There is a counterfactual needed because it is not clear whether the growth would not have declined even more without Software.

Again I'm asking - is there a single credible economist who says that the growth would have been higher without technology?

I'm not even proposing that growth would have been higher without "technology". I said information technology has not increased productivity growth compared to the past. This is an observation of fact.

> Productivity metrics were better when businesses were run on just pen and paper

This is what you said.

Again, that is a simple observation of fact. No counterfactual needed. I said it had confounding factors, and I offered hypotheses

I asked you for alternative hypotheses and you've offered none.