I bet that rich dumb ass would love this comparison.

  • daltotron@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    We do need people with the skill set to organize businesses and envision products and services.

    That doesn’t really describe capitalists, though. The point about the ownership class is that they’re not really skilled in doing any of this, which is why the economy is organized in the eclectic and idiotic way that it is. I also don’t understand what “envisions products and services” is, as a skill. I think we can all do that, it doesn’t really make it a good or valuable service. Owning class dipshits envision services all the time, are awful at it, and they never end up getting made or doing anything useful.

    • Octavio@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      It may not describe financiers. I’d say it’s a fair description of entrepreneurs. Just because some people do it poorly doesn’t mean it’s not a skill. Kind of argues that it is, actually. I wholeheartedly agree that having the most money is a horrible qualification for the job. But I maintain that it does need to be done. Myself I would prefer more of the decision making to be collectivized but I don’t think the concept of having business leaders is entirely outmoded.

      Edit: plus I was on a bit of a tangent when I wrote that sentence anyway. I need to get better at self-censoring. The point was about how best to be able to serve society’s needs without relying upon rentiers to furnish the means.

    • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      People often imagine things they don’t do can’t be that hard. Marketing is important because no one will be interested in your product if no one knows about it. Being able to envision products that the average person will want is another one that good business leaders often do.

      Steve Jobs, for example, was very good at envisioning what people would be interested in. From the Apple to Macs to the iPod to the iPhone, he hit a lot of winners. This isn’t an endorsement for him owning the company, or even as a person, but he undeniably had a skillet that others around him often lacked.

      • daltotron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        I dunno man, I’m really skeptical of Steve Jobs as a big “ideas guy” and I’d probably attribute most of Apple’s success to Steve Wozniak. I’d also wager that the pocket computer + phone revolution was probably inevitable at the point where the iPod and iPhone were coming out, and more long term, Apple’s success in that domain has done a lot of damage to the market with their “trend setting” behaviors.

        • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Steve Wozniak was an amazing computer geek, and designed an incredibly useful computer for the time. Steve Jobs popularized and marketed the idea. He didn’t do a lot on the technical side. There was the Blackberry and resistive touch phones before the iPhone, and they had serious problems. Anyone could have made the first smartphone - Windows Mobile was released in 2003 and certainly had the money to take on this project - but Apple did. And yes, Apple did a lot to make it painful for their customers to stray from the Apple ecology to the company’s benefit, and the detriment to the market as a whole, which is pretty on-brand for Jobs.