>>476564>State-run shit always sucks and fails
Well pretty much all current large industrial bases on the planet resulted from a big public sector, including the American industrial heyday after WW2.
>there is no penalty for failing
I think you are talking about Wall-street too big to fail
>Self driving cars, reusable rockets, LLMs, modern touch screens, etc.
Virtually all of the technology that makes these possible was developed in the state sector. The private sector is good at turning an existing technology into a product and then iterate on it to improve it's features. But fundamentally new, paradigm breaking stuff usually comes from the public sector. Private capital is not willing to take risks on radically new shit. Consider that neural network machine learning technology, that llms are based on, was developed in the 80s.
>You can claim that somehow someway more stuff would have been developed faster if only the state took over the reins of production, but you have zero evidence for it.
No it's the other way around. Virtually all recent historic periods of rapid technological progress have been driven by public sector activity.
For example in the west where most of the economy is privatized you see massive stagnation, while China where the industrial and technical R&D is state led, they see massive changes.
China today, versus China 20 years ago: massive improvements
The west today, versus 20 years ago: everything's mostly the same, except more run down
The last time when the west saw this type of progress was when the soc-dems ran a big public sector industry.
You are just regurgitating ideological lines that bare no resemblance to reality. The private sector is really good at designing nice consumer products (when they refrain from screwing you over with anti-repair-crap, planned obsolescence and subscription-feudalism). But they suck at organizing the technical base of society. The base of the economy is extremely capital intensive, has low margins and return on investment takes decades, private capital seeks the opposite: low capital-costs, high margins, and quick turnaround on investment.
Look at Europe for example they also went through the neo-liberal privatization craze and as a result they largely abandoned nuclear power, because the private sector doesn't want to invest in to large capital intensive projects that run for 60 years. The consequence is that Europe is now having it's economy choked because it lacks cheap energy. Which was an entirely predictable result.