Jim,
Schumpeter may have "celebrated" entrepreneurship.
But, he was the one who coined the phrase, "creative
destruction." He fully understood that it was not an unmixed
blessing...
Barkley Rosser
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, December 04, 2000 12:24 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:5470] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: unmet needs
>Michael P. wrote:
>>Paul, I did not mean to exclude the idea of innovation from
>>entrepreneurship. But I only meant to insist that the word as it is used
>>by most economists involves a profit making function. By using this term,
>>in the sense that Justin does seems to cede too much ground to the free
>>market school. I would suspect that Jim also does not use the term in a
>>static sense. I am certainly familiar with Schumpeter and his use of
>>the word, entrepreneur.
>
>I was using the term "entrepreneurship" (along with "innovation") in the
>standard, Schumpeterian and dynamic, sense. BTW, old Joseph and the
>Austrians may have developed some of Marx's ideas about innovation,
>extending them more to include "new products," while turning the concept
>into a celebration -- while ignoring Marx's view, emphasized by Yoshie and
>also by Sweezy years ago, that the entrepreneurship isn't some "exogenous
>variable" imposed on the static circular flow but is instead an endogenous
>force driven by the M-C-M' dynamic.
>
>Justin, on the other hand, is using non-standard (non-Schumpeterian) sense
>because he dropped Schumpeterian/Austrian view that "entrepreneurship"
>involves aggressive profit-seeking (without telling us that he was doing
so).
>
>As I said, it's okay to use non-standard definitions if one is clear that
>one is doing so. If we water down the concept of "entrepreneurship" to
>unmoor it from its Schumpeterian/Austrian roots and to define it simply as
>the development and introduction of new products and production processes
>(innovation), then it would exist in _any_ society (as Justin would have
>it). Under capitalism, the criterion for deciding whether or not an
>innovation is made and survives would be "it isn't creative unless it
>sells" (an old IBM slogan if I remember correctly) and makes a profit for
>the individual stockholders. Under democratic socialism, the criterion
>would be that of democratic sovereignty.
>
>Johanna wrote:
>>... The word entrepreneur may be a red flag to some. To others, like me,
>>the very idea that creating new needs can be a good thing is
>>anathema. Whether it's a cooperative venture or a venture capitalist
>>producing the new not-to-be-done-without item is of no consequence. All
>>my needs (whether real or perceived) limit my freedom.
>
>right. The justifiable introduction of new goods and services would involve
>the creation of new _opportunities_, not the creation of new
>"not-to-be-done-without" items (needs, as most people use the word).
>
>Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
>
>
