pages, he forgets about this, and deals with the ways "entrepreneurs and innovations" were financed as the Dutch Republic became both the first religiously tolerant place in Europe, and also allowed its financial markets to thrive, with sophisticated futures trading on the world's first stock exchange. Timur Kuran's chapter deals with the same topics but is focused more on obstacles to entrepreneurs under Islam.Although here and there other chapters mention in a few paragraphs financial conditions (though I cannot recall anyone in the book ever using the term "risk capital"), often the topic is more about impediments and antagonism to the notion of "business." Authors make reference to usury laws and the low social status of businessmen and traders in many societies -- from Babylon to Rome, Cicero defining their endeavors as "vulgar and dishonest." This latter view resonates centuries later within Islam (with the doctrine of bid'a, in Kuran's good piece subtitled "Inhibitive Roles of Islamic Institutions") and later in the English view of commerce: Jane Austen referred to the endeavor in a similar vein as a violation of aristocratic principles, though with timeless humor. And yes, this anti-business view resonates across all countries and time with Jews, always the Jews.In fact large chunks of the book are more about the topic of _inhibitions to enterprise_ and both the variety of ideas people came up with to rationalize them and the institutions rulers and governments put in place to enforce these ideologies. Strangely there is only passing mention of Latin America, Russia and communism -- and though there is a chapter on China, the twenty pages jumping from 200 BC to our days offer not one insight. It first concludes that politics there is "as central as ever, and having no access to party officials remains a critical impediment to any successful entrepreneurial operation," yet the last sentence reads "if the past record is a guide, [the entrepreneurs] will overcome future challenges that come their way." I am no expert on Chinese history, but as far as I know it has been well documented that under the Ming, and even more under the Manchu dynasties, when rigid Confucianism was imposed by state power, Chinese inventiveness ceased for centuries -- about which the chapter is mum.Unfortunately most of the chapters dealing with the topic of inhibitions miss the forest from the trees, as not one addresses what is to me the basic issue when examining "the invention of enterprise." There is nothing more threatening to an established order -- any order -- than opening up, deepening, democratizing capital markets -- accountably, allowing people to leverage their inventive, enterprising spirit. True, this would also disperse power -- political power in particular. The deeper capital markets would also threaten established industries and commerce. Entrepreneurs, brilliant and ambitious as they might be, are _not_ a threat. They can be sent to Siberia, forced into complacency by the Maos of this world, and the opportunistic ones will channel their ambition through the established powers.But entrepreneurs with access to _different_, _independent_ sources of risk capital -- now