Sorry, late night comment. My point is that there's nothing magical about infrastructure like roads and bridges.

How do you account for other advanced economies that have invested more than the US (presumably a cumulative number over the past 50 years, excluding WWII rebuilding investments, per capita) and yet fail to produce the same wealth (again per capita) as the US?

Clearly, other factors outside of individual effort are involved, but I'm sorry, I'm not buying that they are roads and bridges.

In fact, I don't think the X factor is anything the US has intentionally invested in. And I don't think government gets the credit, any more than someone who plays "slop" in pool.

Shit, look at all the so-called startup hubs that are trying to recreate SV via infrastructure investments. Can you show me one that's worked?

Or look at startuplandia: startups choose different cloud hosting services, and as far as I can tell, the particular one you choose (or even the choice to use cloud vs. colo) is not predictive of success.

I don't know... maybe on a national level you have evidence (perhaps a scatterplot of cum infrastructure investment per capita against wealth per capita by country) showing the two are causal (or even correlated), but I have yet to see it. Here's my 2 cents as someone who founded and sold a business for 8 figures:

Businesses succeed or fail because a) founder/exec's intelligence, b) ability to execute, c) luck, d) x-factors-that-government-didn't-build.

I think the above post was pointing out that Germany actually spent incredible amounts on infrastructure and business. I have a hard time believing the US had 1000x the resources. Germany had the Silver Arrow Mercedes race car that was doing 250mph back then. They also didn't have much restriction on what scientists were allowed to try.

there's a quote from a German minister during WWII: "Their German scientists are better than our German scientists."