Talk:Crony capitalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2004 press source article for details.
The citation is in: "Corruption and the Political Process", CBC Newsworld, February 25, 2004. |
- I just added a wikilink to the recent Canadian sponsorship scandal because this seems to me as another perfect example of the principle. le_natch 00:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Careful examination of the facts surrounding George W. Bush's purchase and profit from the sale of his share of the baseball team the Texas Rangers provide an illuminating example of the principle, "It's not what you know; it's who you know."
- It is hypothesised that crony capitalism in the United States significantly contributed to the Stock Market Crash of 2002 due to weak leadership and inadequate regulation of shady business practices.
This sort of thing is precisely what Wikipedia has to work hard to get rid of, if it wants to become a reliable, trustworthy resource. Whether or not the above claims are true, it seems obvious that they were added to the article (as is often the case with articles related to current events) in order to make a political statement about the current Republican administration. That isn't what Wikipedia is for--in fact, it's an abuse of Wikipedia. The more dross like this is shoveled into Wikipedia, the less seriously it will be taken by people who can really make it into something great.
What amazes me is that Wikipedia is full of so many obviously intelligent people, and yet, somehow, those same people commit or let by precisely this sort of bias. Cmon people, writing from a neutral point of view is not rocket science. What amazes me is that this is not only biased, it's really, really obviously biased. I mean, if you really did think this stuff about Bush and "crony capitalism," and you in good faith both understood and supported Wikipedia's nonbias policy, maybe you'd want say, "The phrase is used by New York liberals such as the editorial staff of the Times, to make it quite clear who believes what." You would discuss the phrase, rather than use it--the difference is obvious.
Look at it this way. When a political issue, as in this case, is essentially over what sort of spin should be put on an event (concept, whatever), an encyclopedia should be in the business of explaining the dynamics of the spinning, and who the spinmeisters are. In these casees, actually using Wikipedia to do the spinning is patently sophomoric idiocy that obviously (or, it should be blindingly obvious) undermines Wikipedia's mission.
This is only one example. There are many, many other examples all throughout Wikipedia; see other current events backgrounder articles.
- My comment: the way you phrase your point here in this discussion makes it obvious to anyone that you personally dislike seeing such things; this wouldn't help people who don't have the same opinions as you, help you. Moreover, you said in your second paragraph: "... to make it quite clear who believes what." The problem is that there is no place for belief in such issues. It's proof, or disproof: facts, not trust. You simply have to ask people something like that: "please reference your work from credible, objective sources, or remove your comment", instead of going subjective and calling the process "patently sophomoric idiocy". If you want me to be much clearer, suggest something better, or suggest not. Edit wars, they say? That should be understood as "Edit peace talks" ;) le_natch 00:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Most of the uses I've seen of the phrase denote it as a specific type of capitalism--regular capitalism is something entirely different. As such, I thought that the first sentence pre-Lir was entirely appropriate. Meelar 06:39, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
If you wish to address an edit of mine, the best way to do so is via my talk page. Lirath Q. Pynnor
This article really should address crony capitalism as an institutional variant of capitalism. It also needs to describe the institutions of cronyism. This is no small effort, and someone needs to spend time researching this issue. Saying generalities about networks is not enough. Possible sources to dig up stuff: Mother Jones, Brad deLong's weblog archives. Call it Crapitalism if you want, but there needs to be specific references to this usage. Googling didn't seem to turn up many reliable references.
This is an important resouce article and if there is an institutional economist out there, please take it. CSTAR 19:34, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
This page seems extremely biased, though I'm not sure how to make it unbiased. LDan 22:09, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
the reason that George Bush SHOULD be included in crony capitalism is so obviously because he is the biggest crony capitalist of the all. how is that biased, his and daddys buisness connections are well know by everyone aren't they? Half the damn cabined are directors or CEOs of one business or another and the election campaign as funded by big business, and if that’s not crony capitalism, then I don’t know what is. That’s why it’s not biased.
LOL. (Hey LD) Um, yes I agree its biased. And suggest for starters removing the "crapitalism" comment. As with all articles about terms for other terms or aspects within those terms, there should focus on the use of the term itself. Im thinking a capitalism topicbox can show a heirarchy wherin (maybe) this gan exist. Elsewise link to dic:Crony capitalism. SV|t|add 18:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Bush is mentioned like 5 times on this page. It's obviously biased with a left slant. Why don't you just delete this page because there is already an article regarding 'cronyism'. Nearly all presidents have been accused of Cronyism. Why? Because they nominate on party lines? That's not cronyism. That's patronage.
Crony Capitalism? Not in the U.S.A. I know. Not in an era of corporate CEO's going to prison left and right. This is a simple derogatory term used to hurt the U.S. image. I'd bet most who use this term are socialist.
oh really, care to name one that is actually IN prison???
"That's not cronyism. That's patronage." bwbhahahahah!!!
Contents |
[edit] July 2005 revision
I have heavily revised this page. Any comments would be welcome. – Smyth\talk 1 July 2005 20:13 (UTC)
[edit] article seems biased
I'm not happy with this article, since the latter half of it seems somewhat biased towards capitalists. Many people would argue these days that the UK and USA strongly exhibit crony-capitalism.
[edit] Crapitalism
I can't find any strong connection between "crapitalism" and "Crony capitalism" that would merit craptalism being bolded at the top as an alternate term. Crapitalism seems to be a catch-all for opposition to capitalism, and may well be applied to "non-crony" capitalism (or else part of a belief that there is no such thing).
Also, as a random comment, I randomly guessed for the uncited "a leading economist in China" quote in the older article, and it turned out to be right. Heh, who knew... not that I can actually read the article I linked as a reference from Google (dang payment required), but it clearly has the quote in the abstract, so whatever.
Some more cites would be helpful on this article. I might see if I can toss some in later. SnowFire 04:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Recent changes.
BernardL: as for your political viewpoints addition, it's nice that it's sourced, but... I'm failing to see the relevance of this screed against neoliberalism in this article. Also, "radical economists" seem like a pretty minor viewpoint. I've been meaning to come back to this article for some time and get rid of the random pimping of a minor Austrian school book (the Robber Barons one), but I don't think your example is much more relevant, just from the other side.
Also, I can guarantee you that "crony capitalism" is used not just by capitalists. It's used by socialists all the time (quick Google yields [1], [2] and [3] as three quick examples in a minute, and having gone to a college with a lot of socialists I know I saw it used there); it's just that they generally are referring to all capitalism when they say this (and, as the one who edited in the various "cronyism in sections of the economy" sections, I think that they have a point). Both sides agree that "crony capitalism" is bad; it's just that capitalists often use the term to explain poor-performing semi-capitalist economies, while opponents try and draw everything into crony capitalism's sphere. SnowFire 21:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
As for "radical economists" being a "pretty" minor viewpoint, Marx was a “radical economist” and so was Veblen. Robin Hahnel, the economist in question, is a prominent left economist, a professor at American University, and well known among global anti-systemic movements, so I would argue that his views do qualify as notable at least for a “political viewpoints” section. (I have several similar examples from notable "radical economists and analysts" if you do not approve of that one.) Furthermore this “example” concerns the apologetics of Michael Camdessus and Stanley Fischer- powerful global “players” indeed- so I wonder how such an example can possibly be irrelevant? I was aware that some leftists have used the term, "crony capitalism". Personally I think they are typically misguided inasmuch as "crony capitalism" is used as an overarching structural description, rather than in a qualified way to express tendencies and aspects of the overall structure; but I would suggest that the initial and primary impetus for the term's popularity has been as an apologetics for failures such as the Asian financial crisis and the Enron crisis. One can readily notice that the left usage is typically to expose the hypocrisy of someone like Greenspan blaming the Asian crisis on crony capitalism while ignoring the cronyism under his nose (ie: Enron). This is the basic intent of the second article to which you linked, from the ISR. The link to the Stiglitz review points to the same argument about hypocrisy. Stiglitz moreover tends to employ the term crony capitalism, almost ironically, but goes much farther in recognizing fundamental faults in the information processing capacities of competitive markets (even in a dynamic context), a notion which is anathema to austrians, neoliberals, libertarians, etc. who are the primary instigators and promulgators of the apologetic It is notable that the “crony capitalism” section of this linked review puts great emphasis on the Asian financial crisis and the Enron debacle, while the current wikipedia article makes no mention of it.
So to elucidate the concept more clearly than the article previously did, I thought its primary agents should be identified, moreover I thought it was wrong to present it as an alleged “form of capitalism”; the concept is not developed enough to constitute a systemic theory. It’s more of a catch-phrase than a concept derived from established academic economics literature, no matter how hard the article may try to suggest otherwise. Regarding the connection to neoliberalism, I think it is undeniable. The term came into common currency at the height of the neoliberal era, and was used by prominent neoliberals as an explanation for market failures. Some socialists engaged in the discourse on globalization have tried to turn the tables, in a mainly reactive way, by noting the hypocrisy and pointing out that capitalism generally involves crony capitalism. Personally I think the previous theories of the schools of monopoly capitalism and critical institutionalism go much further and provide far more adequate explanations of rent-seeking behaviour in an evolving context of industrial market-capitalism than the coinage of 'crony capitalism" can offer.BernardL 23:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- The reason I worry about its relevance wasn't so much the source as the content. It reads to me to mostly be an attack on the IMF and neoliberal policies without as much relevance to crony capitalism. To put it another way, suppose Mr. Hahnel is entirely correct - my conclusion from that would not be anything concerning crony capitalism, but rather "the IMF is a bunch of dweebs." It'd be the same way if an article on, say, the Iraq insurgency brought up George Bush saying inconsistent things about it, praising the government one second and threatening it the next. This means that George Bush is an idiot, but it doesn't say much about the nature of the insurgency/civil war/unrest/etc.
- The one part of the quote that does seem possibly relevant is "the afflicted economies were no more rife with crony capitalism, lack of transparency, and weak-willed politicians than dozens of other economies untouched by the Asian financial crisis." That said, again, even if true, I'm not sure it says much. Nobody ever said all crony capitalist economies have to collapse ("suffer corrections," whatever) at the same time. Anyway, I don't mean to make work for you, but since you did offer to use an alternate quote... do you have something that goes into more detail on why the term is "as an ideologically motivated attempt to avoid the more fundamental problems of market capitalist economic arrangements?" Also, even if the term is ideologically motivated, what do such socialists think of cases of crony capitalism - even if it is motivated by ideology, it still exists as a phenomenon worthy of study, right? I don't think it's really arguable that it's easier to get business done in Singapore or the United States than Brazil or Russia. Or, to put it in Marxian terms, "crony capitalism" is somewhere between feudalism and capitalism on the economies scale, and presumably a "fair" capitalism would be preferable since it would be at least talented people grabbing all the wealth rather than psuedo-noble families with connections.
- Anyway, on another note, with the whole "who uses the term" debate... I think we both agree that both sides do use the term, though you seem to think that the "left" shouldn't. Perhaps a better approach in the lead is that rather than say "it's primarily used by free-market advocates" is to say who originated the term, something much easier to measure and thus more objective. Sadly, a Google check didn't turn up much- yes, lots of stuff on the Asian financial crisis, but that was also around the time the Internet kicked into high gear, so that doesn't say much as earlier references might not be on the net. Do you have a reference for this statement in the political views section?
-
- The term "crony capitalism" made its first significant impact in the public arena as an explanation of the Asian financial crisis.
- I'd have no problem at all moving that to the lead with a "by free market advocates" tacked on to the end and possibly an "according to SOURCE," if we can find a source. SnowFire 00:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
