Dave, I think you have it backwards. Edison, Ford, Tesla all worked, thought, dreamed of building "things" because they could sell them. The exchange of money is the way the world works, we must recognize that essential truth. This does not mean we must dump our values, because the ethical balance must also be fully considered, but the profit is the thing. If true accounting of issues were actually done (a rare thing) the ethical/environmental issues would automatically be covered, because they would be valued appropriately.
I admit to tossing in a bit of red herring about national investments, to stir the pot. It is true that the US are facing an extremely difficult challenge: The new communism, where state owned enterprises enable vast not-for-profit investment that sways the balance of competition. European companies that have their state as their largest shareholders and China where the state is everything are awesome competitors, IMHO. There are European "newspeak" counterclaims of US Gove investment, but that is hogwash that placates the reporters. If I could get the free loans that Airbus has gotten, for example, I could run a team that could make London Bridge hover.
svenestron talks about the NH-90 success story, but doesn't know that Finland had selected the S92 as their choice over the NH-90, until EADS (or should I say the French government) bought the largest Finnish aviation house. The day after they were bought, the Sikorsky phone calls were not answered. Period. The Swiss selected the Black Hawk as their mountain rescue helicopter back in the 1980's until Mitterand visited the Swiss president, upon which a completed turnaround occurred! I could go on, but it has all been said before (and countered by folks who think a billion dollars of free subsidy is a Government's right and duty - which it is, as long as we don't call it free market!)