Prior to that, I had no inkling that there was in fact collusion between powerful government officials and powerful wealthy men of business."
Sorry, but both of you fellows have seemingly been driven to insanity by mere words, in this case the term "crony capitalism".
In fact, that term refers to nothing quantifiable:
- "Crony capitalism is an economic system in which businesses thrive not as a result of risk, but rather as a return on money amassed through a nexus between a business class and the political class.
This is often achieved by using state power rather than competition in managing permits, government grants, tax breaks, or other forms of state intervention[1][2] over resources where the state exercises monopolist control over public goods, for example, mining concessions for primary commodities or contracts for public works"
"The first extensive use of the term "crony capitalism" came about in the 1980s, to characterize the Philippine economy under the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos.[4] "
- "Crony capitalism exists along a continuum.
In its lightest form, crony capitalism consists of collusion... "
Well, there are definitions in law and then there are partisan political witch-hunts intended to destroy opponents by throwing words at them, hoping something, anything, might stick.
Bottom line is that "crony capitalism" is just a form of corruption and standards for what is, or is not, "corrupt" can change over time.
So practices considered acceptable 200 years ago might be exposed and outlawed 100 years ago to be replaced with new technology & corrupt practices today.
But there is no quantitative measurement we can use to say if we today are any less or more corrupt than people of either 100 or 200 years ago.
DiogenesLamp: "The subsequent corruption of the Grant Administration and the widespread corruption during the "Gilded Age", demonstrates that Lincoln was greatly responsible for expanding this back door influence selling scheme between government and business. "
First of all, there's no quantifiable evidence that corruption overall under Grant was any more or less than any previous administration.
What we do have are anecdotal reports, some with all the reliability of today's fake news about President Trump's alleged collusion.
Second, blaming Lincoln for events long after he was murdered seems to me beyond even insane, it's just outright malicious lying.
Finally, the "Gilded Age" was the period of fastest economic growth in American history:
- "During the 1870s and 1880s, the U.S. economy rose at the fastest rate in its history, with real wages, wealth, GDP, and capital formation all increasing rapidly.[42]
For example, between 1865 and 1898, the output of wheat increased by 256%, corn by 222%, coal by 800% and miles of railway track by 567%.[43]"
"Economic historian Clarence D. Long estimates that (in terms of constant 1914 dollars), the average annual incomes of all American non-farm employees rose from $375 in 1870 to $395 in 1880, $519 in 1890 and $573 in 1900, a gain of 53% in 30 years.[57] "
Now suppose hypothetically we could construct some sort of quantitative measure of "corruption" and based on this metric we learn that "corruption" effects, say, 3% of the entire economy, meaning, if the economy doubles, as it did in the Gilded Age, so does "corruption".
Now, suppose also that over the years our standards for what is, or is not, "corrupt" change, and so what we are actually measuring is not increasing corruption but rather ever higher standards applied to relatively constant behavior.
Of course, there is no such metric and even if there were, we couldn't be certain exactly what it measured.
My point is: there's no rational reason to let mere words like "crony capitalism" drive you to paroxysms of insanity and frothing at the mouth over your fantasies of "tyranny" and "oppression" by Lincoln decades after he was dead!