6 ms·
Is shareholder capitalism a suicide pact?
- avgcorrection 3y agoMight be a coincidence but “shareholder capitalism” is a euphemism that the World Economic Forum uses for neoliberalism.
- gardenfelder 3y ago>Since the turn of the millennium, most American families have been invested in the stock market. Whether they came to be investors passively (by taking a job with a 401k) or actively (by buying Gamestop shares on Robinhood), the consequences for individuals can be profound. People who embrace their identity as an investor think differently, vote differently, and have different material interests from those who do not. “Investor” can even reframe an entire worldview: education becomes an investment in human capital, and is evaluated based on increases in future earnings potential; family and friends turn into investments in social capital, essentially call options on benefits to be harvested in the future. The capital metaphor becomes pervasive, like microplastics in our water and blood.
- albert180 3y agoSounds fucking dystopian. I don't want such friends who view me as an Investment. I want real friends
- pixl97 3y agoWhat is a real friend but an investment in companionship.
- RosanaAnaDana 3y agoInvestment in time, resources, the integrity of ones lower back when some one needs help moving... I think people are uncomfortable with the consideration that things are transactional. We'd rather pretend they aren't, even though we all know that they are.
- paulryanrogers 3y agoMy guess is that many people don't consciously acknowledge relationships are transactional. And the word carries different connotations for different folks. My SO would probably be horrified if I said our marriage was 'transactional', and she has a language arts degree.
- deciplex 3y ago> My guess is that many people don't consciously acknowledge relationships are transactional. If two people do not treat their relationship as transactional, then it is not transactional. I don't know how to make this any simpler: at least one counterparty has to, at least, agree to the notion of "transaction" entering into the interaction in the first place, for a transaction to be taking place (and, I think, it could be argued that both counterparties must approach it this way). If they don't, then there is no transaction. You seem to regard the idea of transactions as something fundamental to all human behavior, like a law of physics. This is not the case.
- paulryanrogers 3y agoPerhaps what you propose is possible, especially if the definition of transactional is strictly monetary. Yet everyone gives and receives in relationships; even if what is exchanged is only emotional, time, or otherwise intangible. We all do some calculating, often subconsciously, about whether to continue to interact with someone else. And we have various thresholds or red lines which could lead to ending or at least significantly reducing future contact.
- deciplex 3y agoSure, but the definition of "transactional" must be expanded to such a degree for the statement "human relationships are transactional" to be true, that the word ceases to have any real linguistic function. You might as well say "human relationships are defined by how people relate to one another." And indeed, this is usually how such discussions about this topic proceed, with someone opening with the narrow definition of "transaction" - not necessarily monetary, of course, but at least two well-defined sets of things that two people intend to trade (and where a withholding from one party would result in a cancellation of the deal) - and then as you point out more and more human behaviors that don't work like this, they retreat to the point where, for example, a parent taking their child out for ice cream is a "transaction" because the child wanted ice cream and the parent wanted to do something nice for their child. If that's your working definition of "transaction" then fine for you, but you can't then make some argument that it's neoliberal economics that best reflect human nature and fulfill human needs because of its insistence that all economic activity be mediated by a free market (i.e. a forum supposedly for the free and open proposal and settlement of transactions). The "transaction" of one, is not the "transaction" of the other: neoliberalism and indeed capitalism itself would not work even by their own internal logic if they assumed the same notion of "transaction" as that required of the statement "all human relationships are transactional."
- numtel 3y agoHow's it an investment if there's no liquidity? You can't sell your friendship on the market. And don't reply with a link to that japanese guy who sells his time to hang out.
- erikerikson 3y agoLike an investment in familiarity, emotional intimacy, and support? Whether you are spending or investing your time, it is a limited resource that you have allocated. Do you want to allocate it with those who you will never see or share more time or would you like a relationship to form and grow?
- dasil003 3y agoSure, but why the impulse to frame it in economic terms? IMO it's far from the most interesting or insightful framing on the value of human relationships.
- tekla 3y agoHuman beings are at minimum somewhat rational actors and framing it in terms of economics makes it possible to study human behavior.
- sudosysgen 3y agoIt's possible to study human behaviour without framing everything in terms of economics. You'll often be more successful that way, in fact.
- erikerikson 3y agoI do not mean to imply the economic frame is the only. Choosing the "correct" frame seems a modern folly. Instead, that frame is but one of many valid frames, yet valid it is. By using different frames we access different adjacencies in the concept space and by so doing can gain further insights through alternation.
- dasil003 3y agoAgree with everything you said. I've just been in US tech and finance spheres too long for me to find much insight in the framing anymore.
- jareklupinski 3y ago
- RosanaAnaDana 3y agoPeople are friends because of the value they create, vis a vis any relationship requires investment, and its quality is determined based on the return on that investement. I would question the calling of any relationship that creates negative value a friendship.
- MatekCopatek 3y agoYour statement is a specific framing of a friendship from an economical perspective. You may or may not find that perspective useful, but it's inevitably a simplification that focuses on some aspects of a friendship and leaves out others. The (grand)parent comment is arguing that the things left out are the ones they find important. A friendship can be analyzed through value, but that's not necessarily a good way to build and sustain friendships.
- OkayPhysicist 3y agoLiteral social networks (not the internet thing, just systems of people who interact with each other) are quintessential reputation economies. They can be analyzed, but there's a lot of fundamental differences with monetary economies. Reputation, unlike money, cannot be freely moved around the network: Alice thinking highly of me has no effect on my standing with Bob, unless there's some other link between Alice and Bob. Reputation also isn't nearly as conserved as currency: Asking for and receiving a favor (extracting value) from Bob can often strengthen the relationship, rather than deplete it, depending on the size of the ask and our existing rapport. And that's just some relatively surface level stuff. You can model relationships in economic terms, but it's a very different type of economy. Given how bad we are at modeling money economies, relationship dynamics are probably a lost cause.
- stubybubs 3y agoI'm curious how this view works out when trouble comes up. If you have a friend going through a rough time for a few months or years, do you just say I'm not going to get caught up in the sunk cost fallacy and cut ties? Even when I've had friends with difficult times and we spend less time together. I still feel for them and my heart hurts, even if I can't be around them as much to protect myself if they're spiralling. Similarly what would you do if a friend was dying? Sorry I just don't see the ROI here, don't think I can get much out of your last few months?
- dandanua 3y agoBut it's what is happening in societies, that are not even capitalistic. Some people are making "friends" only to gain some material (or equivalent) benefits, parents can view their children as an investment too, even the coupling of nobles in dynasties where politically motivated in the past.
- dqft 3y agoIndustrial society and its consequences
- nradov 3y agoThere is no reliable evidence that this is actually happening on a widespread basis, or that it is being driven by shareholder capitalism. In general it's a good thing for people to own shares in multiple companies as this gives an incentive to act in ways such as voting that are good for the overall health of the economy.
- sdfghswe 3y agoJust move the fucking bricks mate.
- ASalazarMX 3y agoYou can subscribe to my beginner friendship tier, practically undistinguishable from a real friendship, for $100 a week! Act now, my friendship supply is very limited!
- deciplex 3y agoBasically the logical conclusion of neoliberal thought: nothing is worth doing unless profitable, anything not profitable is by definition not worth doing, pretty much replacing what earlier iterations of human civilization called "god" with "the market" as the arbiter of right and wrong and the main organizing force in society.
- tacheiordache 3y agoBasically profitable is akin to something that has value but extractable. If value cannot be extracted then it'll be ignored.
- RosanaAnaDana 3y agoI think this is a total misunderstanding of how value is created in relationships. The value created can be greater than the sum of its parts.
- mint2 3y agoThat’s their point - what can’t be easily quantified and extracted in the short term is ignored - environment, relationships etc can’t be directly deposited in one’s bank account and thus are ignored in the world view that’s being criticized here.
- deciplex 3y agoWhat if the thing in question is something that a majority of humans would agree is worth doing, but there is no way to extract profit? Which is to say, that the loop of capital goods -> apply labor -> extract value from labor -> accumulate more capital goods, does not map well to solving the problem / doing the work, etc?
- rawgabbit 3y agoYou will end up in the Tragedy of the Commons situation. Everyone wants good schools; no one wants to pay for it. Everyone wants good roads; no one wants to fund it. Everyone wants to stop climate change; no one wants to change.
- NoboruWataya 3y agoThe article is interesting insofar as it explores the possibility that increased retail access to equity investments biases a population towards deregulation. But to be honest paragraphs like this one just seem like a distraction and a base appeal to emotion. Investors aren't just biased by their investments; they are bad people, incapable of loving or being loved. I don't think capitalist societies have a monopoly on people who reduce their relationships with others to a series of transactions. It's unclear what specific policy changes are being advocated by the author. Even if we decide we want to go back to the 1980s (do we? was life that good back then?) how specifically do we do it? Is it just by banning the marketing of securities to retail investors? Incidentally retail participation in public equity markets has traditionally been much lower in Europe and this is something that lawmakers are actively trying to remedy there: https://finance.ec.europa.eu/capital-markets-union-and-financial-markets/capital-markets-union/what-capital-markets-union_en https://finance.ec.europa.eu/capital-markets-union-and-finan...
- sudosysgen 3y agoI mean this in a neutral way - this is basically just Marx's critique or capitalism. The part about small time investors identifying with their own perception of being a real investor is the petit bourgeois dynamic that Marx spoke of, in the era of Robinhood and 401ks. I'm confident the author knows this (and perhaps even takes it from there), and decided to leave it out, probably for a good reason.
- or_am_i 3y agoShareholder capitalism is an optimal insider information hedging strategy in a competitive market.
- OO000oo 3y ago[flagged]
- dang 3y agoCan you please (1) not post flamebait; and (2) not use HN primarily for ideological battle? We have to ban accounts that keep doing these things. I don't have a problem with your point of view but we need you to use HN in the intended spirit if you want to keep posting here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- boringg 3y agoNarrow minded article, knee jerk click bait usual information. See: title.
- bell-cot 3y agoThere is this thing called "reasonable dosage". A huge hunk of the current problem is the large-corporation- and Wall Street-based financialization of far too much of normal human life.
- q845712 3y agoIt feels a little inevitable though, given the other rules of the system: Companies don't become more valuable by having a steady earnings forecast, they become more valuable by having an _increase_ in earnings that is forecast to continue increasing. How can everything always increase? Well when you reach market saturation on one product, start a new product in a different market. What if all the markets seem saturated? Find a new thing to commoditize, a new market to create... Any system where unlimited growth is rewarded is going to try to take over everything it possibly can.
- bell-cot 3y agoIn many ways, the growth obsession is a product of the Reagan-era deregulation craze, and the "Greed is the One True God" ethic that kinda took over Wall Street then. (Try reading some stories about GE before Jack Welch became CEO, and after.) Other big contributors: - The huge sums of wealth which tens of millions of ordinary people feel they need to accumulate, to pay for their (grand)?children's college education, unexpected medical bills, many decades of retirement and elder care, etc. Compare that to (say) the 1950's. - The huge structural and social barriers to creating small businesses in most economic sectors, compared to (say) 60 years ago. Back then, how many of the businesses in an average town were (at most) small-ish, family-owned companies? - How d*mn much "money" is sloshing around the financial system these days, with the "at any sign of crisis, pour in more $trillions" monetary policies of the Fed.
- q845712 3y ago> the growth obsession is a product of the Reagan-era I hear you, but uncle Karl names and shames the growth-obsession in Das Kapital which predated Reagan by over 100 years. It's a part of the system that many people have incentive to deny, hide, or minimize, but endless growth seems to be a requirement of "the system of organizing our resources that prioritizes turning capital into more capital" aka capital-ism.
- cat_plus_plus 3y agoCapitalism, shareholder or otherwise, is a mechanism to optimize production, not a grand model for entire society. This statement does not imply socialism or other forms of heavy central government intervention. Rather, at the start of industrial revolution, and in poorest parts of the world today, having a full stomach and some clothes on your back is the most important thing. But as society becomes more prosperous, priorities other than optimizing production can be addressed, and public companies dedicated to only optimizing shareholder value are not the best tool to address these. Can be for profit and non profit organizations with charter than explicitly ranks different priorities. Can be services by local government, where everyone can easy move if they don't like tax/benefit balance. And so on.
- andrewpolidori 3y agoI often wonder what certain industries could be if intensely focussed on "improvement" over profit taking. But then again the most "important" problems/industries are so capital intense without the profit motive I'm not sure who would sign up to fund such an endeavour.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago> Capitalism, shareholder or otherwise, is a mechanism to optimize production This has nothing whatsoever to do with capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system in which those who invest capital rather than labor or ideas are considered to be entitled to the bulk of the profit from the endeavor. This is defended by the claim that the capital-ists are also exposed to more of the risk, and hence deserve more of the reward. There are strong counter-arguments to this position.
- nradov 3y agoYou are arguing against a strawman. Capitalism has little to do with entitlement. Capitalism is actually the only practical system which we have found for efficiently allocating resources at scale over extended periods of time in a way that improves living standards. The counter arguments to this position are entirely theoretical and have never been proven to work in the real world. Perhaps there is some non-capitalist economic system out there waiting to be invented which could deliver superior results without eventually devolving into an authoritarian dystopia, but I doubt it.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y agoFirst line: > Since the turn of the millennium, most American families have been invested in the stock market. The actual percentage appears to be 61%. Now, that's definitely a majority and so the line is defensible. However, I would say that "most" has connotations that are in conflict with "more than 1/3rd of all Americans are not invested in the stock market".