4 ms·
Back in the day, when I was into these sorts of things, I always found that people who quoted Schumpeter (who is popular among a group of folks who tend to look
by UncleEntity 5y ago
Back in the day, when I was into these sorts of things, I always found that people who quoted Schumpeter (who is popular among a group of folks who tend to look for economic theories which enforces their world view and not reality) were safely ignorable.
Yeah, ad hominem but as a general rule it worked out well.
Though it might be good for the “disrupt all the things” people to follow a flawed view on entrepreneurship to maybe reign in the concentration of wealth in a few SV hands without regard to the common folk suffering at the (virtual) hands of The Algorithm.
- alfiedotwtf 5y agoIt's hard to ignore Schumpeter when his circle of influence is pretty solid - his student was Paul Samuelson, and his adviser was Böhm von Bawerk, who also taught Ludwig von Mises who went onto teach Hayek. Each one literally wrote the book of Economics for their time, and Samuelson's is still considered standard reading.
- zwaps 5y agoIt should also be noted that (as a product of their time) each of these affiliated economists had a vastly different approach and view on economics. In light of this plurality, ignoring any quote from Schumpeter by default seems unwise. He clearly stimulated academic output in all sorts of directions and the same might hold true for the current reader. I know quite a few scholars who happily quote Marx, Foucalt, Hayek, Lucas or Friedman and yet, many of them are absolutely worth listening to.