Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

America Has Replaced Capitalism with Cronyism

nymag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 106 posts

Re: America Has Replaced Capitalism with Cronyism

#81

Post by mc32 »

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.

Oligarchs usually have deep ties to top people in Government and they do each other favors. Some aspect of that probably happens at some level with some SV (and elsewhere) big-wigs and Government but not to the extent it becomes too shady. Of course there are whispers it does happen especially as it concerns family members of high gov officials seeming to have beneficial relationships and businesses getting a friendly ear. Or executives having a direct lines to gov officials.

I wouldn't be mad at Bernie if he called executives out for behaving like Oligarchs.

Re: America Has Replaced Capitalism with Cronyism

#82

Post by edgyquant »

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.

Oligarch implies the government grants and helps enforce a monopoly to a single individual. There are few, if any, individuals in America that this can apply to. There’s definitely regulatory capture in the US, but oligarch is hyperbole and/or a lack of perspective. It tends to be people equating US billionaires with Russian ones who definitely do fit this definition.

Re: America Has Replaced Capitalism with Cronyism

#83

Post by emodendroket »

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.

The specifics may differ but I do not agree that leaders of big business have "better things to do" than try to influence the President; a lot of time and money is spent on government influence operations.

Re: America Has Replaced Capitalism with Cronyism

#84

Post by throwawaymaths »

emodendroket wrote: post #83
throwawaymaths wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The specifics may differ but I do not agree that leaders of big business have "better things to do" than try to influence the President; a lot of time and money is spent on government influence operations.

> a lot of time and money is spent

I guess on reflection my parent description is not quite right, but your comment brings up maybe the real distinction: if you were a true oligarch, you wouldn't have do that, you would just have government influence, or, at least have it 'quite easily' for some definition of easily.

Re: America Has Replaced Capitalism with Cronyism

#85

Post by malermeister »

true_religion wrote: post #51
malermeister wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with that naive viewpoint is that it assumes that greedy people that got successful playing the game won't use their power to mess with the rules. Once the first set of greedy people gets powerful enough, they change the playing field and cement their lead. 75% of those billions pulled out of poverty were in China [0], which is explicitly not capitalist. [0] https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release…

That report references the last 40 years. The previous comment is in the context of Adam Smith who died over 200 years ago. Capitalism and democracy are older than the PRC, and the billions aided by it include the entire modern western world.

The previous comment said, and I quote, "pulling billions out of poverty in just the last few decades".

The "last few decades" are around what I would call the last 40 years, wouldn't you agree?

The entire modern western world got rich not through some capitalist miracle, but by brutal imperialism and subjugation of the third world.

Re: America Has Replaced Capitalism with Cronyism

#86

Post by throwawaylinux »

kevviiinn wrote: post #66
throwawaylinux wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By some peoples' definition of a purely capitalistic system that could be the case. By others, where most people are happy to pay a small and reasonable amount of tax, donation, or general insurance to have some social systems in place, because they can see the benefit and recognize that society is improved for their benefit as well even if they never make use of them directly (and therefore it being somewhat close t…

Good question, how many homeless people are there in China right now?

Probably far fewer since implementing many capitalism-inspired reforms than when under a stricter form of communism. Why do you ask?

Re: America Has Replaced Capitalism with Cronyism

#87

Post by emodendroket »

throwawaymaths wrote: post #84
emodendroket wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The specifics may differ but I do not agree that leaders of big business have "better things to do" than try to influence the President; a lot of time and money is spent on government influence operations.

> a lot of time and money is spent I guess on reflection my parent description is not quite right, but your comment brings up maybe the real distinction: if you were a true oligarch, you wouldn't have do that, you would just have government influence, or, at least have it 'quite easily' for some definition of easily.

If Jamie Dimon gives the President (or one of his aides or some other well-placed official) a call, is he going to be completely unable to find an audience who will at least hear what he has to say? Probably not.

It would completely disingenuous to say that there's no difference between the US and Russia but I think there's more in common than we'd like to admit.

Re: America Has Replaced Capitalism with Cronyism

#89

Post by kevviiinn »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #86
kevviiinn wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good question, how many homeless people are there in China right now?

Probably far fewer since implementing many capitalism-inspired reforms than when under a stricter form of communism. Why do you ask?

What makes you think that capitalism inspired reforms are responsible when the most capitalistic country has the most homeless people? Do you have any sources for that information?

Re: America Has Replaced Capitalism with Cronyism

#90

Post by true_religion »

malermeister wrote: post #85
true_religion wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That report references the last 40 years. The previous comment is in the context of Adam Smith who died over 200 years ago. Capitalism and democracy are older than the PRC, and the billions aided by it include the entire modern western world.

The previous comment said, and I quote, "pulling billions out of poverty in just the last few decades". The "last few decades" are around what I would call the last 40 years, wouldn't you agree? The entire modern western world got rich not through some capitalist miracle, but by brutal imperialism and subjugation of the third world.

My mistake then.
Post reply on HN