Florida offers compelling evidence that the 1930s were the most innovative decade of the 20th century. Many new business practices were invented at this time. And this is when Hewlett Packard got going, and with it, what later came to be called "Silicon Valley".
The 1930s were also, at the same time, the worst economic disaster in the history of the USA. So an era can be both disastrous and very innovative. Those are not opposites. To say (as Steve Blank does) that we are at the beginning of an entrepreneurial revolution is inspiring. But he should be able to see that we can have both an entrepreneurial revolution and an economic disaster. Both are possible at the time.
This can be shown with a very simple graph. I will post that later.
I offer this as a simple model to show how a country can be both extremely innovative, yet also face dramatic long-term economic decline.
The graphs show the real picture. You don't need to look at the numbers.
You wouldn't know it from the current political dialog, but deficit budgets aren't uncommon.
The most common way to get rid of them isn't to raise taxes or print money - instead it's to grow the economy(!) The increased tax base leads to increased tax receipts which pays the deficit.
(This isn't an argument for cutting tax, though - especially the way most tax cuts are structured at the moment. They are - IMHO - stupid policy on both economic and social grounds)