Sounds like a reasonable definition of progress.
Maybe monopolies refine innovations?
AT&T: telecommunications company that employed Dennis Ritchie and Brian Kerninghan to figure out software to play chess. Dudes created C language and UNIX OS in the process.
Which low margin cash-strived company will do extravagant stuff like that for kicks?
The only argument that comes to mind is that it would create a disincentive against the drive towards monopoly that Theil apparently claims is beneficial. However, that seems to be something like the kind of the world we are in now.
I'm not sure there are any clear solutions to this problem - balancing incentive and the avoidance of corruption is just hard.
Much more than that, actually. From Wikipedia:
Researchers working at Bell Labs are credited with the development of radio astronomy, the transistor, the laser, the charge-coupled device (CCD), information theory, the UNIX operating system, the C programming language, S programming language and the C++ programming language. Eight Nobel Prizes have been awarded for work completed at Bell Laboratories.
An analogous argument can be made that war is good because DARPA funds research. We don't need war to have government sponsored research.
Because these occurred in one location under the umbrella of single entity doesn't make them better than if they were singular accomplishments by hundreds of organizations.
“Monopolies drive progress. The promise of years or even decades of monopoly profits provides a powerful incentive to innovate.” http://www.technologyreview.com/review/531491/the-contrarian...