TummelVision 50: Umair Haque on tummeling our way to a new kind of capitalism


Episode Notes

This week on Tummelvision Umair Haque talks with us about his book The New Capitalist Manifesto, the imbalanced state of the union, Silicon Valley’s disruption deficit disorder, and much, much more.

Umair is an old pal of the tummel-crew. Four years ago when I first met Umair  we both had a meeting of the minds on the fundamental shifts impacting business and culture in a networked world.  Our major rant at the time was that this is much bigger than new technology and a new distribution channel.  People were missing the point that social software and the social web are changing the rules – they are empowering individuals and groups and slicing into old economic models. This still holds true today.  Most businesses are still trying to slam the proverbial square peg in a worn out old round hole while missing the fact that the hole is not round anymore and the peg – well it is now comprised of lots of little pegs [ok -done beating a dead metaphor].

Umair  has been shaking things up with his great blog over at HBR and has just published his new book The New Capitalist Manifesto where he lays out many of these fundamental changes. We are proud that Tummeling fits right into the midst of it all.   Please join us this Thursday for our live chat and podcast where we discuss Tummeling Capitalism – two words that many people might think are at odds with each other when in reality they go together like peanut butter and chocolate!

  • Without him making endorsement per se, and more for a baseline to start the conversation with, I would be interested in hearing which software companies/apps he thinks match the ‘The New Capitalist Manifesto’ best.

    Ex: Google Voice offers free, unlimited, send/receive SMS, kicking the legs out from under the telcos cash cow – Is that the best example of a web being disruptive right now? If not, what is?

    • Thanks Todd. We’ll definitely ask him. I hope you can join us live tomorrow night 8pmPST in the chat room.

  • Hello Mr. Haque,

    I would like to know what you think about the future shape of the labour markets? From the “value-cycle” discussion in the book, creating ‘value conversations’ with “deliberative” decision processes made by consumers for “strategic agility” it sounds like –please do correct me–:
    – stripping out levels of employees
    – those employees within businesses will need higher levels of education bc they will be required to be more ‘creative’ or ‘conceptual’ professionals (Pink, Florida like) and
    – therefore there should be an expectation of higher wages
    – businesses will be smaller overall, even the largest corporations

    so, it sounds like gut wrenching structural adjustment that’s required by the labour market with lower employment levels in the shorter to medium term where’s the money not only for education, retraining, going to come from, but wages?

    Don’t get me wrong, I love the idea of it. Definitely behind you, but can you talk about what needs to happen with the labour market? Are shorter work hours and flexible work conditions inherent in this?

    thanks, @ann_lytical

  • Hello Mr. Haque,

    I’m Joshua Munnilal, Gin member with the Global Information Network. Consider this your personal GIN invitation from me. If you’re anything like I was, you’re looking for an opportunity to get connected with some very affluent, wealthy and successful people… Well this is a great opprotunity for anyone to have be or do anything they desire! My question is do you believe the g.i.n. is the life experience?(You can also check out the ktradioshow)

  • Don’t mean to ask too much, but on conducting business in a non-exclusionary and (from your book) “competitive philosophy” manner: would country policy makers do well to run national economies in the same way for the 21st century as they all hope to build ‘knowledge economies’ to drive economic growth? Is there any country running their economy close to this idea? Does the US’s “winning the future” agenda meet this?

    Thanks, Ann

  • Myers

    if I were on your committee & the NCM were the thesis before us, my questions might be..

    1 Why “manifesto”? In market up to it’s hind quarters in Manifestos, why weaken your brand by making Red Bull into weak tea with an oversold term?
    2 You’ve mentioned Institutional Innovation at several points, why build a central support on this apparent contradiction? Spinoza might as well have been discussing institutions when he said ‘All things long to persist in their being” Institutions attain longevity by mitigating change. The PhD itself is institutional innovation, requiring Terra Nova for each fresh contribution, yet experience tells us that this new made ground is as stable as the made land in San Francisco…ie given to liquefaction in an quake or social change.
    3 The principle gift of post structuralism and other modes of late capitalist thinking might be expressed as showing the intelectual poverty of a single great anything that would contain everything, this would seem to argue directly against many of your points of incorporating delta or rate of change or even active time series into existing dynamics. How do you square this circle?

    Mix & Match a response as need be.

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention TummelVision 50: Umair Haque on tummeling our way to a new kind of capitalism | Tummelvision --

  • Pingback: Book Review: The New Capitalist Manifesto()

Powered by WordPress | Design based on Deadline Theme and refined by Sarah Dopp