3 ms·

Nope, I'm saying that all things being equal, you would expect a philosophical shift from stakeholder capitalism to shareholder supremacy to yield wage suppress

Nope, I'm saying that all things being equal, you would expect a philosophical shift from stakeholder capitalism to shareholder supremacy to yield wage suppression, runaway wealth inequality, and hijacking or destruction of government by private interests. Prior to stakeholder capitalism, industrialization was downright inhumane. After stakeholder capitalism, it's trending toward social and political instability. During stakeholder capitalism: considered the glory days of American civilization (despite its serious flaws, which we need not ignore). Could be a coincidence! But I actually think people's beliefs shape their actions, and "my god-given duty is to generate shareholder returns, all else be damned" looks like a prime candidate for all sorts of post-1970 corporate misbehavior. (The Jungle predates stakeholder capitalism. The Jungle, Silent Spring and Unsafe At Any Speed were forces within that philosophical movement)

gruez 1y ago
>Prior to stakeholder capitalism, industrialization was downright inhumane. When did stakeholder capitalism magically pop up and made industrialization not "downright inhumane"? The end of stakeholder capitalism can be traced to Milton Friendman's works, what evidence is there of stakeholder emerging after the "downright inhumane" period before? > After stakeholder capitalism, it's trending toward social and political instability. >During stakeholder capitalism: considered the glory days of the American society. Again, rose tinted glasses: the same period had Cuban Missile crisis, Vietnam war drafts, and the Kent State shootings. Granted, most of them probably didn't have anything to do with stakeholder capitalism, but it's laughable to call it "the glory days of the American society". Moreover have things really fared better in places with "stakeholder capitalism"? For all the talk of "common prosperity", China isn't doing too hot either, with its cratered housing market, high youth unemployment, and low consumer confidence.
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago
  > what evidence is there of stakeholder emerging after the "downright inhumane" period before? Sorry are you asking me to prove that stakeholder capitalism existed from the ~1940s to the ~1970s? I'm not going to give a 200 level Business History course in a Hacker News comment thread. You can use Google. > Again, rose tinted glasses... I don't know what point you think you're arguing against, but it ain't one of mine! China doesn't have stakeholder capitalism.
  - gruez 1y ago
    >Sorry are you asking me to prove that stakeholder capitalism existed from the ~1940s to the ~1970s? I'm not going to give a 200 level Business History course in a Hacker News comment thread. You can use Google. Given that the wikipedia article says that a 1984 book was "widely cited in the field as being the foundation of stakeholder theory", that the first mention was in 1912, and there's nothing about the post-war period or communism, I'm very skeptical that your "~1940s to the ~1970s" window for stakeholder capitalism was defined in a rigorous way. It seems far more likely you're committing the texas sharpshooter's fallacy by finding a period of american prosperity (ie. "~1940s to the ~1970s"), defining that to be "stakeholder capitalism", and concluding that it was a great success. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeholder_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeholder_theory >China doesn't have stakeholder capitalism. You're not really refuting the point. "Common prosperity" sounds a lot like stakeholder capitalism, specifically improving the lives of other citizens/the country as a whole, rather than the company.
- csa 1y ago
  > When did stakeholder capitalism magically pop up and made industrialization not "downright inhumane"? When socialism and communism were perceived as legitimate ideological threats/alternatives to democracy and capitalism. While we know now that communism as an ideology (at least as it was practiced in the mid-20th century at the nation-state level) is not long-term viable, this was not considered a certainty at that time. So many of the updated social contracts (both explicit and implicit) that were put into place in the mid-20th century were done in an attempt to avoid/prevent a worker revolution. Imho, another wave of mass discontent is brewing — the elites in the US are very much out of touch with or ambivalent to the needs of the rest of the country.
  - gruez 1y ago
    >So many of the updated social contracts (both explicit and implicit) that were put into place in the mid-20th century were done in an attempt to avoid/prevent a worker revolution. Can you cite specific polices or reforms? What makes you think they "were done in an attempt to avoid/prevent a worker revolution", as opposed to normal reform? What does it say that landmark legislation was passed at the tail end of that period, such as the clean air act? If stakeholder capitalism's "social contracts" were really keeping things together, why was legislation needed?
    - csa 1y ago
      I’m going to agree with the other responder that you can look this up yourself. I will give some highlights, but none of this is particularly controversial. > Can you cite specific polices or reforms? New Deal writ large, specifically social security, development and empowerment of labor unions (Wagner Act), public works projects (WPA and CCC). Also the GI Bill. These are some major examples. > What makes you think they "were done in an attempt to avoid/prevent a worker revolution", as opposed to normal reform? Because I’ve read history, including original sources. There was quite a bit of serious rhetoric around the potential for socialism in the US. > What does it say that landmark legislation was passed at the tail end of that period, such as the clean air act? I don’t really understand your question, and I have no idea where you’re going with this. I’m almost certain that any question you have on this matter has been answered online in vivid detail. > If stakeholder capitalism's "social contracts" were really keeping things together, why was legislation needed? Legislation was the “explicit” part that I mentioned. Better wording probably would have been “laws, policies, and social contracts”, but I’m just writing informal replies on the internet. The 20th century was a heady time. I’m not sure how old you are or how much history you’ve studied, but there is a lot of really good content out there. I encourage you to engage with it.

gruez 1y ago

>Prior to stakeholder capitalism, industrialization was downright inhumane. When did stakeholder capitalism magically pop up and made industrialization not "downright inhumane"? The end of stakeholder capitalism can be traced to Milton Friendman's works, what evidence is there of stakeholder emerging after the "downright inhumane" period before? > After stakeholder capitalism, it's trending toward social and political instability. >During stakeholder capitalism: considered the glory days of the American society. Again, rose tinted glasses: the same period had Cuban Missile crisis, Vietnam war drafts, and the Kent State shootings. Granted, most of them probably didn't have anything to do with stakeholder capitalism, but it's laughable to call it "the glory days of the American society". Moreover have things really fared better in places with "stakeholder capitalism"? For all the talk of "common prosperity", China isn't doing too hot either, with its cratered housing market, high youth unemployment, and low consumer confidence.

sorcerer-mar 1y ago
> what evidence is there of stakeholder emerging after the "downright inhumane" period before? Sorry are you asking me to prove that stakeholder capitalism existed from the ~1940s to the ~1970s? I'm not going to give a 200 level Business History course in a Hacker News comment thread. You can use Google. > Again, rose tinted glasses... I don't know what point you think you're arguing against, but it ain't one of mine! China doesn't have stakeholder capitalism.
- gruez 1y ago
  >Sorry are you asking me to prove that stakeholder capitalism existed from the ~1940s to the ~1970s? I'm not going to give a 200 level Business History course in a Hacker News comment thread. You can use Google. Given that the wikipedia article says that a 1984 book was "widely cited in the field as being the foundation of stakeholder theory", that the first mention was in 1912, and there's nothing about the post-war period or communism, I'm very skeptical that your "~1940s to the ~1970s" window for stakeholder capitalism was defined in a rigorous way. It seems far more likely you're committing the texas sharpshooter's fallacy by finding a period of american prosperity (ie. "~1940s to the ~1970s"), defining that to be "stakeholder capitalism", and concluding that it was a great success. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeholder_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeholder_theory >China doesn't have stakeholder capitalism. You're not really refuting the point. "Common prosperity" sounds a lot like stakeholder capitalism, specifically improving the lives of other citizens/the country as a whole, rather than the company.
csa 1y ago
> When did stakeholder capitalism magically pop up and made industrialization not "downright inhumane"? When socialism and communism were perceived as legitimate ideological threats/alternatives to democracy and capitalism. While we know now that communism as an ideology (at least as it was practiced in the mid-20th century at the nation-state level) is not long-term viable, this was not considered a certainty at that time. So many of the updated social contracts (both explicit and implicit) that were put into place in the mid-20th century were done in an attempt to avoid/prevent a worker revolution. Imho, another wave of mass discontent is brewing — the elites in the US are very much out of touch with or ambivalent to the needs of the rest of the country.
- gruez 1y ago
  >So many of the updated social contracts (both explicit and implicit) that were put into place in the mid-20th century were done in an attempt to avoid/prevent a worker revolution. Can you cite specific polices or reforms? What makes you think they "were done in an attempt to avoid/prevent a worker revolution", as opposed to normal reform? What does it say that landmark legislation was passed at the tail end of that period, such as the clean air act? If stakeholder capitalism's "social contracts" were really keeping things together, why was legislation needed?
  - csa 1y ago
    I’m going to agree with the other responder that you can look this up yourself. I will give some highlights, but none of this is particularly controversial. > Can you cite specific polices or reforms? New Deal writ large, specifically social security, development and empowerment of labor unions (Wagner Act), public works projects (WPA and CCC). Also the GI Bill. These are some major examples. > What makes you think they "were done in an attempt to avoid/prevent a worker revolution", as opposed to normal reform? Because I’ve read history, including original sources. There was quite a bit of serious rhetoric around the potential for socialism in the US. > What does it say that landmark legislation was passed at the tail end of that period, such as the clean air act? I don’t really understand your question, and I have no idea where you’re going with this. I’m almost certain that any question you have on this matter has been answered online in vivid detail. > If stakeholder capitalism's "social contracts" were really keeping things together, why was legislation needed? Legislation was the “explicit” part that I mentioned. Better wording probably would have been “laws, policies, and social contracts”, but I’m just writing informal replies on the internet. The 20th century was a heady time. I’m not sure how old you are or how much history you’ve studied, but there is a lot of really good content out there. I encourage you to engage with it.