3 ms·

is there anything tech types won't blame on capitalism? Did we suddenly introduce capitalism in the 80s?

piva00 4y ago
No, but in the 80s the rules of capitalism changed. The issue isn't capitalism per se but how the distribution of wealth generated by labour changed. In the 80s we got a whole new set of capitalism: financial capitalism and neoliberalism. The breakdown of collective action, breakdown of solidarity between workers and a more hyper individualistic world. This is exposed in the article, even though it focus on USA's changes, those changes have rippled through the globe. Neoliberalism and hyper-financial capitalism begins in the 80s, that's what was introduced. Did you read the article?
- hnfong 4y ago
  If the OP read the article they would have realized the author wasn't a "tech type"....
- Gibbon1 4y ago
  I think the share of the economy going towards the financial sector went from 4% to 17% between 1970 and 2010.
- bladelessninja2 4y ago
  How could one change "rules of capitalism"? Capitalism is an idea, if anything's changed it was the system, so the system might have adopted some other ideas - that would be a change. It's like having a car, disassemble wheels and call all cars useless. It seems like USA is surprised that concentrating more and more power in few hands leads to corruption and as a cure they want to concentrate more power into hands of few (government) in the name of social justice expecting different outcome than before.
  - piva00 4y ago
    > How could one change "rules of capitalism"? Capitalism is an idea, if anything's changed it was the system, so the system might have adopted some other ideas - that would be a change. I thought it was clear I meant the system has changed by using "the rules of capitalism" as a literary device. I don't know if it really was unclear but that's exactly what I meant...
    - bladelessninja2 4y ago
      You forgot to mention how rules changed - if you are right that is the only way to undo what happened. Instead, you argue "it changed for the worse, let's change it even more in some random direction" - this completely illogical, it looks like you don't know what you are doing, but you (of course) play big intellectual and pretend it is OK to ignore facts.

No, but in the 80s the rules of capitalism changed. The issue isn't capitalism per se but how the distribution of wealth generated by labour changed. In the 80s we got a whole new set of capitalism: financial capitalism and neoliberalism. The breakdown of collective action, breakdown of solidarity between workers and a more hyper individualistic world. This is exposed in the article, even though it focus on USA's changes, those changes have rippled through the globe. Neoliberalism and hyper-financial capitalism begins in the 80s, that's what was introduced. Did you read the article?

hnfong 4y ago
If the OP read the article they would have realized the author wasn't a "tech type"....
Gibbon1 4y ago
I think the share of the economy going towards the financial sector went from 4% to 17% between 1970 and 2010.
bladelessninja2 4y ago
How could one change "rules of capitalism"? Capitalism is an idea, if anything's changed it was the system, so the system might have adopted some other ideas - that would be a change. It's like having a car, disassemble wheels and call all cars useless. It seems like USA is surprised that concentrating more and more power in few hands leads to corruption and as a cure they want to concentrate more power into hands of few (government) in the name of social justice expecting different outcome than before.
- piva00 4y ago
  > How could one change "rules of capitalism"? Capitalism is an idea, if anything's changed it was the system, so the system might have adopted some other ideas - that would be a change. I thought it was clear I meant the system has changed by using "the rules of capitalism" as a literary device. I don't know if it really was unclear but that's exactly what I meant...
  - bladelessninja2 4y ago
    You forgot to mention how rules changed - if you are right that is the only way to undo what happened. Instead, you argue "it changed for the worse, let's change it even more in some random direction" - this completely illogical, it looks like you don't know what you are doing, but you (of course) play big intellectual and pretend it is OK to ignore facts.