Art Diamond's web log
McCraw quoting the diary of Schumpeter’s former professor, Friedrich von Wieser:
(p. 101) “He is not misled by prevalent sentiment,” the professor wrote in his diary. “Schumpeter has courage, an asset which cannot be over-praised.”
Source:
McCraw, Thomas K. Prophet of Innovation: Joseph Schumpeter and Creative Destruction. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 2007.
From McCraw’s discussion of Schumpeter’s “legacy”:
(p. 500) In the new world of academic economics, neither the Schumpeterian entrepreneur as an individual nor entrepreneurship as a phenomenon attracts much attention. For professors in economics departments at most major universities, particularly in the United States and Britain, a focus on these favorite issues of Schumpeter’s has become a quick ticket out of a job. This development arose from a self-generated isolation of academic economics from history, sociology, and the other social sciences. It represented a trend that Schumpeter himself had glimpsed and lamented but that accelerated rapidly during the two generations after his death.
Source:
McCraw, Thomas K. Prophet of Innovation: Joseph Schumpeter and Creative Destruction. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 2007.
From McCraw’s discussion of Schumpeter’s “legacy”:
(p. 496) Because of the importance of entrepreneurship, and because Schumpeter wrote about it with such insight and verve, his name will be forever linked to the idea.
Source:
McCraw, Thomas K. Prophet of Innovation: Joseph Schumpeter and Creative Destruction. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 2007.
McCraw is correct in identifying Schumpeter’s “signature legacy”:
(p. 495) Schumpeter’s signature legacy is his insight that innovation in the form of creative destruction is the driving force not only of capitalism but of material progress in general.
Source:
McCraw, Thomas K. Prophet of Innovation: Joseph Schumpeter and Creative Destruction. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 2007.
(Note: italics in original.)
Here is McCraw discussing and quoting Schumpeter’s notes for the Walgreen Lectures that he was preparing to deliver just before he died.
(p. 475) In notes he prepared in 1949 for the prestigious Walgreen Lectures, Schumpeter headed one entire section “The Personal Element and the Element of Chance: A Principle of Indeterminateness.” Here, he wrote that the time had come for economists to face a problem they had long tried to dodge:
the problem of the influence that may be exerted by exceptional individuals, a problem that has hardly ever been treated without the most blatant preconceptions. Without committing ourselves either to hero worship or to its hardly less absurd opposite, we have got to realize that, since the emergence of exceptional indi-(p. 476)viduals does not lend itself to scientific generalization, there is here an element that, together with the element of random occurrences with which it may be amalgamated, seriously limits our ability to forecast the future. That is what is meant here by “a principle of indeterminateness.” To put it somewhat differently: social determinism, where it is nonoperational, is a creed like any other and entirely unscientific.
Source:
McCraw, Thomas K. Prophet of Innovation: Joseph Schumpeter and Creative Destruction. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 2007.
Source of book image: http://creativecapital.wordpress.com/category/how-to-buy-creative-capital/
Doriot taught at Harvard during the whole time that Joseph Schumpeter taught at Harvard. Given that their interests apparently overlapped, it is surprising that there are no references to Schumpeter or to “creative destruction” in Ante’s book.
There are also no references to Doriot in McCraw’s recent comprehensive intellectual biography of Schumpeter.
(Scherer in his essay “An Accidental Schumpeterian” mentions taking a useful course from Doriot, but does not illuminate the relationship, if any, between Doriot and Schumpeter.)
(p. A17) Before Sand Hill Road near Stanford University became the center of the venture-capital universe – before Google and Pets.com – the modern market for financing risky startup companies took shape far from Silicon Valley in the years after World War II.
ARD was the first to raise what was then known as “risk capital” from outsiders at a time when investors’ wounds were still fresh from the stock-market crash of 1929 and the Depression of the 1930s. The high failure rate of start-ups had generally precluded raising money from average investors. And so ARD’s chief competitors in the postwar years were the Rockefellers and another old-money operation, J.H. Whitney & Co.
. . .
The company would hardly merit attention except for its one grand slam, Digital Equipment Corp., which helped establish the East Coast high-tech stronghold along Route 128 outside Boston.
Digital, a minicomputer maker co-founded by former Massachusetts Institute of Technology engineer Ken Olsen, received $70,000 from ARD in 1957 in return for a 70% stake, which eventually grew in value to hundreds of millions of dollars. Mr. Ante calculates the investment’s return at 70,000%.
. . .
Doriot, who taught at Harvard for 40 years, beginning in 1926, offered a popular class that was ostensibly about manufacturing but was more a seminar in his business philosophy. “He stressed common sense themes such as self-improvement, teamwork, and contributing to society,” Mr. Ante writes. Doriot was known for “spicing up his philosophy with practical and pithy words of advice.” Among them: “Always remember that someone somewhere is making a product that will make your product obsolete.”
For the full review, see:
RANDALL SMITH. “Bookshelf; Money to Make Things New.” The Wall Street Journal (Weds., May 21, 2008): A17.
(Note: ellipses added.)
Reference to the biography of Doriot:
Ante, Spencer E. Creative Capital: Georges Doriot and the Birth of Venture Capital. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2008.
From McCraw’s summary of Schumpeter’s History of Economic Analysis:
(p. 453) During the mid-nineteenth century, universities were beginning to teach economics, but “the demand for courses and textbooks produced courses and textbooks and not much else. Does this not show that there is something to one of the theses of this book, namely, that need is not the necessary and sufficient condition of analytic advance and that demand for teaching produces teaching and not necessarily scientific achievement?”
Source:
McCraw, Thomas K. Prophet of Innovation: Joseph Schumpeter and Creative Destruction. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 2007.
(p. 435) . . . , the British civil service, which Schumpeter had admired ever since his youth in Vienna, had become enamored of their new role in economic planning, encouraged by the Labour government. Civil servants had drifted into “downright bureau-sadism” in their attitude toward business.
Source:
McCraw, Thomas K. Prophet of Innovation: Joseph Schumpeter and Creative Destruction. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 2007.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
From McCraw’s summary of a brief Schumpeter essay published in 1943 in Seymour Harris’ Postwar Economic Problems:
(p. 424) Schumpeter went on to argue that both in the United States and in capitalist countries abroad, a high rate of public spending during the postwar period would likely evolve into total government control of investment. . . . Some industries might be nationalized, and if the government “should try to run the nationalized industries according to the principles of business rationality, Guided Capitalism would shade off into State Capitalism, . . . ”
. . .
The overall result would likely be “an amphibial state for the calculable future.” The amphibial state might well generate frictions among business, labor, and government and would not benefit from the “motive power” of either capitalism or socialism.
Source:
McCraw, Thomas K. Prophet of Innovation: Joseph Schumpeter and Creative Destruction. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 2007.
(Note: ellipses added.)
From McCraw writing about Schumpeter:
(pp. 318-319) The New Deal struck him as still another prelude to authoritarianism. He became convinced that Roosevelt’s program represented a step toward either fascism or socialism, and in either case potential dictatorship. He wrote a friend that Roosevelt was like a child mindlessly breaking a machine because he didn’t understand its design. The president “is going to turn me into a fan of [Ludwig von] Mises,” his classmate at the University of Vienna who had become a free-market fundamentalist and an opponent of almost all government intervention.
Source:
McCraw, Thomas K. Prophet of Innovation: Joseph Schumpeter and Creative Destruction. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 2007.