Specifically: The Economist defines as cronyism only those interventions by government it does not like. It excludes those interventions it does like.

The point: government should not intervene at all.

Government exists only to manage force and defend against depredation by force or fraud. It is not supposed to pick winners and losers. But evidently The Economists has its own set of winners it wants to pick, while "picking on" certain industries it has never liked.

If you read the mag, keep in mind the comment of a critic whose name I can't recall: "If you put 50 economists in a circle they'd all point in different directions." If their basic premise does not emanate from the free market, view their pronouncements with a jaundiced eye.

The only reason I read the Economist is that it is the only mid or left leaning magazine that I can stand and not get mad when reading the articles. It keeps me up to date with what is going on in the world even though it is leaning towards progressive. I like the insight of stories the Lame Stream Media does not cover from around the world.

Soft, squishy, middle-of-the-road Economist is never going to get the point of crony capitalism. The Economist is so named because it always has two hands, or sees two sides to every issue (which they exhaustively analyze), and then comes down somewhere in the middle. It's a good mag to fall asleep to. They will acknowledge the problem, but also acknowledge the value of government-private sector partnerships, and then say don't throw the baby out with the bath water, but be vigilante for potential abuse. Yawn.

I believe it should be called "Crony Socialism" because its really not capitalism.

The "lame stream media" (first time I have seen the phrase) clearly wants "cronyism" to be associated with capitalism. The truth of the matter is that "crony capitalism" is actually "crony socialism" (pointed out to me by my very astute brother Robert.).

It´s very hard to agree on these issues. Those with capital argue, reasonably, that they sustain and prize the needy, drunk in idleness. Those in without capital argue that their opprotunities are cut short compared to the ones that inherit favors, money and connections making it double the effort to attain well being.

Both viewpoints may be right up to some extent, but never fully. Government should impose or force anything in my opinion, rather guarantee that welfare be for extreme situations as loans, not charity. And deductions should be measured as credit, and not fines. This way, philanthropy becomes an option that few would really use (for all in all this can produce tax deductions and other schemes) and he who´s a bum won´t accept welfare for it automatically produces more responsability.

Government is necessary, but it cannot be impossed. As Henry George once put it, "the only tax should be on the land"; a concept that reinstates land to sovereignity and avoids idleness, both rich and poor. This is simple really, and crystal clear. So private property becomes a lease, a temporary concept for all. I agree that it´s alot easier to make money once you have it, and that poverty is a multi task force against personal progress; but there has to be a fine line that guarantees opportunities and responsabilities for all, and that should be the true function of government.

The problem is that the powers that be are run by men, and not by angels. Therefore, all this falls into the laps of utopia and, well; it has to be instrumented to the last inch in order to more or less work. This has a cost, and that cost produces financial loopholes typical to the state which, controlling everything, has none controlling it. The press is just a "nice try" on doing so, for corruption exists in every circle we can imagine, acknowledge and even ignore.