state of regulation, I imagine that the monetary flows that are most likely to occur will be the allowance of those already wealthy to take their money elsewhere. Reading Foreign Policy magazine has made me aware of what it will mean to live in a waning US, and this is obviously a symptom.