I should have said shareholder-primacy vs -friendly. I was specifically referring to the change in the 70s and 80s from a diversity of stakeholders being value

I should have said shareholder-primacy vs -friendly. I was specifically referring to the change in the 70s and 80s from a diversity of stakeholders being valued to shareholders above all other considerations. It seems fair to argue that the much-maligned dual stock schemes popularized by tech companies is a reaction to and repudiation of this. Zuckerberg being able to spend money better than Facebook's shareholders, etc. And I don't think it's a clear-cut decision on whether shareholder-primacy or balanced-management has produced "better" for-profit companies.