3 ms·

Why is cronyism bad? Because it distributes opportunity based on relationships rather than merit. Why is unregulated capitalism bad? Because it distributes opp

Why is cronyism bad? Because it distributes opportunity based on relationships rather than merit. Why is unregulated capitalism bad? Because it distributes opportunity based on capital rather than merit. But cronyism by definition operates at a human scale---a person can only have so many friends, after all---while the scale of capital is unlimited. in principle, one person can deprive millions of people of opportunities that might otherwise be available to them. So unregulated capitalism is a much, much bigger problem than cronyism.

hrhrhrhrhr 5y ago
jimbokun 5y ago
> But cronyism by definition operates at a human scale---a person can only have so many friends, after all If your friends are Senators, Representatives, and the President, you can also deprive unlimited millions of people from opportunities.
- vannevar 5y ago
  This is a great point. But your friends are unlikely to be Senators, Representatives, or the President unless you also have substantial capital.
simonh 5y ago
OK, but getting rid of capitalism doesn't get rid of capital. No economic system has ever done that, and so you still have the problem that whoever controls capital has the power that comes with it. So who gets to control the capital, and what system of laws and regulations do we enforce that both protect and circumscribe how that capital is managed and used? This is the problem Marxists have struggled with, and never managed to convincingly answer.
- vannevar 5y ago
  I think capitalism is great, it has a lot of benefits. But it can't just be left open-loop. You're right that the concentration cannot be avoided, but it can be mitigated so that it does not become catastrophic, which I would argue is the point we are nearing. Wealth and income disparities have not always been as acute as they are today.
  - simonh 5y ago
    Right but it's not capitalism as such that does that. It's the regulatory, legal and political systems that do it. Those are what need to be reformed, not the basic freedoms of association and ownership that underly capitalism. Look at China, Capitalism transformed that country. I know, my wife is Chinese and I first went there in 2001. It's raised hundreds of millions of people out of poverty after half a century of grinding poverty and starvation. As for growing wealth inequality, that seems to be mainly a US phenomenon, the evidence for it having grown in Europe is pretty weak. I certainly don't see it as inevitable, it's an issue of direction and leadership.
    - vannevar 5y ago
      >Right but it's not capitalism as such that does that. I assume by "that", you mean the concentration of wealth. But capitalism does concentrate wealth as a mathematical inevitability, because of the strong feedback loop between capital and income. The old saying, the rich get richer is literally true: having money makes it easier to make more money. It's intrinsic to the system. On an individual level, it's worldwide (ie, the disparity between individuals is increasing, though the disparity between nations is decreasing; see https://unu.edu/news/news/global-income-inequality-up-or-down.html https://unu.edu/news/news/global-income-inequality-up-or-dow...). That doesn't mean we should throw the whole thing out, but it does mean we can't just take our hands off the wheel and let it run laissez faire.

hrhrhrhrhr 5y ago

jimbokun 5y ago

> But cronyism by definition operates at a human scale---a person can only have so many friends, after all If your friends are Senators, Representatives, and the President, you can also deprive unlimited millions of people from opportunities.

vannevar 5y ago
This is a great point. But your friends are unlikely to be Senators, Representatives, or the President unless you also have substantial capital.

simonh 5y ago

OK, but getting rid of capitalism doesn't get rid of capital. No economic system has ever done that, and so you still have the problem that whoever controls capital has the power that comes with it. So who gets to control the capital, and what system of laws and regulations do we enforce that both protect and circumscribe how that capital is managed and used? This is the problem Marxists have struggled with, and never managed to convincingly answer.

vannevar 5y ago
I think capitalism is great, it has a lot of benefits. But it can't just be left open-loop. You're right that the concentration cannot be avoided, but it can be mitigated so that it does not become catastrophic, which I would argue is the point we are nearing. Wealth and income disparities have not always been as acute as they are today.
- simonh 5y ago
  Right but it's not capitalism as such that does that. It's the regulatory, legal and political systems that do it. Those are what need to be reformed, not the basic freedoms of association and ownership that underly capitalism. Look at China, Capitalism transformed that country. I know, my wife is Chinese and I first went there in 2001. It's raised hundreds of millions of people out of poverty after half a century of grinding poverty and starvation. As for growing wealth inequality, that seems to be mainly a US phenomenon, the evidence for it having grown in Europe is pretty weak. I certainly don't see it as inevitable, it's an issue of direction and leadership.
  - vannevar 5y ago
    >Right but it's not capitalism as such that does that. I assume by "that", you mean the concentration of wealth. But capitalism does concentrate wealth as a mathematical inevitability, because of the strong feedback loop between capital and income. The old saying, the rich get richer is literally true: having money makes it easier to make more money. It's intrinsic to the system. On an individual level, it's worldwide (ie, the disparity between individuals is increasing, though the disparity between nations is decreasing; see https://unu.edu/news/news/global-income-inequality-up-or-down.html https://unu.edu/news/news/global-income-inequality-up-or-dow...). That doesn't mean we should throw the whole thing out, but it does mean we can't just take our hands off the wheel and let it run laissez faire.