Malaysian PM Dr Mahathir Mohamad always provides good quotes, one of the better when referring to the difference between his own and his ex-deputy Anwar Ibrahim's mates - "...there are good cronies and bad cronies.."

A crony may well be in the eye of the beholder, as seems to be Paul Krugman's point in today's article in the New York Times..

FOUR years ago, as Asia struggled with an economic crisis, many observers blamed 'crony capitalism'. Wealthy businessmen in Asia didn't bother to tell investors the truth about their assets, their liabilities or their profits; the aura of invincibility that came from their political connections was enough. Only when a financial crisis came along did people take a hard look at their businesses, which promptly collapsed.

Does this sound familiar? On the face of it, the sudden political storm over Enron is puzzling. After all, the Bush administration didn't save the company from bankruptcy. But then why did the administration dissemble so long about its contacts with Enron? Why did George W Bush make the absurd claim that Enron's CEO, Kenneth Lay, opposed him in his first run for governor, and that the two men got to know each other only after that race? And why does the press act as if there may be a major scandal brewing? Because the administration fears, and the press suspects, that the latest revelations in the Enron affair will raise the lid on crony capitalism, American-style.

"Cronyism is hardly novel in America"

Read more at Crony capitalism - US-style - January 16, 2002