BIG crises can lead to big political upheavals. Think of the Depression and the subsequent rise of fascism in Europe and the New Deal in America. What is remarkable about the financial crisis of 2008 is the limited nature of the reaction.

Protest parties of the left and right have gained ground, but only in Greece have they gained power. The biggest policy change has been the introduction of quantitative easing, a technical shift that arouses few passions on the street.

This lack of action is a source of frustration on the left, for whom 2008 seemed to herald capitalism’s collapse. Some, including Paul Mason, the author of a new book called “Postcapitalism”, still hold out that hope. They view the “sharing economy”, in which outright ownership of goods is less important (think car clubs and “freecycled” furniture), as a sign of capitalism’s impending demise. Jeremy Rifkin, in his book “The Zero Marginal Cost Society”, talks about “the internet of things, the collaborative commons and the eclipse of capitalism”.

However, if you define capitalism as the interaction of individuals with a market economy, the system is advancing, not retreating. New-economy websites such as Airbnb and Etsy allow people to earn money in new ways—renting out their homes while they are on holiday, or selling arts and crafts. In the past, homeowners might have struggled to find renters and hobbyists to find buyers; aggregator websites make the task much easier.

It is true that some of these new websites undermine existing business models, just as file-sharing wrecked music-publishing companies. But investors expect most of these companies to be profitable eventually, judging by the valuations they attract. Google started as a free internet-search business but has found a way to monetise its reach. The move from an economy based on physical goods to one based on software and intellectual property seems to be allowing higher returns on capital than before. The internet has been in wide use for 20 years or so, and corporate profits are close to a post-war high as a proportion of American GDP.

By reducing the cost of information, the internet kills some business models. But not all. New models will appear and people will always be willing to pay for products that convey status, whether luxury watches or fast cars or branded clothing. They can stream music for nothing, but people will spend vast sums to hear rock bands play live.

Another new-economy effect is that the old idea of lifetime employment is fading. More people will follow “portfolio careers”, switching from one employer, or even industry, to another as the economy changes. This will require them not just to learn new skills as they age, but to monitor the economy for new opportunities.

Many more people are likely to be self-employed, offering services to a wide range of customers. In a sense, they will be artisans, not employees. Activities such as sales, marketing and accounting—matters that salaried employees leave in the hands of specialist colleagues—will become the responsibility of the individual. Such workers will have to be more, not less, sensitive to the market economy than the typical office drone.

And then there are pensions. Two decades ago, many workers could rely on a paternalistic system under which companies provided a retirement income linked to their final salary. New private-sector workers merely build up a savings pot, which they must use to see them through their retirement years as best they can.

In Britain this pot used to be converted into an annuity, a guaranteed income for life, another paternalistic solution. Instead, Britons must now guess at their likely longevity, calculate their spending over two decades or more while allowing for the effect of inflation, decide on the asset allocation for their funds, assess the merits of rival providers and adjust for the impact of their fees. These are decisions that might defeat the brightest hedge-fund manager. Again, people will have to be more sensitive to the minutiae of the markets than in the past.

It could be that this process will turn workers in a left-wing direction; they will demand more government protection from the economic cycle. But things may shift the other way. New-economy pioneers may be socially liberal, but their economic views tend to the libertarian right. The individuals who sell stuff on eBay, or run bed and breakfasts, are capitalists too, even though they may not think of themselves that way. And they tend not to like more government regulation, or higher taxes on their earnings.

Economist.com/blogs/buttonwood