←back to thread

Jack Welch, the Man Who Broke Capitalism (2022)

(www.forbes.com)
122 points throw0101b | 8 comments | 02 Jul 25 10:31 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
flyinghamster ◴[02 Jul 25 11:41 UTC] No.44442487[source]▶
Um, why was someone's perfectly reasonable take downvoted to oblivion? Too much of a newcomer? Too many Welch devotees here?

As far as I'm concerned, Welch turned GE from an industrial behemoth that more than lived up to its name, to a pale shadow of itself that has sold off almost everything. "Outsource Everything" has been an absolute disaster for our economy that will take decades to dig out of, if we even have the will to try.

replies(4): >>44442573 #>>44442590 #>>44443034 #>>44443194 #
bit1993 ◴[02 Jul 25 11:53 UTC] No.44442590[source]▶
It is easy to look at Globalization in retrospect and conclude that it was a failure but you will miss all the advances it brought with it. Globalization has its place and time, it was the logical next step after the USA industrialization peaked the next step to squeeze out even more from the economy.
replies(2): >>44442611 #>>44443042 #
camillomiller ◴[02 Jul 25 11:55 UTC] No.44442611[source]▶
We could have had exactly the same and possibly more if it weren’t for people like Welch. They were a hindrance to how globalization could have brought a lot more of shared wealth and less inequality
replies(1): >>44442653 #
bit1993 ◴[02 Jul 25 11:58 UTC] No.44442653[source]▶
> They were a hindrance to how globalization could have brought a lot more of shared wealth and less inequality

That is not how capitalism works.

replies(2): >>44442693 #>>44442885 #
pyrale ◴[02 Jul 25 12:24 UTC] No.44442885[source]▶
Says who?
replies(1): >>44443115 #
bit1993 ◴[02 Jul 25 12:48 UTC] No.44443115{3}[source]▶
Capitalism is a zero sum game.
replies(3): >>44443278 #>>44443299 #>>44443531 #
1. QuadmasterXLII ◴[02 Jul 25 13:09 UTC] No.44443299{4}[source]▶
How on earth do you justify this claim?
replies(2): >>44443996 #>>44448450 #
2. xoralkindi ◴[02 Jul 25 14:14 UTC] No.44443996[source]▶
The US Federal Reserve data indicates that the top 10% of households own about 67% of the nation's wealth, while the bottom 50% hold less than 4%

Also let us not forget other tools that have significantly helped capitalist nations: Slavery, Colonialism, Imperialism, Sanctions, Wars, Coup d'etat's... these have all contributed to what capitalism is today. So yes Capitalism in the grand scheme of things is entirely zero sum.

replies(1): >>44444513 #
3. _benton ◴[02 Jul 25 14:53 UTC] No.44444513[source]▶
Nothing of what you said has anything to do with the concept of "zero sum". It has to do with if the resources in a system are fixed or if they are changing.
replies(1): >>44445143 #
4. xoralkindi ◴[02 Jul 25 15:45 UTC] No.44445143{3}[source]▶
"zero sum: relating to or denoting a situation in which whatever is gained by one side is lost by the other."

The data from the Fed show great inequality which can be expected from a zero-sum game. Another example check how under develop DR Congo is in the electronic age, while hardware (and to an extend software) companies are some of the most valuable companies, they all source raw materials from Congo.

replies(1): >>44445246 #
5. _benton ◴[02 Jul 25 15:52 UTC] No.44445246{4}[source]▶
Inequality is possible in a non-zero-sum game. It's just as possible to have an inequal non-zero-sum game as it is to have an equal zero-sum game.

Capitalism isn't zero sum because at its core principle are transactions, which are inherently non-zero-sum.

replies(1): >>44445460 #
6. xoralkindi ◴[02 Jul 25 16:10 UTC] No.44445460{5}[source]▶
Its like chess in that white has an advantage because they get to play first. The rich get richer because you need capital to efficiently participate in capitalism and it has a compounding effect. It than becomes a zero-sum game where the poor are trying to play catch up with the rich. For example if you start an innovative company the rich can simply buy it or start a competing company that is hard to compete against because of their resources.
replies(1): >>44445822 #
7. _benton ◴[02 Jul 25 16:40 UTC] No.44445822{6}[source]▶
I'm sorry but what you are describing is not what a zero sum game is.
8. vaporwario ◴[02 Jul 25 20:28 UTC] No.44448450[source]▶
The more capital you have, the more purchasing power you have relative to the other players in the capitalist game. There is a fixed amount of purchasing power (the total sum of capital). Increasing currency in circulation does not increase the number of things that can be purchased with that currency, it just changes the distribution of purchasing power.