[Godel_unicode]

You don't think what you get for your money is important in a discussion of economic advancement? It sounds like you decided on an answer, then went looking for a question which fits it.

> We could have had smartphones and anti-retrovirals AND affordable education/housing/healthcare/job prospects.

How can you possibly know that's true? Where are these example economies that have US-level innovation but also has the wealth distribution you crave.

[coldtea]

>You don't think what you get for your money is important in a discussion of economic advancement?

No, I think technical progress is not important in a discussion of economic advancement. The economy can go up and down, but technical progress only goes forward (spare some catastrophe).

Even in the Great Depression or WWII, technology advanced just fine.

>How can you possibly know that's true? Where are these example economies that have US-level innovation but also has the wealth distribution you crave.

US had US-level innovation AND that "wealth distribution I crave" in the 50s-70s.

[tsimionescu]

Well, an example would be the US in the 50s,60s and 70s.