America Has Replaced Capitalism with Cronyism

Post by drewcoo » Mon, Mar 13, 2023, 3:07 AM UTC

b1c1jones wrote: post #19

vitessa wrote: post #7

This was capitalism, a beacon of hope for people who are smart, hardworking, and comfortable with risk, promising a greater share of the spoils to them than to those who are not. Wrong. That’s not what capitalism is or means. Capitalism is an economic system in which private investors run the economy in search of personal profit, while those who lack capital rely on wage labor to survive. You can debate whether this…

How do you prevent capitalism and dollars being free speech from turning into oligarchy? Asking for a friend. Actually, a few billion friends, come to think of it.

Post by Gigachad » Mon, Mar 13, 2023, 3:10 AM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #27

dragonwriter wrote: post #21

Capitalism always was cronyism (so was feudalism, but with a different favored class.) It hasn’t been replaced, some people are just realizing the things that have been pointed out since critics of capitalism coined the name “capitalism”, refelecting its favored-class orientation, for it.

Corruption, greed, and power dynamics are features of humanity. They are not the only features, but they have always existed, and be a challenge in any economic or political system.

Post by honkler » Mon, Mar 13, 2023, 3:15 AM UTC

throwawaymaths wrote: post #69

emodendroket wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The term "robber baron" sounds so impossibly dated it's hard to take it seriously, and "oligarch" seems to be the favored term for when people have corrupt business relations in enemy states, so perhaps using "oligarch" is more illuminating for a modern audience.

It seems hard to call big us ceos oligarchs, I would find it hard to believe for example Sundar pichai interacts even say weekly with Joe Biden, if for no other reason that there are so many potentially "influential" CEOs in the US and (at least there is a perception) they generally have better things to do than try to influence the president.

Post by emodendroket » Mon, Mar 13, 2023, 3:26 AM UTC

wahnfrieden wrote: post #68

emodendroket wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The term "robber baron" sounds so impossibly dated it's hard to take it seriously, and "oligarch" seems to be the favored term for when people have corrupt business relations in enemy states, so perhaps using "oligarch" is more illuminating for a modern audience.

You have Andrew Carnegie to thank for expensive marketing campaigns that retired that term in popular usage and rebranding robber barony under the philanthropist label. Now we have robber barons that look like they're trying to be nice.

Post by eyelidlessness » Mon, Mar 13, 2023, 3:37 AM UTC

emodendroket wrote: post #32

b1c1jones wrote: post #16

Just call them oligarchs and have done with the whole argument. Wait, what happened to the robber barons? I guess they didn't have PACs.

The term "robber baron" sounds so impossibly dated it's hard to take it seriously, and "oligarch" seems to be the favored term for when people have corrupt business relations in enemy states, so perhaps using "oligarch" is more illuminating for a modern audience.