Ross B. Emmett wrote:
>But, unlike Schumpeter, he [Knight] believes the action
>of the entrepreneur is ultimately a matter of luck (Ironically, Knight's
>entrepreneur is a rather cardboard character, at least when compared with
>Schumpeter's!). There is also an interesting possibility that for Knight,
>the problem of the ACTOR is the same problem for the OBSERVER: uncertainty
>renders the economist as predictor impotent.


Ross, my view of Knight is somewhat different, I think. You seem to 
be saying that Knight believed that whether an entrepreneur makes 
profit or loss is due to luck, as opposed to being due to their 
management prowess, for example. If that is what you mean, I am not 
aware of any place where he expresses that view.

It is fair to say that Knight did not regard it as within the 
province of economics to predict whether the entrepreneurship in a 
market economy would lead to profit, in the aggregate, or even 
economic growth. But this is not the same, as I see it, as your 
characterization. I presume that he would have regarded Schumpeter's 
depiction of the entrepreneur as part of a project that is outside of 
the purview of technical economics. He would presumably have rated 
Schumpeter's depiction as speculative. Have I misunderstood you? Or Knight?


Pat Gunning