Hacker News Reader

Comment by smacktoward | Hacker News Reader

> Outcomes I Like = Result of a Free Market

> Outcomes I Don’t Like = Result of a Distorting Government Intervention

A modified version of this can frequently be observed in right-wing media, where the generally accepted term is "crony capitalism." When capitalism produces outcomes they approve of, it's because capitalism is good. When capitalism produces outcomes they don't approve of, it's because what was going on wasn't really capitalism, it was its debased, photo-negative, bearded-Spock version, "crony capitalism." In other words, it's a form of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy: true capitalism wouldn't have done those bad things.

Which is frustrating, because "crony capitalism" is a real thing that actually means something specific: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism. But in this usage it's just a convenient way to handwave away market failures by dumping them at the feet of a straw man.

View on HN

Cronyism is found in all political systems and in some systems like fascism might even be considered a defining characteristic. People trying to manipulate the political system for economic gain is unfortunately always going to happen whether there is little or a lot of economic freedom in the system.

>...When capitalism produces outcomes they approve of, it's because capitalism is good. When capitalism produces outcomes they don't approve of, it's because what was going on wasn't really capitalism, it was its debased, photo-negative, bearded-Spock version, "crony capitalism."

Can you give an example?

Watch Fox News or listen to conservative talk radio for a couple of days, you'll have more examples than you know what to do with.

You said that "frequently" right wing media would mistakingly claim that any result they didn't like was "crony capitalism" when the issue in question would not fit the definition of crony capitalism. It is unfortunate that you don't have some links to examples if it does happen frequently.

I've heard Peter Schiff blame "crony communism" on a radio show. I'll see if I can find a link after work. But it is true that the term is used as a scapegoat.

It's not like you haven't heard the term before, so I'm not sure why you're asking for links.

>...I've heard Peter Schiff blame "crony communism" on a radio show.

That sounds like something different than the OP said.

>...It's not like you haven't heard the term before, so I'm not sure why you're asking for links.

It's like I said, cronyism will be found in any political system. What was odd, was the original poster was saying that frequently when people didn't like some result, it was blamed on "crony capitalism" and as the OP pointed out:

>"Which is frustrating, because "crony capitalism" is a real thing that actually means something specific"

I don't think I've seen examples of people in the media using the term "crony capitalism" wrong, but then again I don't watch Fox News, so I asked for an example. Does that make sense?

Yes, that makes sense. But it also suggests to me that any example someone provides will be handwaved, so I'm not going to bother. At any rate, I agree with OP that it's used as a scapegoat.

Sure, bring up the 2008 crash to any pro-capitalist and they'll quickly explain to you how "oh that wasn't real capitalism" even though it happened in the confines of a system that self-describes as capitalist.

With the 2008 crash there is plenty of examples of incompetent/unethical/(possibly)illegal actions taken by government, industry and consumers that helped cause it. Also economists came up with many possible suggestions (often contradictory) to make the system better so it doesn't happen again.

While the causes and recommended solutions to the great recession are still being debated, most people would say the mixed economy we have is capitalist. So I find it odd that someone would claim we didn't have a capitalist system in 2008. Can you give a link to an example?

Here's a link. It doesn't specifically address the 2008 crisis, but I think it does explain why some would say that America is not capitalist.

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/bernie-not-soci...

To summarize the issue: we have a mixed economy. We do not have what advocates of capitalism want: a purely capitalist economy (or at least something much closer to that). That's why they would say we do not have a capitalist economy.

>...To summarize the issue: we have a mixed economy. We do not have what advocates of capitalism want: a purely capitalist econom ...

I agree. I asked for an example in my message, since, as you point out I've never heard a "pro-capitalist" singling out the 2008 crisis as "oh that wasn't real capitalism". People might want to narrowly define the meaning of a capitalist economic system but that is a bit different than what it looked like the OP was writing.

If you want, oh, about a million such instances of capitalists denying 2008 as a "capitalist event," hang out on https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/ for a day.

For every socialist who says the USSR was not actually socialist, there is a capitalist who will deny any bad thing happening under capitalism being related to capitalism itself. It's always the government's fault.

As if the government made bankers bet on bets on bets on bets on instruments founded in shaky debt. This type of runaway effect is only possible in a system that supports the commodification of anything.

Its not just right wing media - this is the very definition of confirmation bias.

Socialists do the same thing. Outcomes they like can be attributed to collectivism and those they don’t like they attribute to capitalism / free markets.

All ideologies have costs, benefits, and results that deviate from the ideal. Doesn’t mean they are “wrong.”

Wouldn't it be nice if we could have a true A/B test? Peter thiel starts his Sea steading libertarian paradise and Bernie gets his very own socialist heaven.

We use US as the control.

Absolutely right. It is as disengenuous as someone who would call Stalinist Russia "crony communism".

People who are not willing to refine their models in the face of new evidence are more idealogues than thinkers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com