Comment by woodruffw
> I know, imagining things is hard. But that's not much evidence either way.
Imagining is easy; "hard to imagine" is an English idiom for "that seems implausible" :-)
You're providing examples that counter the impact of government innovation, but it's unclear to me whether these are true counterexamples. The history for IBM, for example, is almost entirely intertwined with IBM's role as a defense contractor. Zuse's second computer (the Z2) was funded directly by the German government, presumably because it aligned with Nazi military interests.
(As a whole, these things are impossible to extricate: it's clear that the government doesn't create every possible idea, and there are an infinite number of innovations that can't be assigned back to government sponsorship. But I think there's general academic consensus that computing, aerospace, and biotech all progressed at rates beyond their equivalent private sector capacity due to government investment, and that the resulting progress was "worth it" in terms of returned economic and social value.)
Yes, that's why I talked about Zuse's earlier work. And IBM also had plenty of private business (and would have had more).
> But I think there's general academic consensus that computing, aerospace, and biotech all progressed at rates beyond their equivalent private sector capacity due to government investment, and that the resulting progress was "worth it" in terms of returned economic and social value.
It depends on your counterfactual. If government had taxed the same funds, but spent it on something else, yes, we would have had less progress in these specific sectors.
If they had taxed and intervened less, perhaps we would have had more?
And, of course, we picked these sectors out after the fact. There's plenty more examples of failed government investments.