Trickle Up Economics - It's Not a Joke

I thought of the phrase  "trickle up economics" at least as far back last June, when I wrote about it in More on my sad state PLUS Trickle up Economics.  Others have thought of it before me, but only now do I see the phrase used much in public debate, as we hear it from the "Occupy Wall Street" and its associated movements.  I have no idea if that movement will do any good.  I do notice the right is having a field day scaring people with "Class Warfare" talk.

But as Warren Buffet said “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”  The remark was noted in 2006 by Ben Stein, who in many ways seems far-right, but here he was favorably recalling a conversation with Buffet about guess what?  The fact that he pays so much less tax percentage-wise than his secretaries and other staff (apparently Buffet has been on this subject for at least 5 years)  And here is Stein providing a fact-check on the claim that lower taxes are sure to bring in more revenue by stimulating the economy:

This is supposedly proved by the history of tax receipts since my friend George W. Bush became president.

In fact, the federal government collected roughly $1.004 trillion in income taxes from individuals in fiscal 2000, the last full year of President Bill Clinton’s merry rule. It fell to a low of $794 billion in 2003 after Mr. Bush’s tax cuts (but not, you understand, because of them, his supporters like to say).

But enough on the "fair share" argument.  I want to talk about examples of the ultra-upper-class relaxing some of their tight grip on wealth improved the lives of the poorer classes, and how that "trickled up" to the ultra-upper-class in the form of tremendous improvements in their quality of life.

Once upon a time, Barons and such were vastly richer than the common people who were illiterate and lived in squalid huts.  But these Barons still had to live in drafty stone castles, and be subject to the black plague and the most awful lingering diseases of old age that started at around age 40.  Also, due to the scarcity (and indivisibility) of privileged positions, they tended to get murdered by their peers.  They could certainly not eat strawberries in the winter or fly to warmer climates.

Why do today's richest .01% live so much better lives?  Why can they live in climate controlled houses bigger and more comfortable than the old castles?  Why do they enjoy all the exotic and wonderful food of the world, fly all over the world, suffer so little from disease; enjoy life to the age of 80 and older, with new hips and knees when they need them?  It is because over the last several centuries, the nations of the world (sometimes to the dismay of their 18th, 19th and 20th century counterparts) found ways to educate most; perhaps the vast majority of people, not just the rich few who could have multiple tutors.  And the nations invested in public works, and public transportation, and finally in the 19th and 20th centuries, limits were placed on the working hours of the laboring classes which allowed the creative and energetic to better themselves.  All of this involved the nation spending for the common good

What's that got to do with improving lives of Barons? Some of the former peasants with the help of literacy became printers producing more books than had ever been seen before.  With the Industrial Revolution, some of them rose to be manufacturers, inventing new mechanisms for efficiency and far better transportation.

Also, quite recently, in the U.S. in particular the GI bill and highly subsidized state colleges helped make the technological explosion of the last few decades possible, which has benefited everyone's quality of life, including the lives of the richest .01% -- probably benefited them far beyond what they gave up in taxes.

Around 1970, I went to college in my home town and paid $150 tuition (state subsidized) for a semester.  Now their tuition is over $4,000.

It takes a huge educated middle class to create the world that we in the most developed countries live today.

That is trickle up economics.  I hope to see the day when thousands of right wing think tanks and movement and pseudo-movements stop waging war to bring about a government that can be "drowned in the bathtub", and allowing the advantages of the rich to snowball and snowball (by the way Snowball is the title of a book by Warren Buffet) until they are in a totally different world from the rest of us.  I believe broad based prosperity (not the widening gap between rich and poor of the last several decades) is in everyone's interest, and think there has to be some way this will penetrate even the minds of most of the inhabitants of Richistan, and their political allies.

How Consensus is Shaped by Pivotal Events and How Consensus Defines What is Possible

The consensus view of reality generated in earlier times by the much maligned mainstream media, or MMMSM (esp. in the days of the big three television networks) had massive flaws and deficiencies, but at least they never stampeded Americans into the sort of madness that German culture and institutions underwent during the 1930s, which lead to World War II.

I'm afraid this faint praise may represent an achievement far more difficult and fragile than we would imagine or wish.  My impression is that most of us had a "good enough to get by" sense of who or what institutions to trust, more or less, and our institutions were structured such that trusting them would not lead to civilization's collapse.

Very recently, I learned something new about the structure of the institution which would become the Nazi Goebbels' propaganda ministry, which shaped the worldviews of true believers prior to 1933, and soon after that, shaped the worldviews of the German people as a whole.  According to Prof. Thomas Childers, in his course of lectures on tape, Europe and Western Civilization in the Modern Age, at Goebbels' direction, the Nazis went to taverns and beer halls and got people to talk about what issues they were angry about, in order to fine tune the Nazi message.  Goebbels said "That propaganda is good which leads to success, and that is bad which fails to achieve the desired result .. It is not propaganda’s task to be intelligent, its task is to lead to success."  The ideas the Nazis put in their speeches and newspapers were mostly about Germany's humiliation, the idea that the whole world was out to get Germany, the sense of humiliation and outrage of ordinary Germans, including their being looked down on by elites, and unemployment and the like.  Even when in power, some early attempts to go after the Jews had to be rolled back until the German people were better conditioned.  It was not until 1938, 5 years after Hitler became Chancellor that the Nazi government launched Kristallnacht, which was the real beginning of  a relentless centralized policy of persecution (after years of centrally encouraged thuggish persecution).

[To be continued]

Elizabeth Warren, George Will, Social Contracts, and Paying it Forward

Elizabeth Warren's unplanned YouTube appearance ("nobody in this country ... got rich on their own" and "you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along") has gotten George Will, the Von Mises Institute, (I seem to get 17,900 hits googling "Elizabeth Warren" + site:mises.org -- your mileage may vary), and the right from coast to coast quite steamed up.  It looks as if they think they've found a "teachable moment".

George Will draws on a William F. Buckley quip ("a pyromaniac in a field of straw men"), and says she "refutes propositions no one asserts", then refutes a proposition that Warren never asserted: "that the collectivity (Warren’s 'the rest of us') is entitled to take as much as it pleases of the results of the striving".  Much of this is pure spin - some creepy thing called "the collectivity" vs the "rest of us", but there is one clear-cut and bold distortion: "entitled to take as much as it pleases"? Where does that come from?

Amartya Sen, in The Idea of Justice breaks with the idea of the social contract (mentioned elsewhere by Warren), which, according to Sen, anchors our ideas of justice to some grand view of the ideal state and/or society in which contradictory impulses must be rigorously resolved. By "grand view" I do not especially mean one of "big government", but one rigorously based on some theory (whether of of "big government" or government which "gets out of the way").

Will seems to view any concept of "fairness" as incompatible with freedom to create and exchange.

Often, there are two or more values that would appeal to most people's common sense, but there are always situations where one value can only be favored at the expense of the other.  In this situation, people who want everything to be governed by a simple and absolute set of axioms (from Ayn Rand and von Mises to Karl Marx) have embrace one value and treat the other as nonexistent or wicked.

Anyone but a highly doctrinaire socialist can see value in the empowerment of individuals to produce and exchange freely, and not to have possessions taken away arbitrarily.

On the other hand, I think that anyone whose mind has not been closed would see a great deal of arbitrary injustice in the world, and feel some urgency about addressing the most exceptional cases.  Such closed mindedness can have many origins:

• rigid ideology,
• excessive fear that "the path to Hell is paved with good intentions" (Good intentions frequently don't lead to Hell, and sometimes the path to Hell is paved by obviously bad intentions, like those of Adolf Hitler)
• fear of putting ones foot on the "slippery slope".
• the natural human tendency (often cleverly manipulated) to dismiss people unlike us as not really human.
• the tendency to think "there must be a good reason for it", often assisted by clever rationalizations (e.g. Malthusianism, Social Darwinism, and much religious thought).

Suppose you are walking along a path by a river, and on your left you spot a man a couple of dozen feet off shore, drowning, and to your right, on someone else's lawn, a length of rope, and no owner in sight.  Do you grab the rope and throw one end to the man?  Or do you say "no, I can never commandeer someone else's property that way, because that is the slippery slope to socialism and the Gulag.  I think common sense dictates the former.  On the other hand, if you happened to be carrying a gun to assert your support for the second amendment, and a gang of kids was passing by watching the man drowning and laughing (and no rope) would you point your gun at them, and say "You have to help me save that man", and threaten to shoot them unless they formed a human chain in the water to reach out and grab him?  Probably not.

What I am saying is, without even imagining the grand social contract that everyone ought to agree to for making the world as just as possible, you can see cases of unwarranted suffering and dying where common sense and common humanity demand you take some action.  I have used the provocative word demand in an emotional sense, meaning to express some disapproval of a person who passed by the drowning man and the rope and did nothing, not that I imagine some ideal world in which that person would be punished as a criminal.

There are so many exceptional cases of people suffering and dying through little or no fault of their own (and yes, the man in the river might have done something stupid to get there), and I think it is wrongheaded and foolish not to vote for (because I believe in democracy, not Big Brother) some actions to help the very unlucky, whether they are born in a desperately poor country, or are children with poor, uncaring, or foolish parents.

Property is a wonderful thing, but it is not a god to be worshiped, as some people do, in my opinion.  Like it or not, the reason we can call something "our property", is due to social agreement and to enforcement by a democratic state, and a secure and respectful society which makes it possible to create and exchange, and largely keep what is acquired in that manner.  But there is some cost of maintenance of the government and civil society that makes this possible.

Education can assist the children of the poor (through no fault of their own, that is, of the children) to prosper and take part in a flourishing economy.  But we all ("liberals" especially), get carried away with patting ourselves on the back and thinking that the things we believe in are virtuous.

Education of our own and other people's children (and for some of us, only other people's children) is also our insurance for not growing old in an ignorant and uncivilized world.  Some of us should be wondering if we bought too little insurance, or paid too little attention to its nature and effectiveness.  At one time, everyone was solely responsible for the people who would take care of them as they grew older.  When this is the case, people will have many children to give themselves better odds.  All in all, I don't think it worked very well, and I think some system (which could certainly differ in many ways from the present one) for keeping up the quality (moral and practical) of the children we will have to live with as adults in 10-20 years is a completely practical thing.  But if it was completely voluntary, and I could choose whether or not to contribute (and obviously very little would be effected strictly by my choice), we might well, through millions of individual choices, give up on the idea.

There is a very good case, with which I at least 90% agree with, for setting up a world where the hardworking productive adult has more than the lazy or those who want to produce something nobody wants.  But what a child deserves is not a function of the quality of their parents.  And unless we want to practice enforced eugenics (which I don't and almost nobody does today), we will have to live in a world where the children of the very poor get only as much education (moral and practical) as we are willing and able to provide. 

Failing this, we might at worst get a society where no amount of money can pay for "good help" (so much for insuring ourselves by saving gold).  Or we may have to keep millions of badly raised and educated adults in prison (We might wish them away -- execution was at one time so much cheaper than having a prison system, but it always had its problems, and now, with so many safeguards in the form of appeals, I think it is the most expensive kind of punishment).

Desperately Seeking Radical Centeredness - Intro

FROM THE SECOND COMING by William Butler Yeats

    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
          ...
    The best lack all conviction, while the worst
    Are full of passionate intensity.

                                         --or?--

   "Extremism in the name of liberty is no vice."  --Barry Goldwater


"Dissing" the center is an old game.  To many people it seems to be about lacking conviction, "flip-flopping", going with the flow, "triangulation", etc.  There is that kind of centrism.  But there can also be a resolute stand, on a given issue or set of issues, that the right answer isn't all of one thing or all of another -- that no simple set of axioms will tell us just what to do about everything; that maybe only by painstakingly studying the results of our actions will we over time discover what works best.

Then again, maybe there is a right set of principals, but we don't know what they are, and won't for a very long time.  The tenacity of people's desire to understand and get mastery is a marvel.  For thousands of years people tried to understand the body and how to correct its problems.  In all that time, there were some people looked to as medical experts.  Yet until 1-200 years ago, they had next to no really useful, applicable knowledge.

All the same, we had to have a theory, so for a long time we had the theory of humours, four bodily fluids whose imbalance caused illness.  One of the few things we could do about the balance of these fluids was remove blood.  We certainly had no safe means to add it.  The other humours, black and yellow bile, and phlegm weren't so easily removed or added.  The practice was shaped to the available tools.  To the man with only a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail.  Maybe shibboleths like the liberal "Help the needy" (too often with a lack of creativity and empathy that dooms the "help" to failure) or today's Conservative/libertarian battle cry of "No new taxes!" could be usefully compared with the "medical" practice of bleeding.  There are, in fact, conditions that can be helped by reduction of the amount of blood, but far far fewer than doctors at one time imagined, when that was the only thing their theory could prescribe.

Maybe I'm for the center, and for conviction and passionate intensity.  But where do we find that?  My own reactions to political events and people has long lacked any clear explicit system.  Yet I think they are grounded -- mostly in diverse studies of history, and in study of what is reportedly going on in the world today.  Humans are very prone to close linking of belief systems with our identities, and identifying those who disagree with some kind of elemental evil.  All competent propagandists know what to do with this.  Our tendency to focus heavily on some theory or simple model of the world has often helped pave the way to mad tyrannies, such as Nazism or Communism.

When people speak of "conservatism", they nearly always mean a particular conservatism for a particular time.  But we could define a general (moderately) conservative position for any place and time by saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".  I.e. it is the sentiment that we have something that is working reasonably well, and we are afraid that radical (usually big-idea based) changes will make it worse.  And this sentiment is very often right.

What draws me to the idea of the political center? And what is it, or what could be made of it?  I have been thinking about this, and looking for books, people, articles, web sites, and the first thing that dawns on me is that different people draw very different pictures of it.  Conservatism and liberalism can come to mean (to most people who use them) positions almost opposite of what they once stood for, and centrism might be even harder to pin down.

So we can look at centrism as a general idea, or identify it as a set of positions that seem centrist in a given political situation, or with respect to the dominant party system at a particular point in time.

Just looking at centrism per se, and not the positions it seems to imply to one person or group at one place and time, what seems attractive about it (to me)?

• The personal quality of being "centered", is often viewed as positive, although on close examination, I think its meanings vary.
• It has a positive aspect if viewed as the opposite of being "out on a limb", though sometimes being "out on a limb" may be seen as bold, even heroic.

Like it or not, groups often have to find a more or less central position in order to accomplish anything in cooperation.  When a group becomes less prone to explor varied possibilities, and is pulled to an extreme position, it is often by a forceful or charismatic leader.

When legislators on different sides of an issue are close enough, or respectful enough of each others' points of view, debate and compromise can have at least two big positive effects:

• The person arguing an opposite point can uncover flaws in ones position and lead to its improvement.
• A majority based governing structure, with two closely matched (in strength), and rigid parties may project an inconsistent face to the world.  The U.S. has suffered from many radical oscillations between policy extremes, such as a policy of strength and force vs. one of engagement, and empathy with the grievances of other peoples.  These and other extreme oscillations and avoidance of the center have resulted in projects started by one party and dismantled by the other, costing much and achieving nothing.

Perhaps we can get some insight from informed speculation about how human nature took shape.  The environment of evolutionary adaptedness (EEA) is a biology concept useful for explaining peculiar actions of animals living in a different environment from that in which their traits evolved.  A very good example (though involving human-assisted evolution) is the Australian cattle dog, bred to drive herds of cattle by biting at their heels.  In a human social environment, if not very well trained, they will nip at the heels of guests, and be distressed and aggressive unless people stay in a compact group, which may make it hard for anyone to go to the bathroom.

Knowing this breed's EEA gives a trainer knowledge of what tendencies must be modified for them to be agreeable and safe companions.  What about people?

Human beings are adaptable like no other species, but in the last few hundred thousand years, in order to live off the natural produce of the land (being "hunter-gatherers") we know at least that they had to live in small scattered groups or "bands".  This based on observation of how remaining (or recently surviving) peoples living off the land actually live(d), and reasoning that larger settlements would take more territory to feed them, so that expeditions in search of food must go too far.

E.g. we often face threats to our dignity, position within an organization, or financial well being which are not at all physical, yet our bodies have a highly emotional "fight or flight" reaction which can cloud our thinking or endanger our health.  If we anticipate this, we may cope with it by meditating or going for a run for example to satisfy the desire to act in some physically vigorous way.

Are there social and emotional tendencies that helped human settlements, in our almost forgotten EEA keep roughtly to the "right" size? Looking at how we in fact tend to factionalize, could it be that an unconscious or barely conscious sense makes us irritable and less tolerant with one another as group size grows, and could it be that when the group dynamics, after a succession of messy and unpredictable results of this irritability and tendency to find fault, fall into a pattern that looks like a split down the middle, this feels right, the split occurred cleanly, and the two groups move apart.

Consider where we are today.  What would our system of responses recognize as "the group" (or band)?  In evolutionary time, the group consisted of basically everyone a member was very familiar with -- everyone we ever spoke to or heard speak, except on a few extraordinary occasions.  If that is how it works, then modern humans may constantly live with whatever sort of sense arose from a "too large" group whose tendency would be to somehow bring about a split.  Perhaps given our current situation, we experience that response all the time, possibly in the form of a nagging sense that it's time for a "split" and looking for a set of differences that would guide us in making the split.


Could this hypothetical "splitting" tendency help explain, along with our love of team sports, the very widespread pattern of societies with fairly well matched parties (that go on without much change for decades), accompanied by the strong sense (which I suspect is illusory) of this being a very fundamental and "real" division?

If my speculations are right, it is certainly not serving the purpose it evolved to meet.  For the split to produce two groups of more optimal size, it is way, way too late for that.  And the two groups can never move apart and forget about each other, but are perpetually stuck in the moment just before that split should occur.

To live in this world, which sprung up far too fast for evolution to follow it, I suggest it is useful to have some mantra like "We are less divided than we appear to be" or "Much of this apparent division is illusory".

I am strongly inclined to make "Desperately Seeking Radical Centeredness" an ongoing series within "Owning Our Democracy" or maybe eventually a separate blog.  I have been exploring the idea for a long time, and have discovered many promising resources to share.

What is "Owning Our Democracy" About?

Democracy appears to be in trouble. A lot of people agree, but can't agree on how it is in trouble, much less what to do about it.

Actually, many people have taken to proclaiming the U.S. is "a republic, not a democracy".   The line has been heavily pushed by Pat Buchanan and Glenn Beck, as well as libertarians.  Ron Paul, in an online essay, says "The Founding Fathers were concerned with liberty, not democracy".  This is particularly convenient with the current alignment of ideologies, and naming of parties.  Convenient, that is, for those who want to demonize the Democratic party and make if effectively disappear.

The "party of Jefferson", however, were for the first few decades referred to sometimes as "democrats", sometimes as "republicans", and sometimes as "democratic republicans".

Around the time that Andrew Jackson was elected, they seemed to settle on calling themselves Democrats, and they were distinctly the party of small government and states rights.

I'd like to set aside history for a moment, and just examine the terms used by Ron Paul, "democracy" and "freedom".  My impression is that most Americans would have little to say if asked to explain the difference between democracy and freedom, so they miss the tensions that sometimes exist between democracy and freedom, and also miss how they support each other.

Democracy means "people rule", and has come to mean some form of majority control over ... what?  If the people rule it, then it is something held in common.  And that is just what the Latin root of republic, res publica means.  In the 17th century, when much of the American founders' political thinking was formulated, it was anglicized to "commonwealth".  Perhaps res publica (public thing or public matter) suggests the possibility, at least, of rule by the best, or wisest men rather than universal democracy; it suggests the possibility of property requirements for voting, which many of the founders believed in.  But I don't see how republic has any more to do with liberty or freedom than democracy does.

Samuel Johnson asked

"How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?" (meaning, of course, slaves).

Edmund Burke said, more sympathetically of the slave-owning south

"Those who are free are by far the most proud and jealous of their freedom. [It] is to them ... a kind of rank and privilege ... In such a people, the hautiness of dominion combines with the spirit of freedom, fortifies it, and renders it invincible."

Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina quoted the Burke statement, framing it with these words:

"I will acknowledge the fatal effects of slavery upon character, if any one can say, that for noble disinterestedness, ardent love of country, exalted virtue, and a pure and holy devotion to liberty, the people of the Southern States have ever been surpassed by any in the world."

I.e. slave holders are the greatest defenders of liberty, according to Hayne, and to many other Southerners of his time (Quotes are from the Hayne-Webster debate; the relevant paragraph is HERE(LINK).)


Over the last few years, I have seen quite a few hints and suggestions from movement conservatives and libertarians that "too much democracy" is a threat to liberty (I apologize for having none of these references at my fingertips).

While that really can, in extreme cases, occur, it is also true that democracy is the only plausible guarantee of (universal) liberty, and (as I just illustrated) that a self-absorbed obsession with (ones own) liberty has often posed the gravest threat to (universal) liberty.  So, I would feel less anxious about the future of our country, if those who speak so often of liberty,  and how it is threatened by Democrats, would add the word universal in front of liberty.

One Point of View (Jefferson's) on "the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations"

Some borrowed citations from: http://fraughtwithperil.com/cholte/2010/03/14/the-american-corporate-monster-part-2-corporate-personhood-history/

Thomas Jefferson wrote in a 1816 letter to George Logan:[11]
““I hope we shall… crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”

“A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible,” Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in an 1819 case. “It possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it.”

Jefferson and Marshall were not friends, or in tune politically, and that seems to be reflected here.

What do you suppose Jefferson, or even the more pro-business Marshall have said about the need to protect the "Freedom of Speech" of corporations?

A Radical Center Manifesto (or A Quick and DIrty attempt at one)

The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities. But in all that people can individually do as well for themselves, Government ought not to interfere. Abraham Lincoln

This is a very very incomplete "manifesto".

Most violent revolutions are unmitigated disasters. They mostly don't occur unless people are in a desparate state, but the provide too much of an opportunity for very bad power hungry leaders to climb to power, often over mountains of dead bodies. Something like what has been called a "velvet revolution" can have lead to a sane well-governed nation, but what does it take to make something like that happen? A subject to discuss some other time.

"Economic shock therapy" also tends to have terrible results, as far as I can see. When people think they have to dismantle a more or less working statist economy overnight, the results will probably catastrophic to people's well being; it is apt to create an ultra-rich class of people who are not good at running the enterprises they suddenly own, and as with Russia, it may reverse progress in the areas of democracy and freedom.

While I believe in mixed economies, socialism is at best a very dangerous experiment as it involved giving ultimate power to some central apparatus and just saying its purpose it to serve the people won't make it so. Extremely concentrated power is an invitation to the Stalins and Maos of the world.

If private enterprises become bigger and more powerful than the state, they are very likely to in effect become the state.

I favor "right sized" government, which is somewhere between a government you can "drown in a bathtub", and a government with sufficent power to arbatrarily seize and distribute property en masse. You cannot have socialism without a government that is just too powerful. People with extreme views are spared the embarrassment of being asked questions like "What do you mean by too powerful?" which don't have all-purpose answers, but that is not nearly enough reason, in my opinion for me to join their ranks.

Sometimes, and maybe very often, government needs to have a lot of fat cut out but this could better be accomplished by a lot of people seriously getting involved with the specifics, taking seriously what government needs to accomplish, and yes, sometimes asking is it time for govenment to be taking this job on at all?

Sometimes, government needs to grow, or even take on new things.

• E.g. if you are fighting a war, you probably should be expanding the army, not hiring $1000/day contractors, and bleeding the reserves. If you're afraid of asking for money to expand military forces, you probably shouldn't be taking on that particular war.
• Evolving technologies are apt to have an affect on what government should and shouldn't be doing.
• E.g., in the first half of the 19th century, when some of the "founding fathers" were still guiding the government, the post office subsidized newspapers in the interest of having a better informed public. According to one source, they made up 95% of the weight of mail transported for 15% of the revenue. Most newspapers were one-man operations, and in place of a national reporting staff, they exchanged newspapers with printers in other parts of the country. Much of this exchange was carried free. Do you think that might have required some non-obvious interpreting of the constitution? But without the network of information provider/propagandists that that interpretation brought into being, voters in this country, where it took week for some congressment to get to Washington, would surely have been less well informed - perhaps fatally so (for the country).
  
• In the 1960s and later, the interstate highway system was built, and the speed of automobile travel was more than doubled. Also, many private turnpike operations were put out of business.
• The Internet was a product of DARPA (Research arm of the Defense Department), and various (mostly public) university computer programmers. The private sector gave us AOL and MSN.
• The highly regulated monopoly, AT&T was until sometime in the 70s or 80s, the only reasonable way of providing national telecommunications. Its size, and perhaps its not being driven by quarterly profits enabled it to keep up a massive research lab which developed the transister and the laser. Other electronics and telecommunication companies got most of their early business from aerospace, a largely government driven enterprise.

If we maintain that government should only provide national defense, and protection of some people from others -- all through threat and use of force, the government will tend to solve problems through the threat and use of force regardless of whether they could be better addressed through other means. This was well addressed in the international sphere in The Ugly American, which was written not by "bleeding heart liberals" but by down in the trenches cold warriors, and addressed how we were losing Southeast Asia to Communism in the 1950s. E.g. in a "Factual Epilogue",

The Communists are not so restricted in their approach. In Yunan Province, China, they have a vast schooling system for students from Southeast Asia. The students, roughly 30,000 strong, come from Indonesia, Burma, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, and the fringe areas of Vietnam. The term is eighteen months, and lectures are delivered in the native language of the student. Courses include agriculture, tanning, printing, blacksmithing, and other crafts which country people from small towns need. The students live in dormitories with their fellow countryment, and religious guidance is provided by clergymen of their own faith".