3 ms·

Well, if the government did have the spending that it did post-WWII, maybe some of those things could be done again. But either way, much of that innovation sp

by mpyne 12y ago

Well, if the government did have the spending that it did post-WWII, maybe some of those things could be done again. But either way, much of that innovation spanned decades, it wasn't as if it all happened between 1945-1949. It's true that you can't wave a magic "public sector" wand and simply repeat the results of the past, for the same reason that the almighty private sector can't simply produce innovations on demand by cargo-culting. But describing a "post WW2" USG as some kind of entity with tons of cash to waste for decades confuses the issue just as much, to say nothing of conflating wartime military spending with later R&D-style funding.

graeme 12y ago
I think OP might mean mobilization of people, not money. This is a vague memory from college, but one of the reasons the post-WWII occupation of Japan was so successful is that the army had mobilized all manner of skilled administrators who were professionals in private life: lawyers, accountants, members of the creative professions, whatever was required. The army had it all back then. The government had also had a VERY broad hand in controlling the economy during world war II. And at that time, results mattered. This part of my comment is a bit more speculative, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that the government may have been more effective in managing economic affairs in 1945-49. If anyone has actual sources about this, I'd be very interested. The government of that era gives off the impression of competence. Was it?
- Spooky23 12y ago
  It was. My dad worked in public housing in NYC in a bunch of roles into the 90s. At one point, he was part of team responsible for revising procedures for how to run the departments thousands of buildings, equipment and vehicles. I remember him saying that it was amazing to him that the guys who originally wrote these things back in the 1930s did an incredible job -- they got it right, even though nobody had ever run a system of building a large up until that time. Most of the updates they did were technology driven. Later, when the city started bringing in external consultants and political hacks, their ability to do anything declined dramatically -- to the point the department was driven to near bankruptcy in the 2000s. In "the olden times" a lot of these government programs were seen as a higher purpose that were moving society forward.

by mpyne 12y ago

graeme 12y ago

I think OP might mean mobilization of people, not money. This is a vague memory from college, but one of the reasons the post-WWII occupation of Japan was so successful is that the army had mobilized all manner of skilled administrators who were professionals in private life: lawyers, accountants, members of the creative professions, whatever was required. The army had it all back then. The government had also had a VERY broad hand in controlling the economy during world war II. And at that time, results mattered. This part of my comment is a bit more speculative, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that the government may have been more effective in managing economic affairs in 1945-49. If anyone has actual sources about this, I'd be very interested. The government of that era gives off the impression of competence. Was it?

Spooky23 12y ago
It was. My dad worked in public housing in NYC in a bunch of roles into the 90s. At one point, he was part of team responsible for revising procedures for how to run the departments thousands of buildings, equipment and vehicles. I remember him saying that it was amazing to him that the guys who originally wrote these things back in the 1930s did an incredible job -- they got it right, even though nobody had ever run a system of building a large up until that time. Most of the updates they did were technology driven. Later, when the city started bringing in external consultants and political hacks, their ability to do anything declined dramatically -- to the point the department was driven to near bankruptcy in the 2000s. In "the olden times" a lot of these government programs were seen as a higher purpose that were moving society forward.