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

As Sarah would say, "You betcha!" We're in the throes of fascism these days, with governmental control of the private sector. Socialism requires that the means of production be "owned" by the government, so fascism is what we have.

The correct name for "crony socialism" is Fascism."The Economist" knows that, but its interest is to smear Capitalism, not to identify the actual economic system.

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.

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.).

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.

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.

Sooo true...... zzzz.*snort*! Oh, excuse me 8-)

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.