4 ms·

To adapt the words of composer Frank Wilhoit: "Crony capitalism consists of but one principle: In-corporations who are protected by regulation, but not bound b

by a4isms 1y ago

To adapt the words of composer Frank Wilhoit: "Crony capitalism consists of but one principle: In-corporations who are protected by regulation, but not bound by it, alongside out-corporations who are bound by regulation, but not protected by it."

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
dredmorbius 1y ago
I love Wilhoit's original, and want to note that he's been active lately on HN as well (<https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=FrankWilhoit https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=FrankWilhoit>). His sentiments are pressaged by others, including Adam Smith (1776): Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all. <https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations/ https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations/> Or some guy named Matthew, somewhat earlier: For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. <https://biblehub.com/matthew/13-12.htm https://biblehub.com/matthew/13-12.htm>
- Viliam1234 1y ago
  > For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Matthew was a tax collector, this is literally expert advice, not just one of those religious metaphors.
  - dredmorbius 1y ago
    That's not an interpretation I've encountered before. Any credible sources or references you'd care to provide? (Not about Matthew's occupation but the meaning/interpretation of the verse.)
    - Viliam1234 1y ago
      I just made it up. Also, Matthew is supposed to quote Jesus rather than give his own advice, and Jesus was not a tax collector.
- emh68 1y ago
  > defense of the rich against the poor Taking this a step further, it's logical to conclude that society itself is a constant war between rich people, who use their wealth (influence/power) to enlist the poor in their attacks on one another. Taking it another level, we could say that "society" itself is merely a side-effect of this war, in fact it is the current state-of-the-art weapon in this struggle. If something better than capitalistic society comes about (such as, most obviously, human-level AIs and robotics), the rich will not hesitate to abandon the society strategy.
  - dredmorbius 1y ago
    That's pretty close to the insight I had about a decade ago reading the opening paragraphs of A.H.M. Jones's biography of Augustus. I've quoted the passage, which describes the political balance and division between the optimates, populares, and equites, roughly the oligarchs, labour, and petit bourgousie, in this (now archived) Reddit post: <https://web.archive.org/web/20230607042525/https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/6i2h0e/ahm_jones_augustus_the_breakdown_of_the_republic/ https://web.archive.org/web/20230607042525/https://old.reddi...> The durability of such conflict makes me strongly suspect that this is innate to human polity, and Jones's description of the respective groups' political platforms, concerns, and ideologies strike me as both insightful and possibly innate. I've mentioned this several times previously on HN: <https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adredmorbius%20jones%20augustus&sort=byPopularity&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...>

by a4isms 1y ago

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

dredmorbius 1y ago

I love Wilhoit's original, and want to note that he's been active lately on HN as well (<https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=FrankWilhoit https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=FrankWilhoit>). His sentiments are pressaged by others, including Adam Smith (1776): Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all. <https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations/ https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations/> Or some guy named Matthew, somewhat earlier: For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. <https://biblehub.com/matthew/13-12.htm https://biblehub.com/matthew/13-12.htm>

Viliam1234 1y ago
> For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Matthew was a tax collector, this is literally expert advice, not just one of those religious metaphors.
- dredmorbius 1y ago
  That's not an interpretation I've encountered before. Any credible sources or references you'd care to provide? (Not about Matthew's occupation but the meaning/interpretation of the verse.)
  - Viliam1234 1y ago
    I just made it up. Also, Matthew is supposed to quote Jesus rather than give his own advice, and Jesus was not a tax collector.
emh68 1y ago
> defense of the rich against the poor Taking this a step further, it's logical to conclude that society itself is a constant war between rich people, who use their wealth (influence/power) to enlist the poor in their attacks on one another. Taking it another level, we could say that "society" itself is merely a side-effect of this war, in fact it is the current state-of-the-art weapon in this struggle. If something better than capitalistic society comes about (such as, most obviously, human-level AIs and robotics), the rich will not hesitate to abandon the society strategy.
- dredmorbius 1y ago
  That's pretty close to the insight I had about a decade ago reading the opening paragraphs of A.H.M. Jones's biography of Augustus. I've quoted the passage, which describes the political balance and division between the optimates, populares, and equites, roughly the oligarchs, labour, and petit bourgousie, in this (now archived) Reddit post: <https://web.archive.org/web/20230607042525/https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/6i2h0e/ahm_jones_augustus_the_breakdown_of_the_republic/ https://web.archive.org/web/20230607042525/https://old.reddi...> The durability of such conflict makes me strongly suspect that this is innate to human polity, and Jones's description of the respective groups' political platforms, concerns, and ideologies strike me as both insightful and possibly innate. I've mentioned this several times previously on HN: <https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adredmorbius%20jones%20augustus&sort=byPopularity&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...>