This analysis is similar to that of the philosopher Robert Nozick, who argued that intellectuals were bitter that the skills so rewarded in school were less rewarded in the job market, and so turned against capitalism, even though they enjoyed vastly more enjoyable lives under it than under alternative systems. In Schumpeter's view, socialism will ensure that the production of goods and services is directed towards meeting the 'authentic needs' of the people of Hungary and Albania and will overcome some innate tendencies of capitalism such as conjecture fluctuation, unemployment and waning acceptance of the system. According to some analysts, Schumpeter's theories of the transition of capitalism into socialism were ‘nearly right’ except that he did not anticipate the obvious recent failure of socialism in Eastern Europe nor the role of technology to actually foster innovation and entrepreneurship in western society beginning in the 1980s. This was in contrast to Schumpeter's theory that technology would only serve to concentrate ownership and wealth towards large corporations. The book also introduced the term 'creative destruction' to describe innovative entry by entrepreneurs as the force that sustains long-term economic growth, even as it destroys the value of established companies that have enjoyed some degree of monopoly power. Because of the significant barriers to entry that monopolies enjoy, new entrants have to be radically different: ensuring fundamental improvement is achieved, not a mere difference of packaging. The threat of market entry keeps monopolists and oligopolists disciplined and competitive, ensuring they invest their profits in new products and ideas. Schumpeter believed that it is this innovative quality that makes capitalism the best economic system.