Did Scientific Progress Stop in 1913?

This issue is really bothering me. Most of the "great inventions" that affect our everyday lives were actually invented before 1913. After 1913, the only developments were incremental improvements on existing technologies. The year 1913 is important, because the Federal Reserve and income tax were started in 1913. In 1913, the US was effectively converted from a free market economy to a communist dictatorship. Let's make a list of important inventions.

Airplane - 1903 - USA - Wright Brothers
Light Bulb - 1879 - USA - Edison
Radio - 1891 - USA - Tesla
Television - 1911 - Russia and Great Britain
Telephone - 1876 - USA - Bell
Transistor - 1948? - USA?
Steam Engine - 1769 - England - Watt
Automobile - 1892 - USA - Diesel
Assembly Line - 1902 - USA - Oldsmobile
Refrigerator - 1911 - USA and France - GE
Electric Washing Machine - 1906 - USA? - Fisher?

The invention of the transistor is a controversial story. There is evidence that it may have been invented earlier and withheld from the general public for decades.

Notice that all these inventions occurred *BEFORE* 1913. These inventions were made by privately-funded researchers, attempting for-profit research.

Doesn't this seem odd? It's as if scientific progress came to nearly a complete halt in 1913. The only exception has been computers, electronics, and communication devices, which have been improving exponentially in the past decade or two. Except for the transistor, all the other progress has been incremental improvements in these technologies.

Did you see the movie 2001? Thirty years ago, people predicted that, by now, we would have computers that could talk and think as well as a human. Were all those scientists from 30-40 years ago completely wrong? Has someone been artificially been slowing the pace of scientific progress? In some secret research lab, is there actually a computer that can talk and think as well as a human, or better?

The Supreme Leader of Humanity realized that this scientific progress had to be stopped. The standard of living for the average person was at risk for being raised too much. The Federal Reserve and income tax effectively ended all scientific progress.

After the Federal Reserve, it was more profitable to invest in monopoly-creation instead of creating new products. The Federal Reserve and income tax sucked all the extra capital out of the economy. With all the private capital pools gone, no research could be done unless it was government-sponsored or bank-funded. Government-funded research is the same as international-bank-funded research, because the international banks control the government.

The Federal Reserve skewed the risk-reward profile for inventors and investors. Why bother to invent something, if the international banking cartel is going to steal it anyway? Why invest in new technologies, when you can invest in creating monopolies? Why invent something, when you can do a leveraged buyout?

It appears that the international banking cartel successfully halted all scientific progress in 1913. However, the international banking cartel also funded their own secret research labs. They have been retarding scientific progress for 100 years. If you extrapolate from the exponential growth in technology prior to 1913, their technology must be incredible! However, the international banking cartel has primarily been investing in weapons technology. They've been researching technology that can be used to manipulate and control people. They aren't really interested in technology that makes people's lives better.

The point is that government funding doesn't enable research. Government funding stifles research! With lots of surplus capital in the economy, privately-funded research did what was actually needed. With fairly-priced capital, resources were allocated where needed. The Federal Reserve distorts the price of capital and causes inefficient allocations.

The government has a veto on what research occurs. It's impossible for a professor to get tenure unless he has a government research grant. If a professor is attempting research in a non-approved direction, then the government doesn't approve his grants. It is very easy to make sure that undesirable technologies are not developed. Typically, professors try to do research that is a small incremental improvement on something that was already developed. This guarantees they will get more grants and have job security. However, such a policy is lousy for genuine research. Someone performing true research is risking the possibility that he won't produce anything useful, which is a disastrous career move. Even after a professor gets tenure, he still needs government grants to keep his status. By then, he's been trained to only perform research that is small incremental improvements. By the time a professor has tenure, he's probably lost his ability to perform genuine research.

There have been instances where all the scientists who worked in a particular field died mysteriously. That indicates that certain technologies have been developed and kept secret.

There's no privately funded research, because monopoly-building is more profitable than real work. The Federal Reserve's interest rate manipulation policy makes hedge funds and leveraged buyouts more profitable than inventing things. The talent in the economy is focused on financial and legal tricks, rather than performing genuine work. The income tax and Federal Reserve sucked all the private capital out of the economy. There is no genuine privately-funded, for-profit research.

The idea of government-funded research is an illusion. It's a subterfuge. The average person thinks "Research is occurring at universities, so I don't have to worry about it." The average person thinks "If there was some fundamental structural flaw in our economic system, some economics professor would have said something". The average person thinks "If something like the Discounted Cashflow Paradox or the Compound Interest Paradox was a big deal, some professor would write a paper on it and the media would cover it." Of course, an economics professor who wrote a paper on the Discounted Cashflow Paradox or the Compound Interest Paradox would never receive a government grant. He would be denied tenure. The media would ignore his work.

Why did the Supreme Leader of Humanity allow people to have the transistor, computers, and the Internet? That makes no sense to me at all.

That really bothers me. A reasonably free market has been allowed to develop in computers, electronics, software, and the Internet. Why? It makes no sense. Why do software and electronics get an exemption from the monopolies and cartels that dominate other industries?