Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter is best known for his idea of “creative destruction,” the way innovation upsets established businesses and forces capitalism to constantly evolve. But Schumpeter was as much a social theorist as an economic one. And he would have completely recognized the Occupy Wall Street phenomenon, especially the heavily indebted, liberal arts majors wondering why they can’t find decent jobs as political scientists or some such. Schumpeter, from “Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy”:
The man who has gone through a college or university easily becomes psychically unemployable in manual occupations without necessarily acquiring employability in, say, professional work. All those who are unemployed or unsatisfactorily employed or unemployable drift into the vocations in which standards are least definite. … They swell the host of intellectuals … whose numbers hence increase disproportionately. They enter it in a thoroughly discontented frame of mind. Discontent breeds resentment … righteous indignation about the wrongs of capitalism … Capitalism inevitably … educates and subsidizes a vested interest in social unrest.
Schumpeter argued that eventually “intellectuals” – or the jobless educated – would push for restrictions on entrepreneurship and undermine the capitalist order. Elements of the OWS movement, for instance, are demanding nationalized healthcare, forgiveness of debt, more powerful labor unions and massive new taxes on the wealthy, including investors and entrepreneurs. An analysis of Schumpeter by the Dallas Fed hits the nail on the head:
The proper role of a healthily functioning economy is to destroy jobs and put labor to better use elsewhere. Despite this simple truth, layoffs and firings will still always sting, as if the invisible hand of free enterprise has slapped workers in the face. Unsettling by nature, capitalism’s churn gives rise to a labor movement designed to protect workers from job loss. That movement is fed emotionally by displaced workers and others who blame the capitalist system for their troubles, but it is led psychologically by a whole other type of person—the intellectual. Intellectuals—with little to do owing to the success of the capitalist economic system but with an intense desire to be seen as caretakers of society’s general well-being—anoint themselves as leaders of the labor movement. They object to capitalism on moralistic grounds and seek its destruction and replacement by another system—socialism—which places them center stage.
Or running IPAB or the National Infrastructure Bank or the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.




Nice broad brush, James. It’s easy to be clear when all of the actual, individual, quirky humans are lumped together into opposing caricatures. It makes it easy to score points in a 101 game of them-and-us.
Yes, we should avoid lumping individuals into caricatures and get back to focusing on the 99% oppressed middle-class versus the 1% greedy billionaires.
One cannot help but be amused when a think-tank employee complains about “intellectuals”!
Curious that none of the critics of the post will argue its points. The points are compelling, as Schumpeter’s remarks sound very much as if he were writing today. Not a few people have long lamented the growing trend of U.S. universities to turn out too many unemployable graduates with lovely political science and other degrees and not enough Americans with science, engineering, and technical, and other degrees leading directly to jobs. Recently I noted that a report that millions of job vacancies in the U.S. are going unfilled because of the difficulty in finding people qualified to do them. One of the most curious manifestations of this trained-elite dislocation are on-campus protests by “soft-major” students against financial firms recruiting their classmates on campus for jobs in the banking and financial services industries.
Hello my friend! I want to say that this article is amazing, great written and include almost all significant infos. I would like to see extra posts like this .