Speaking generally, people seem to have unrealistic expectations about human institutions. Name a large one that isn't bureaucratic, that doesn't have inefficiencies of large organizations, and where its priority isn't loyalty to the institution itself (though Congress, consisting of elected people nationwide, might be an exception to that).
Not all institutions are the same; some are better than others and we shouldn't just accept problems and corruption. But why do people keep believing big talkers who say they're going to magically eliminate all those things and make it run like a hyper-efficient 5-person business?
IMHO, much of it is people looking to get elected by looking for problems and things to complain about, rather than looking how to get things done.
Without time to examine it in detail (I've got to run), I'd hypothesize that most of what's important in the world is accomplished and has been accomplished by large institutions.
In "American Amnesia" (1) Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson argue that post WWII, the mixed economy of private business / free markets doing what it does best, in conjunction with the government investing in education, science, technology, and infrastructure (which all benefit private sector), while providing a safety net, resulted in prosperity.
The trend since Reagan / Thatcher years (neoliberalism) and anti-government free market fundamentalism threatens this constructive partnership where private sector and government were both rivals and partners.
On the one side you have "starving the beast" (think Grover Norquist, Tax Pledge), defunding critical programs to the point of dysfunction. Does it surprise anyone that the IRS is underfunded by Congress to pursue tax evaders, as Congressman are lobbied to keep loopholes open?
Another calamity is NASA's Earth Sciences, the part that studies Earth itself (climate change, etc).
On the other side of the isle, the dems have failed to make government /efficient/ and a visible positive force in the daily lives of average people.
I have heard variations of this argument many times, but it isn't clear how this represents US history since WW II. By any measure (% of GDP, etc). government spending is much larger than it was in the post WWII era. By any measure, government regulations and control over the economy is much larger than it ever was in the post WW II era.
>...On the one side you have "starving the beast" (think Grover Norquist, Tax Pledge), defunding critical programs to the point of dysfunction.
What has changed since after the WW II era, is that the spending on the safety net is many times larger than it was earlier. Even with overall spending going up, this has resulted in less spending on federal R&D, infrastructure, NASA, etc.
Offhand, I don't know of any economist or politician who has said they believe in "free market fundamentalism" - as such I don't think the term is useful as it just becomes a label used to poison the well and prevent meaningful discussion.
TL;DR: The foundation for the SV was laid by the US government in WWII. Only on that basis did private enterprise build the industry.
From today's point of view, WWII saw today unimaginable spending - huge waste! - by the government. On research, research, more research and infrastructure, and more infrastructure, and even more research. Imagine even half the amount they spent back then announced today (in today's dollars). The cries about government overreach and waste and "oh my god the debt!" would shake the North American continent down to 5 km below the surface.
Government also developed or funded: The Internet, fracking, most academic research ... and the educations of everybody reading this, to at least some extent.
What's amazing is that we actually have to remind people of this. Every large, powerful, cohesive society in history has had a centralized state of some sort. Societies that don't tend to get conquered by armies ranging from bandits to systematic invaders, or to get balkanized into wasteful little feudal domains.
>I'd hypothesize that most of what's important in the world is accomplished and has been accomplished by large institutions.
Teams of people are good at solving problems that individuals could not do by themselves, nothing new there. On the flip side of this hypothesis, the most grievous acts have also been committed by teams of people.
Accountability and transparency are the important factors here.
Not all institutions are the same; some are better than others and we shouldn't just accept problems and corruption. But why do people keep believing big talkers who say they're going to magically eliminate all those things and make it run like a hyper-efficient 5-person business?
IMHO, much of it is people looking to get elected by looking for problems and things to complain about, rather than looking how to get things done.
Without time to examine it in detail (I've got to run), I'd hypothesize that most of what's important in the world is accomplished and has been accomplished by large institutions.