From Mises Wiki, the global repository of classical-liberal thought
Jump to: navigation, search

This should be noting the difference between Knight, Kirzner, and Schumpeter, at least. ( ) 16:58, 24 September 2014 (EDT)

Good find, unknown benefactor! I've added it to the page - please consider registering and adding some more! Cheers, Pestergaines (talk) 16:37, 25 September 2014 (EDT)

Building on that, I wonder whether it would be better to organize the article via different authors' thoughts on entrepreneurship, or organizing it chronologically. E.g., making a section for Knight, Kirzner, Schumpter, Bohm-Bawerk, Mises, Rothbard, Salerno, and Klein? Or at least splitting it up maybe into a early/proto (mixing in the thoughts Knight/Bohm-Bawerk/Schumpeter), middle (mixing in the similar thoughts of Mises/Rothbard), and late (mixing in the differences amongst Kirzner/Salerno/Klein) periods? I'm not sure which organization would be better... either way, both would take quite a bit of work... Smith (talk) 05:47, 7 November 2014 (EST)

And, an update...

I included "Knight v. Schumpeter v. Kirzner" here because they're well-defined enough to distinguish (it's hard to say whether Mises would have agreed with Kirzner's or Schumpeter's conception of the entrepreneur), and they seem to be well-sourced enough (i.e., the 'next generation' Klein, Salerno, and Thornton have consistently mentioned them (Klein's "The Capitalist and the Entrepreneur" also takes this 'tripartite' distinction between Knight, Kirzner, and Schumpeter)). This doesn't mean I necessarily agree with it; I'm just working with what I know here. I think a more complete treatment would also include:

-Further discussion of those mentioned already. -Klein, Salerno, and Thornton themselves (especially a separate section for Klein) -Somehow mentioning Rothbard/Mises' conceptions -ABOVE ALL, CANTILLON SHOULD BE MENTIONED. His definition directly feeds into Knight's, and Thornton has written about him as well.

I grouped Schumpeter and Mises together because I wanted to keep some of how the article was previously written. However, this is probably not entirely corect and should also be fixed.

Smith (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2014 (EST)