To: TimF who wrote (7420 ) 9/25/2015 3:37:25 PM From: Lane3 Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 7936 You posted that she said "robber Barron", not "crony capitalist" She meant the former, although that characterization was mine. Her attitude was directed at the source of old money. She's still smarting from stuff that occurred a century ago. From Wiki:In social criticism, robber baron was a derogatory term applied to some wealthy and powerful 19th-century American businessmen. The term appeared in the periodical literature as early as the August 1870 issue of The Atlantic Monthly[1] magazine. By the late 1800s, the term was typically applied to businessmen who used what were considered to be exploitative practices to amass their wealth.[2] These practices included exerting control over national resources, accruing high levels of government influence, paying low wages, squashing competition by acquiring competitors in order to create monopolies and eventually raise prices, and schemes to sell stock at inflated prices[2] to unsuspecting investors in a manner which would eventually destroy the company for which the stock was issued and impoverish investors.[2] The term combines the sense of criminal ("robber") and illegitimate aristocracy (a baron is an illegitimate role in a republic).[3] Which isn't quite the same thing as crony capitalist. The former is broader in that it's not just the government favoritism but the asymmetrical aspect of capitalism wrt big guys and little guys. (Were she on this thread she would be outdoing our Mr. K wrt those myriad posts about wicked pharma.)Some people find replies to very old posts annoying. I hope you aren't one of them. Actually, I find your frequent, odd meandering through SI history quite interesting. One wonders about how you landed here or there. This post gave me an opportunity to think about a friend that I have not seen since I moved away. References to old posts can be annoying when there was a complex discussion so getting back into it and figuring out the context so as to give a thoughtful answer is just too much work. I don't figure that it's rude to have on occasion just ignored those. <g> My friend is a smart, sensible, and thoughtful woman who for some reason has this thing about big guys vs little guys--the notion that somehow you have to have been disreputable to have gotten big and the stain of that endures. Which is all the more interesting in that she, seemingly oblivious to the irony, describes her politics as Rockefeller Republican yet wouldn't be caught dead voting Republican anymore due to the social conservative takeover. I have never been able to figure out where that hostility to the very existence of rich industrialists came from. Speaking of irony, she's a graduate of the University of Chicago. And, like the rest of our crowd, is hardly a downtrodden little guy in that she had accumulated through thrift a seven figure nest egg by middle age. Maybe hailing from Connecticut had something to do with it. A mystery. This post is probably much more than you bargained for but I miss her plus she is such an enigma that I find her politics fascinating so couldn't resist the commentary any more than you could resist commenting on an old post. <g> Going back to find the context of your untimely comment also reminded me of how much I miss Rambi.