Military spending has spawned huge amounts of both direct and indirect innovation. Aviation and the space program, the internet, scores of "trickle down" consumer electronics such as GPS, Popeye (created to sell a surplus of canned spinach after WWII!), the list goes on and on. Plus there's the education of large numbers of the population that would otherwise lack opportunity.
The doctrine of "small government and a strong military" is an oxymoron. Military spending is an extremely effective form of high tech government subsidy. Of course the downside of having a huge military is the temptation to use it inappropriately...
I think this has been covered by other posters and I can't add much to what they have already said.
I ask this because about every state nowadays has special departments and programs to promote hi-tech startups. But of course they are actually only flourishing in a small number of spots. I've worked with a few of these programs, and some are led by extremely talented and skilled administrators.
Right, because the initiatives I have in mind are national and, therefore, unlikely to have targeted local effects. You're talking about a separate issue, which is that it's very hard (impossible, in most cases) for a city to become a startup hub if it's not one.
Government intervention is not going to turn Dubuque, Iowa into a startup hub. There are too many ingredients necessary-- good universities, venture capital, entrepreneurial culture, good hackers, the ability to reach relevant customers, and reasons for a startup to stay there once it is successful. It would be possible to upgrade cities that have some or most of these ingredients (e.g. Pittsburgh or Minneapolis) to full-blown startup hubs, but most cities will never reach that level. However, the nearly impossible problem of turning Dubuque into a startup hub has nothing to do with that of increasing entrepreneurship on a national basis.
Seems to me, and it's just my opinion, but societies with lots of government-provided goodies actually have less startups.
I would imagine that you're talking about the European countries, but the government benefits have nearly nothing to do with the EU having fewer startups. Regulation and a less entrepreneurial culture take more of the blame.
USPS. Interstate Highways. Airports. Seaports. SEC, FDIC, FAA, NTSB, etc. The Internet.
Quit thinking so small - swimming pools, hi-tech office parks, is this all you can muster?
You need a mix of many factors in order to encourage tech startups, and startups can't "flourish everywhere" because many of those necessary ingredients are only found in half a dozen "star cities".
I'm not sure how to start tackling the logical fallacies in your response because there are so many.
Can you point to other situations where an advanced infrastructure created by government led to an increase in entrepreneurial activity?
I ask this because about every state nowadays has special departments and programs to promote hi-tech startups. But of course they are actually only flourishing in a small number of spots. I've worked with a few of these programs, and some are led by extremely talented and skilled administrators. And they're well funded. Is your premise that direct involvement like this will not work but that indirect involvement would? Kind of like putting out a fire by building a swimming pool?
Not trying to mock you or start an argument, but I don't understand how much indirect contributions can actually help. Seems to me, and it's just my opinion, but societies with lots of government-provided goodies actually have less startups. It's the ones where there's this balance between chaos and order where you get the most growth. Not ones with lots of danger or ones with lots of cushions.