Yes, the Soviet Union had many problems, but
>how did they apply these technologies to create products the market actually want
is essentially just asking "why were they communist and not capitalist?"
The Riemann hypothesis? That's research, not innovation. It's still valuable, but it's not innovation. (Is it as valuable as innovation? Arguably yes, but it's still not innovation.)
No, it's at best cherry picking and at worst terrible redefinition of innovation. Innovation is defined as "the action or process of innovating" [1] and innovating is defined as "make changes in something established, especially by introducing new methods, ideas, or products" [2].
So, while creating new products is innovating, innovating is not necessarily creating new products. In fact, I'd argue that without new methods and ideas, you wouldn't be able to create new products. So, a new hypothesis, by definition, is absolutely innovation.
1. https://www.google.com/search?ei=ENJnWq_SO8zvzgKh8JOQAg&q=de...
2. https://www.google.com/search?ei=ENJnWq_SO8zvzgKh8JOQAg&q=de...
The high US inequality is a result of the spectacularly extreme outcomes that come from simultaneously having a very large integrated economy & population base, extremely high economic output, and extreme national wealth.
If you integrated large parts Europe, you'd see a similar extreme inequality between eg the top end of Norway or Sweden, and the bottom of Bulgaria or Moldova. Or othewise the top end of wealth outcomes, such as Amancio Ortega or Bernard Arnault, versus the bottom end of wealth outcomes in Croatia. Except the US bottom is dramatically above the bottom of Europe.
I don't have college debt. And also those who were not able to finish college are not crippled by debt till end of their lives.
Aaaand your wage statistic does not count in surplus of prisoners US have.
