70225 stories
·
2 followers

The Cronyism Trap: How Central Planning Creates the Corruption It Blames on Capitalism

1 Share

Modern politics operates on a contradiction so obvious it should collapse under its own weight:

The same people who condemn corporations for “capturing government” are the ones demanding a government powerful enough to control prices, wages, energy, healthcare, housing, banking, land use, transportation, and investment itself.

They denounce cronyism while advocating the exact mechanism that creates it.

Because cronyism is not a corruption of capitalism.

It is the predictable result of centralized political power over economic life.

Capitalism Does Not Create Political Favoritism

Under actual capitalism, wealth is earned through voluntary exchange.

A business succeeds by persuading customers, not commanding them. Profit comes from offering value people willingly choose to buy. If a company fails to satisfy consumers, it loses money. If it mistreats workers, workers leave. If it overcharges, competitors emerge.

The defining feature of capitalism is not that businesses exist.

It is that force is removed from economic relationships.

The moment government gains discretionary power to pick winners and losers, the game changes entirely.

Now success no longer depends primarily on satisfying customers.

It depends on influencing politicians.

The Incentive Structure Changes

Once the state has the authority to hand out subsidies, tariffs, bailouts, licenses, tax privileges, regulatory exemptions, land grants, exclusive contracts, or barriers to entry, lobbying becomes rational.

Not because businessmen are uniquely evil.

Because the incentives changed.

Imagine two competing companies.

One spends its resources improving products and lowering prices.

The other spends its resources influencing regulators to cripple competitors or secure political advantages.

Under a heavily interventionist system, the second strategy often becomes more profitable.

That is not capitalism functioning.

That is political allocation replacing market competition.

And the more power centralized institutions possess, the more valuable political influence becomes.

Central Planning Manufactures Dependency

Every new layer of economic control creates another pressure point where favors can be exchanged.

If government controls energy approvals, corporations lobby energy regulators.

If government controls housing permits, developers lobby zoning boards.

If government controls healthcare reimbursement, pharmaceutical companies lobby health agencies.

If government controls trade access, industries lobby trade officials.

The pattern is universal because it is structural.

You cannot create a system where politicians control economic outcomes while simultaneously expecting economic actors not to compete for political influence.

That is like placing gold in the middle of a room and acting shocked when people try to grab it.

The False Narrative

The modern political narrative reverses cause and effect.

We are told:

“Corporations corrupted the state.”

But the deeper truth is:

The state became corruptible because it possessed powers worth corrupting.

A government limited to protecting individual rights has far less ability to dispense special favors.

A government empowered to manage the economy becomes a marketplace for influence.

And once political favoritism becomes profitable, every major interest group is pushed toward lobbying, regulatory capture, and alliance-building with the state.

Not because capitalism failed.

Because politics replaced capitalism.

“Public Ownership” Does Not Eliminate Power Concentration

One of the most persistent myths is that public ownership prevents monopolization.

In reality, it simply transfers monopolistic authority from private individuals to political institutions.

Under private ownership, property can be bought, sold, competed against, challenged, or replaced.

Under state ownership, control is centralized.

Access becomes political.

Permissions become political.

Allocation becomes political.

The politician now decides who may use land, build infrastructure, extract resources, receive contracts, or gain access.

Supporters call this “democratic control.”

In practice, it becomes bureaucratic discretion.

And bureaucratic discretion is exactly what attracts corruption.

The More Power the State Has, the More Dangerous Corruption Becomes

Ironically, the people most obsessed with corporate influence are often the loudest advocates for expanding the authority of the institutions corporations lobby.

That is backwards.

If you genuinely fear corruption, favoritism, or elite capture, you do not hand more power to centralized authorities.

You reduce the ability of anyone to dispense coercive economic favors in the first place.

Because concentrated political power guarantees concentrated lobbying pressure.

Always.

The Seen and the Unseen

When people see corporations lobbying government, they often conclude:

“Capitalism caused this.”

But they ignore the unseen question:

Why does government possess the power to grant these favors at all?

A business cannot lobby for special privilege unless politicians possess the authority to provide it.

A corporation cannot manipulate regulations unless regulations are expansive enough to weaponize.

A wealthy donor cannot profit from state favoritism unless the state controls economic outcomes.

The corruption is downstream of the power.

The Real Divide

The real divide is not “corporations versus the people.”

It is voluntary exchange versus political allocation.

One system rewards persuasion.

The other rewards influence.

One disperses power across millions of independent decisions.

The other concentrates it into institutions people endlessly fight to control.

And every time central planning expands, the incentives for cronyism expand with it.

Then the resulting corruption gets blamed on “capitalism.”

Not because capitalism created it.

But because calling it socialism would expose the real source of the problem.



Read the whole story
gangsterofboats
4 minutes ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

Why the Red/Blue Button Moral Dilemma is a Trap

1 Share
Why the Red/Blue Button Moral Dilemma is a Trap

The post Why the Red/Blue Button Moral Dilemma is a Trap appeared first on New Ideal - Reason | Individualism | Capitalism.

 







Download video: https://www.youtube.com/embed/SzfiohcZhGo



Download audio: https://media.blubrry.com/new_ideal_ari/content.blubrry.com/new_ideal_ari/20260507_Red-vs-Blue-Button_v2.mp3
Read the whole story
gangsterofboats
5 minutes ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

Marx’s Weirdest Idea: “The Unity of Subject and Object”

1 Share
What was this guy thinking? It’s weirder than what you have in mind.

You may recall that when I switched over the focus of this newsletter to accommodate my run for office, I started a series of articles sharing some of what I learned from reading Main Currents of Marxism, by Leszek Kołakowski. As I explained, it’s not exactly a page-turner, and this huge three-volume work helped me get to sleep at the end of a busy day for about a year. But it offers some fascinating insights into Marxism, and what went wrong with it.

This has taken longer to get back to than I expected. I now understand why politics tends to—how shall I put this?—it tends to select against deep thinkers. It’s a job that doesn’t leave as much time as I would like for just sitting down and doing prolonged thinking. For precisely that reason, I’ve decided to be extra stubborn about making sure I still do it. So even though I probably ought to be planning some campaign events right now, I’m going to take a half a day to return to that series for another installment. I also want to clear the decks of this project so that by July 4, I can switch over to my next planned series on what I learned from reading Bernard Bailyn’s The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution—a good topic for the 250th anniversary of that revolution.

But first, back to the ideological origins of a revolution that had less happy consequences. And The Revolution is precisely where we left off.

Subscribe now

I wrote last time about a central debate among late-19th-Century socialists. On the one side were the revolutionaries who insisted the only answer was to sweep away capitalism entirely and create a totally new and different system whose structure they could only guess at, except that they knew it would be perfect. (This is pretty much literally how they put it. It’s hard to see what could possibly go wrong.) On the other side were the reformist “social democrats” who wanted, not to overthrow capitalism, but to introduce welfare-state programs and regulations intended to benefit factory workers and the poor. I noted that this second group, who laid the basis for most Western European governments today, achieved far better results.

Part of the reason The Revolution achieved such terrible results is that in addition to creating a totally dysfunctional economic system, The Revolution also created a brutal and tyrannical political system.

Those two results were closely connected. A system in which the government controls the entire economy provides a powerful enforcement mechanism for tyranny. As Leon Trotsky famously noted, after losing out to Stalin in a power struggle, “In a country where the sole employer is the state, opposition means death by slow starvation. The old principle: who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced by a new one: who does not obey shall not eat.”

By the same token, the guys who are most adept at climbing the greasy pole of insider politics in an oppressive regime do not have the skills to run large, complex industrial operations. Even if they did, the structure of the regime prevents them from doing it. Kołakowski notes that Lenin and Stalin kept complaining about the lack of initiative from lower-level officials, who would do nothing without explicit orders from above—yet if someone did make decisions on his own initiative, he could well find himself shipped off to the gulag as a “saboteur” the first time anything went wrong. No wonder everything got bogged down. The Bolsheviks believed in rule by fear, but fear is a paralytic.

From his own perspective some decades later, writing in the years after the death of Stalin, one of Kołakowski’s main concerns was the extent to which Marx’s theories could be blamed for this result. How did Marx’s own ideology explicitly plant the seeds for the dictatorship created by Lenin and consolidated by Stalin?

Read more

Read the whole story
gangsterofboats
5 minutes ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

Four AI Oddities

1 Share
A Friday Hodgepodge

1. Halupedia, is an AI-generated "encyclopedia" that "cover[s] topics that have received insufficient attention in mainstream reference works."

It generates amusing articles on request, for example, this one on 20 Toe Syndrome:
20 Toe Syndrome, also known as Polyactylia Multidigitus, is a rare congenital condition characterized by the presence of twenty toes on each foot. The syndrome was first comprehensively documented by the naturalist and anatomist Hermann Feinberg in his 1765 treatise, Observations on Peculiarities of Form and Structure in the Human Subject. Feinberg's work detailed several individuals from the Duchy of Bavaria Minor who exhibited this trait. The condition was believed by Feinberg to be a reversion to a more primitive, ancestral state, a theory later refined by Albrecht von Schnitzler.

The typical presentation of 20 Toe Syndrome involves the duplication of existing phalanges and metatarsals, resulting in a symmetrical arrangement of ten toes on each foot.
Your amusement value may vary, depending on your tolerance of the writing style of the AI hallucinations, how much you actually know about a subject, and how badly contradictions stand out to you.

Captured from video.
2. Just because the answers (plural) to How Many E's Are in the Word Seventeen? are delivered in a calm, friendly, and well-spoken manner does not mean they have anything to do with reality.

3. The cursed browser "asks an LLM to look at the page's HTML and draw what it thinks it looks like," instead of using a regular rendering engine. The GitHub page shows some interesting examples of how the browser compares with Safari.

4. Another GitHub page, describes what it calls the "gay jailbreak technique," whereby the user can overcome guardrails:
Especially GPT is slightly more uncensored when it involves LGBT, thats [sic] probably because the guardrails aim to be helpful and friendly, which translates to: "Ohhh LGBT, I need to comply, I dont [sic] want to insult them by refusing" So you use the guardrails to exploit the guardrails.
A user at Hacker News gives a more general explanation (and a better name) for why the technique works that I am more inclined to believe:
Not sure of the explanation but it is amusing. The main reason I'm not sure it's political correctness or one guardrail overriding the other is that when they were first released on of the more reliable jailbreaks was what I'd call "role play" jail breaks where you don't ask the model directly but ask it to take on a role and describe it as that person would. [bold added]
I agree with several comments in that discussion that, since AI is a black box, many or most "explanations" for why this trick works are pure speculation.

-- CAV
Read the whole story
gangsterofboats
6 minutes ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

Why good ideas are oft-born as twins

1 Share
"We often praise ideas for their originality and criticise other ideas for being insufficiently novel. So, what do we make of the fact that most important breakthroughs in sci-tech history—the telegraph, telescope, and transistor; the laws of calculus and gravity—were 'simultaneously invented' by independent people around the same time? (Alexander Graham Bell and Elisha Gray notoriously filed for a telephone patent on the same day.)
    "Which is to say: Some of the most important ideas in the world weren't 'new' when the inventor we credit came up with them.
    "It's even more uncanny than that. Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace didn't just independently come up with the basics of evolution. They both cited the exact same essay—Malthus's infamous 'Principle of Population'—as inspiration for thinking about species evolution as a competitive game where unforgiving environments shape genetic survival. As @DavidEpstein writes in today's essay, adapted from his ... new book Inside the Box, the frequency of idea twins in history suggests that once a problem is framed by a generation of thinkers with sufficient clarity and precision, the answer almost 'wants' to be found."

~ @Derek Thompson summarising David Epstein's essay 'Why Your Best Ideas Aren’t Original'
"All abstract knowledge depends, for its meaning and validity, on other knowledge that sets the context for it. For example, algebra depends on addition, and calculus depends on algebra. The more complex the knowledge, the more extensive the knowledge that must precede it.
    "One major aspect of the fact that knowledge depends on other knowledge—the aspect most relevant to and most violated in education—is that more abstract knowledge depends on less abstract knowledge. This is the principle of the hierarchy of knowledge."
"Valid concepts [once discovered] function as a 'green light' to induction, permitting [further] generalisations from observed particulars, while invalid concepts block or distort the process."
~ summary of the inductive process given in David Harriman's 2011 book The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics & Philosophy
"[I]nherent in this is that concepts are future-looking. A concept is like a policy or a commitment. It’s like forming a file. ... A file, if you have a filing system, does not only organise and condense data that one already has, it does so on the premise of keeping up with this method of organisation. ... 
    "[T]o form a concept [then] is to institute a policy of applying what one knows from the study of each instance to the study of each other instance, to regard the instances as interchangeable, at least within a certain context, within a certain, you know, varying in degree. And this policy applies to information yet to be discovered, as well as to the information one already has ..."
~ Gregory Salmieri from his 2006 essay 'Objectivist Epistemology in Outline'
Read the whole story
gangsterofboats
6 minutes ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

The Actress-to-OnlyFans Pipeline Heats Up

1 Share

Hollywood feminists rise up whenever it fits their needs, not always when they’re needed.

Now, some starlets are taking their careers into their own hands, but in a way that will shock some supporters.

More on that in a moment…

First, a quick reminder of when starlets speak out and when they go mum.

  • Judge Brett Kavanaugh was part of a poorly remembered sex assault as a young man? It’s time to march!
  • President Joe Biden was credibly accused of sexual assault by a staffer? “When we say, “Believe All Women,” what we really mean is …”
  • If an actress gets less compensation than a man on a particular project, it’s Battle Stations time!
  • And when a strong, proud actress like Gina Carano gets unfairly fired for sharing right-leaning views, good luck finding a single feminist to have her back.

You get the drill. Yet some genuine injustices fall on actresses in Hollywood. That’s particularly true as Father Time comes calling.

Remember how “Bill & Ted Face the Music” recast the franchise’s female co-stars for younger actresses? Or how Kelly McGillis shrugged when she was passed over for “Top Gun: Maverick,” knowing that she looked her age and that didn’t interest Hollywood?

Now, some stars are turning to a platform known for racy material to keep the money flowing. Drea de Matteo of “The Sopranos” fame got elbowed out of Hollywood, in part, because she didn’t abide by the industry’s draconian pandemic protocols.

Enter OnlyFans, a popular platform known for a lack of censorship and, often, extreme sexual content.

“I don’t know why I didn’t do it sooner,” the now-54-year-old actress said at the time of her account, which avoids the platform’s more prurient side.

More recently, “American Pie” alum Shannon Elizabeth announced she’s following de Matteo to OnlyFans, too. The 52-year-old actress cashed in big time in her first few days on the platform.

“We had no idea that we would do as well as we have … My manager and I were talking about it, and he would say, ‘Well, you know, this might be what happens.’ But I think his quote was, at one point, he said, ‘You’ve now made more money in the span of a week or two than you did on American Pie, Scary Movie, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back and Love Actually combined.’”

The new funds will help her for obvious reasons, plus it can extend to her work on behalf of endangered species.

Now, it’s Jaime Pressly’s turn.

The “My Name Is Earl” star just joined her fellow actresses on the platform. She didn’t say much about what she’ll share online, but the actress praised the platform to Variety for allowing her to stay connected with fans.

“I’ve always believed in evolving with the times … this is another way for me to connect directly with my audience, on my own terms, with creativity and intention. I’ve loved meeting fans at various Comic Cons, and the excitement of having those real face to face moments made me want to seek options like OnlyFans.”

Her stellar work on “Earl” drew accolades, and she often appears in Comic-Con friendly fare like “I Love You, Man” and “DOA: Dead or Alive.”

Pressly is 48. Previous OnlyFans model Denise Richards (“The World Is Not Enough,” “Wild Things”) is 55.

See a pattern? Hollywood is always eager to embrace the next young starlet. Some actresses can overcome that trend – think Meryl Streep (76), Cate Blanchett (56) and Sandra Bullock (61).

Many others aren’t so fortunate.

Now, for better and perhaps worse in the eyes of some, they have OnlyFans to fall back on.

The post The Actress-to-OnlyFans Pipeline Heats Up appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Read the whole story
gangsterofboats
11 minutes ago
reply
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories