> US innovation is slowing compared to itself in the past somehow, that actually measures total results rather than government-funded inputs Schmidt might say

> US innovation is slowing compared to itself in the past somehow, that actually measures total results rather than government-funded inputs Schmidt might say you’re missing the point: government funded science is a leading indicator of future results because the government is the largest body investing in and sharing the results of basic, foundational, non-product research in the weirdest variety of subjects. Turn that off and you turn off the fountain from which innovations can be productized. https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/who-should-fund-science https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/who-should-fund... > [in 2017] the federal government funded less than half of all basic research in the country for the first time since World War II. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/03/trump-once-again-requests-deep-cuts-us-science-spending https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/03/trump-once-again-req... > [2019:] For the third year in a row, President Donald Trump’s administration has unveiled a budget request to Congress that calls for deep spending cuts at many federal science agencies, including a 13% cut for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and a 12% cut for the National Science Foundation (NSF) Cutting funding for the NSF is and will continue to decelerate the pace of innovation because the basic research is no longer being done.