1980s as Decade of Greed C/D?

"livin' in a material world - material!"

I agree. 90s were just as greedy as the 80s.

But I think the grunge/granola element of the 90s was a backlash from all the shoulder-pad wearing big-spender 80s. The 90s folk wanted to distance themselves from an evil corporate past/present. If nothing else, they were in denial. Yet, many look back at 80s mass consumerism longingly as if it were a cute decade because of that selfish motivation.

Hmmm... What I'm saying is not making much sense to me...

Ok, in conclusion, 90s just as greedy as 80s but in denial. the end.

I'm sure you're not saying all off his policies were extesnsions of Regan's, but the way you've phrased it makes it seem so. Which isn't the case.

the 90s started off with a supposed backlash against greed. although this didnt last long it did set the tone for a while, and the beginning of a decade can be quite definitive until enough time passes for re-appraisal

80s seemed to have a focus on financial wealth, purely for its accumulation. in the 90s it was kind of caught up with things like 'spiritual wealth' (although this was often just a justification of individuality, and an 'excuse' for wealth)

80s as "consumption as ideology", capitalism as moral, cold war blah, greed as virtue, 90s greed as greed. no need to dress it up in the 80s, thatcher, reagan etc. the 90s is more linked with "caring capitalism" - showing a level of guilt about greed, a need to justify, warm things up (at least in presentation if not reality)

at the end of the day, thats what it comes down to...presentation. 80s=GREED IS GOOD!, 90s=GREED IS OK, dont worry! your psychoanalyst will help!

Early 90's Greed is bad. Happiness is good.

Later 90's: Stuff makes me happy. Money buys me stuff. Greed is good.

(Repeat ad nauseum).

He's too busy jacking off to CNN reruns of the Gulf War.

So then, the 90's only exisited to make the therapists richer? Surprise, surprise.

Thing is, I don't understand where all the leisure cash came from, as there was massive layoffs and unemployment left and right. For all the classified ads I saw in NY papers, I had mates (much of them with degrees) saying they could not land jobs as they were "overqualified". (In fact, I was also in the same boat.)

The leisure cash came from CEOs laying your friends off. See also: 1990s, 2000s.

maybe i shouldn't say that, though, or else felicity will come back and mock my quasi-marxist tendencies ;-)

Amateurist is OTM. The 80s were openingly disgusting, whereas the 90s were mediated by a veneer of hypocrisy.

Easy, easy credit. Retarded easy. Consumer debt is huge, and the saving rate for households is actually negative(!). Personal bankruptcies are at an all time high. Most of the economy is just an illusion.

The reason the 90's is not known as greedy is because a lot of the BS neo-conservative ideology (trickle down, free trade, privitization, etc.) introduced in the late 70s/80s and called "greedy" then has now become dogma to a large part of the population. They literally can't see the world working any other way.

As for "more people are buying stock", it may mean that more are making a little money on the market, but as for owning enough stock to have any control (including any damage the company might incur by selliing stock out of protest, unless done en masse), few people fall into that category.

I wasn't meaning that more people literally bought stocks in the 90s, and the friends and family comment was directed at whoever is writing these histories that Aaron is questioning, although now that Amateurist mentions it, I suppose the ultra low-rate commission fees enabled by internet trading may have enabled more people to participate in the 90s than 80s, when Wall Street was more of an old boys club.

If there is anywhere in the world where the phrase "greed is good" most symbolizes that decade it may be China, where starting in the late '70s market reforms were introduced and limited enterpreneurship was encouraged.

Theoretically, there's no reason why this can't be accomplished without what you call disney blah but often it is large chain corporations that have an interest in and most to gain by setting up in marginal neighborhoods and making them safe. Whether this is a bad thing I suppose depends on the priority you place on physical urban aesthetics as opposed to other competing values like the democratization of public spaces and what you consider homogenization. While I agree that it would be nice if this phenomenon weren't so often driven by massive corporations, personally I prefer it to NIMBYism and elitist zoning codes.

https://www.cnn.com/markets/fear-and-greed?utm_source=business_ribbon