With all this talk about "creative destruction" does anyone else know its original meaning?

[CTyankee]

I am no economist but I did have an interesting course in grad school on the meaning of value. I went back and looked at a paper I did on Joseph Schumpeter, the American economist who coined the term.

Correct me if I am wrong, but Schumpeter was talking about the creativity part of destruction happening within large corporations who could afford research and development departments and thus can generally support the effort that creativity of individuals would require. He believed the market was evolutionary, not static and constantly changing.

It seems to me that the "creative destruction" debate has devolved into a "smash the auto industry and the unions to pieces" argument. Schumpeter was indeed a capitalist who worried that pessimistic individuals would eventually cause the downfall of capitalism, but I doubt that what is being termed "creative destruction" in this current political environment is quite what he was talking about...

[JDPriestly]

1. In the abstract, lots of things sound good that are very cruel in reality.

It is easy for an economist to crunch numbers and theorize about what is good for the economy. But when your child is hungry and you can't get a job, you think only of what is good for your child. And, the social turmoil that will result from the "creative destruction" of our society is going to hurt the rich just as much as the poor. The Republicans are blind fools. They throw the term "enlightened self-interest" around but they do are incapable of understanding what "enlightened" means.

[CTyankee]

3. "Enlightened self interest" is by definition subject to each self.

Protestors against the Vietnam War were acting out of enlightened self interest, if they were at risk of being drafted.

We should, as a nation, face the fact that the richest countries in the world have socialistic programs for their people, such as health care. The old capitalism is worn out and tattered. Republicans don't get it; they're dead and they don't know it.

[madfloridian]

2. Here's more about creative destruction.

"Creative destruction" is US middle name..The Guardian 2003

"SNIP.."The two key phrases are "creative destruction" and "total war". Writing in National Review Online, Michael Ledeen, one of the US's leading rightwing ideologues, explained: "We should have no misgivings about our ability to destroy tyrannies. It is what we do best.

"It comes naturally to us, for we are the one truly revolutionary country in the world, as we have been for more than 200 years. Creative destruction is our middle name. We do it automatically, and that is precisely why the tyrants hate us and are driven to attack us."

[BlooInBloo]

4. There's always the wiki page, of course...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction

[CTyankee]

5. There was no wikipedia when I was doing my grad work!

Besides, we had to read "original texts" and wading thru Schumpeter was a piece of cake compared to BohmBawerk and VonWeiser (Austrian School).

That econ course really toughened me up...

[BlooInBloo]

6. Heh. At least you had common ground with the author...

Try reading Hegel, or Kant sometime.

[CTyankee]

7. I did, in my philosophy (undergrad) course.

Since I was in a Dominican college with deep humanistic roots, I had Plato and Aristotle thrown at me in lots of courses. I think I read Pericles Oration on the War Dead (from the History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides) in two very different courses.

Quite a workout...

[BlooInBloo]

8. Niiiice.