I agree with the academic attention and that the concept has existed for a long time of course.
The point here was to introduce a new model to look at it to go beyond the 4 types of entrepreneurs introduced by steve blank.
Usually social entrepreneurship is studied at the startup level not the founder level. I wanted to show that for one Bill Gates it might exist an invisible Bill or Melinda gates who helped millions but made no $.
This post is certainly not trying to be about politics, the goal is just to help advance the discussion of supporting entrepreneurs who are working on things usually done by the state (Where customers don’t pay)
The conclusion and point of this article will come in future article; it resonates a lot with yesterday s post on HN about “debt is back”
Would you please stop with the political and ideological flamewar on Hacker News? I've lost count of the number of times we've had to ask you this. I've even lost count of the number of times we've told that if you keep doing it we'll ban you. It's not what the site is for, as you should by now be well aware. Please stop.
That has been explored, for example in "Animal's Farm". Eventually, ideologies favor those who push towards the extremes, not those who favor useful but moderate views.
It’s because social democratic and socialist and communist are thrown into the same bucket by some people. So anything that deviates even a little from the status quo will be compared to Venezuela or Stalin Russia. It’s a tried and true method to kill unwanted discussion
Funding for social entrepreneurship has existed for far, far, far longer than the concept itself has existed.
I guess I don't get the point of the article.