unmet needs

["Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>> jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 12/04/00 12:10PM >>>
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.

((((((((((((((

CB: Yea ,the word for innovation with socialism should be "innovation", not entrepreneurship. Shhhheeeshhhhh.