|
Well what you describe is exactly what I thought you were saying. The fact is that a large portion of the population is always struggling just enough to survive and so your argument comes to the conclusion that all public prosperity comes from the expense of the resourceful wealthy. However, commercial expenditures are always driven by commercial interests. Thus, what beneficial qualities that do come from them are always either accidental (with scientific investigation) or secondary (architecture).
What you overlook is that the most beneficial innovation comes from philanthropic spending in that it allows innovation for its own sake. Of course, philanthropy is usually associated to wealthy individuals but the government also funds programs for the public good.
Still, though, I don't accept the belief that innovation itself is economically driven. However, I think the application of innovation is economically driven which confuses some people. What should be done is reducing the economic disparity between the wealthiest and poorest so that the innovation can benefit the greatest number, either by commercial or public means.
|