Donald Trump

Capitalist Pig Comes Out For Hillary

Or at least against Donald Trump.


"I start with the premise that the only thing that can save the country is capitalism," writes Capitalist Pig hedge fund manager Jonathan Hoenig in a recent blog post titled "Why Hillary Has My Vote." The problem, according to Hoenig, is that Donald Trump seems to represent capitalism, while being explicitly anti-capitalist on numerous issues.

For nearly a decade, leftist intellectuals have spread the mythology that free markets were tried — and failed — under George W. Bush, necessitating greater government controls. But it was President Bush who started the bank bailouts in 2008, Obama just picked up the ball and kept running.

In Hillary Clinton, voters get another term of Obama, and Bush before him. She's a mixed-economy power-luster, same as the old boss. If they are to survive, Republicans must present a capitalist alternative. Right now, they can't.

And when Hillary's policies fail, as they will, her socialist ideas will rightfully be denounced.

But President Donald Trump would be the standard-bearer for American capitalism, despite the fact his ideas are exactly opposed.

…And when Trump's policies fail, as they will, American capitalism will unquestionably get blamed.

This is why I'm supporting Clinton: Long term, the damage levied by Donald Trump to capitalism in America will be immeasurably worse than that wrought by Hillary Clinton.

For more on Hoenig, watch our 2012 Reason TV interview below:

NEXT: DC Subway System to Undergo Major Repairs

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It is absurdly over-optimistic to suppose that the dominant places of the last 70 years are suddenly going to be re ejected, just because killary/shrillary implements them.
    We seriously need to drop the term capitalism — it originated with Marx and is now inextricably bound to the cronyism we suffer.
    Autarky and free markets. Genuinely free, not ‘managed’. Decriminalized, not legalized.
    There is no lesser evil in the upcoming election.

    1. Capitalism by any other name would smell as sweet. If there’s any brand confusion, it’s probably because so many self-described capitalists don’t understand themselves what they’re talking about. How can we expect other people to love capitalism when so few of us seem to understand the word ourselves?

      Whatever else capitalism is, it also has to do with private ownership and prices set by markets.

      Yes, anti-capitalists are against private ownership and people making choices for themselves about what they buy and how much they’re willing to pay for it.

      Changing in the words we use for things isn’t the long term solution. Get the definition of capitalism square in people heads, and we’ll find that a lot of people believe in private ownership and making choices for themselves rather than having their choices made for them by regulators, bureaucrats, and popularity contests.

      1. Whatever else capitalism is, it also has to do with private ownership and prices set by markets.

        Ken. Private ownership is bad because it’s unfair. If you own something and don’t use it the way Tony wants you to use it, then fairness demands that he take it and use it himself. Likewise with prices. Prices aren’t fair because they result in only the rich having access to scarce goods. But government, with its good intentions, can eliminate scarcity and bring goodies to all of us.

        See, Ken? Capitalism is bad because it celebrates selfishness. So what if it is the greatest engine for creating prosperity in society? What good is prosperity if it brings inequality? That isn’t fair.

        Socialism is based on good intentions. That’s what makes it wonderful. Fuck the results. They weren’t intended.

        1. I have an intelligent friend who looks at the failed financial regulations of the past and decides the solution is more regulatory enforcement, by the same people who brought us the failed policies. The difference is that now they should be allowed to decide retrospectively who failed in their fiduciary responsibilities and jail them.

          I have not yet asked him how many years we should give to the pension fund managers who bought the pyramid schemes the bad guys were selling.

          1. “I have an intelligent friend who looks at the failed financial regulations of the past and decides the solution is more regulatory enforcement

            I defy anybody to show that regulation can stop the next downturn in the credit cycle.

            The credit cycle defies regulation–just like the economic cycle. You can make it less resilient when things go bad. You can make it harder to dig ourselves out of a downturn. But you can’t prevent downturns in the cycle with regulation.

            The Soviet Union had the most heavily regulated financial sector in the history. It was destroyed by the economic cycle anyway.

            Regulation going to stop the next downturn? Might as well throw a virgin into a volcano.

      2. If there’s any brand confusion, it’s probably because so many self-described capitalists don’t understand themselves what they’re talking about.

        Unfortunately I think the ones you’re complaining about do know what it means: rule by capital, i.e. by its owners. Clarence Carson pointed out that the USSR was capitalist. Look at other -isms, and you’ll see that when they come to describing societies, they mean rule by whatever’s in the 1st part of the word.

        Free enterprise is what you want, and that’s a good term.

        When it comes to confusion about “freedom of the press”, with some coming to use it to mean freedom for professional journalists or their bosses, that is their fault, it’s not the choice of words. But “capitalism” is a word invented to attack the straw man that it is.

        1. So much this.

      3. Free-markets or free-enterprise?these have always been the superior terms. And better capture the nature of what makes for robust economies (i.e., entrepreneurs).

        Whereas Capitalism is largely omissive of that.

    2. Not really Marx, but close enough. Marx wrote iconic stuff in 1848, when only Bastiat and a Swiss fellow had a clue and colonial mercantilism ran roughshod over everything everywhere. Anyone with capital is a capitalist, irrespective of ideology, but only the altruistic, sensitive, concerned, aware and collectivist are admitted to the bastions of communism. Communism is thoughtful; Capitalism is animal depredation, runs the meme.
      1848 was a bad crop year because of one of those Icelandic volcanoes that, for lack of jets to ground, wrecked crops instead, and the resulting scarcity, on top of the Opium Wars drain on capital, made looting seem attractive. But If you implied we should continue to vote for Fabian Libertarianism, I’m with you.

  2. The GOP was created as an explicitly mercantilist organization. And they’ve never wavered from that. So why would we ever expect support for actual free-market capitalism from them?

  3. Should Hillary win, it will be amazing to see how much she can loot. Can you imagine before and after pictures of the white house. Sheesh, she could have left a pair of sheets.

  4. Trump is a Democrat.

    Barry Goldwater would have seen him as a Democrat.

    Ronald Reagan would have seen him as a Democrat.

    Trump is even to the left of Bill Clinton on free trade.

    Trump’s message resonates with the white, blue collar, middle class–who used to be the core Democrat constituency before Obama completely abandoned demonized them for being racist, uneducated, and selfish, respectively.

    The Democratic Party can’t just be about illegal immigrants, minorities, environmental activists, feminists, and LGBT forever. That’s an unsustainable model. Trump came in to fill the void . . . in the Democrat constituency.

    He’s a Democrat in all but name.

    1. I largely agree. But, the way our culture works, I wouldn’t be surprised if Democrats do manage to maintain a sustainable party based purely on disaffected groups.

    2. He would be the only modern day Democrat who’s pro 2nd amendment though. Which would mean he cannot be a Democrat today. Do you mean he’s a Democrat from some time warp past?

      1. He’s no more pro-Second Amendment than he needs to be.

        He finally repudiated his earlier support for an “assault weapons” ban, what, May of 2015? That means he’s been in favor of an “assault weapons” ban for 15 of the last 16 years.

        He’s about as pro-Second Amendment as Hillary.

        1. I don’t think that’s true. Hillary is completely hostile to the 2nd amendment. Bernie is better than Hillary on the 2nd. Even Obama is better than Hillary.

          1. So let me back up a step. Let’s just say that they all lie, so we can’t believe any of them. And we just have to go on rhetoric. Trump’s rhetoric on the 2nd is far better than Hillary’s rhetoric.

            1. I think some people may be equating Trump with Second Amendment support because the Republican establishment has supported the Second Amendment for so long. Even when the Tea Party came along, their support for the Second Amendment was probably even stronger than the Republican establishment’s support.

              Trump is not beholden to the Republican establishment.

              Trump is not beholden to the Tea Party.

              There aren’t any Republicans that are about to hold Trump’s feet to the fire over the Second Amendment over the next four years–if he’s in office. He won’t lose establishment or Tea Party support if he screws them on the Second Amendment–because he doesn’t have nor need their support anyway.

              Trump conveniently repudiated a position he’d held for decades once he decided to run for President. I don’t see any reason to think that kind of support for the Second Amendment is any stronger than Hillary’s.

              Like I keep saying, Hillary isn’t coming for your revolver or your shotgun either. What’s the real world difference between that and Trump favoring an “assault weapons” ban?

              1. Since Congress Is unlikely to pass anti-gun legisl’n now, the question is who, as prez, would undertake anti-gun executive action.

                1. Supreme Court tips 5-4 under Hillary, if not further pending other retirements incoming.

                  Once that happens, Progs go full bore apeshit torturing the country w/ their own culture war shit. They (incl. Hillary) have been agitating for serious gun control reform for decades now, yet hitherto lacked the means. That all changes now.

                2. If there’s a mass shooting at an elementary school during Trump’s first term, do you really think the Republicans in Congress will stand in Trump’s way if he decides that doing something about “assault weapons” will improve his reelection chances?

                  Again, he’s not depending on Republican establishment or Tea Party support anyway. And the Republicans will come around to supporting him eventually. In fact, if Trump wins, I suspect we’re going to see a big realignment on a number of issues in the Republican party.

                  The GOP establishment has been consistent on abortion and gun rights for a long time, but there’s no reason why that must continue indefinitely. Hell, Carson the other day announced that Trump was considering a Democrat for a running mate.

                  If the Democrats take the House, and there’s a mass shooting, do you really think Congressional Republicans will stick their necks out–against a Republican President who wants to sign a gun control bill?

                  Trump isn’t that guy. Cruz was that guy. If you cared about the Second Amendment, you’d have rallied behind Cruz.

                  1. “If you’re pro-Second Amendment, dude, you have to vote for Cruz–totally.”



                    Voting for Trump because he’s pro-Second Amendment is ridiculous. Voting for Trump because Hillary is anti-Second Amendment is a little less ridiculous–but still ridiculous, especially if you think Trump is substantially better than Hillary on the Second Amendment.

                    I’d go so far as to say the Republicans in Congress are likely to give more opposition to Hillary on gun control than if President Trump were sponsoring the same bill. It’s easy for Republicans to oppose a Democratic President. Much harder for them to oppose a Republican–especially come budget time.

              2. I don’t know why you’re stuck on stupid about this.

                Trump has stated, very blatantly and unequivocally, that he strongly supports the 2A and believes that individuals have the right to own, use, and defend themselves with firearms.

                Also right here on his website:

                I’ve yet to witness him say anything that would remotely lead me to believe that he’s actually some crypto-gun-control zealot “as pro-2nd Amendment as Hillary.”

                1. Do you believe everything Trump says because he said it?

                  1. Believe him when he says bad things. Don’t believe him when he says good things. And keep that confirmation bias greased up and ready for action!

                  2. “Do you believe everything Trump says because he said it?”

                    That’s why I’m pro-Trump. Because I assume everything he says that I don’t like he doesn’t actually mean. What, you think he MEANS it when he says he wants to waste taxpayer money building a wall that won’t work?? Nah, don’t believe whatever Trump says just ’cause he says it, Ken.


    3. Better him than the Prohibitionist White Terror!

      1. I suppose it’s possible that one Democrat could be better than another on whatever issue.

        But they’re all Democrats on capitalism, right?

        Not a Goldwater/Regan Republican in the race. Not even a shadow of one.

        1. Gun-banning Goldwater and gun-banning Reagan?

          1. But they’re all Democrats on capitalism, right?

            P.S. If all we had to worry about was Goldwater’s opposition to fully automatic weapons and Reagan’s support for a waiting period, we’d be in pretty good shape.

            I’d trade Trump and Hillary in for Goldwater and Reagan any day.

    4. Trump only makes sense as someone primarily running on American Nationalism, not as a Republican or Democrat per se.

      To the extent that Trump’s utilizing policy ideas from two different spectrums, the idea is to forge a desirable coalition between dumped working class and other disaffected Dems, and the largely aimless GOP that’s been unable to galvanize a forward-looking message for itself since ’08 or so, yet still remains the only viable game in town for anyone vaguely fond of private enterprise, lower taxes, 2nd Amendment rights, etc.

      The Democratic Party can’t just be about illegal immigrants, minorities, environmental activists, feminists, and LGBT forever. That’s an unsustainable model.

      You forgot globalism, they like a lot too. Other than that, you covered it all.

  5. I would add to Capitalist Pig’s arguments the fact that Hillary is arguably more pro-capitalism than Trump is. At least she has normally supported free trade.

    1. No she hasn’t. She has supported *government designed trade schemes*. That those trade schemes happen to be more ‘free tradey’ than the previous ‘no trade at all’ (NAFTA) does not make her a free trade supporter.

      She isn’t – she is firmly in the camp that believes that its right and proper for government-to-government control of trade across borders.

      1. What a banal point to make.

        1. Agam is right though?it’s Govt Managed Trade, not Free Trade.

          I’m actually somewhat surprised so many well-meaning Libertarians apparently don’t know that.

          1. I suggest googling what the word “banal” means. You seem to think it means “incorrect”. It means “trite”.

            Yes, if you define “trade that had any government restrictions on any part of it” as “unfree trade” then Hillary doesn’t favor free trade. Nor does any past, present, or future government or government official. That’s not a helpful point of view, though.

            If you simply must nitpick, though, amend my original statement to read “Donald Trump wants far more trade restrictions than Hillary does”.

      2. No trade at all? We talking about Cuba?

  6. And when Hillary’s policies fail, as they will, her socialist ideas will rightfully be denounced.

    Yeah right. The ideas weren’t tried hard enough. Capitalists corrupted the government with their money, so the government needs more power to control the capitalists who control it. Or the Republicans obstructed her good intentions. Or something.

    But socialists ideas will never be denounced. They have the power of good intentions. They want to bring equality to all. They want to spread the wealth. They want to take down those selfish rich people, or at least the ones who lack political connections. They feed the envy and hatred of those who feel that they deserve something for nothing.

    With the mighty power of good intentions, socialist ideas will pave the road to Hell.

    And there isn’t a damn thing anyone can do to stop it. It’s not like socialism is new. It is as old as civilization. And it has taken down many a great society, just as it will take down ours.

    1. Bernie’s policies have failed – we’ve got a century’s worth of evidence of how bad they are – and he’s been a serious presidential contender.

      1. Bernie’s policies haven’t failed. They just weren’t tried hard enough. Someone got in the way. They were obstructed and thwarted. You see, Bernie’s policies have the power of good intentions. They can’t fail. They just can’t. Not on their own. Something else must have caused them to fail. These policies don’t intend to create shortages; they don’t intend to create poverty; they don’t intend to stifle innovation; they don’t intend to take away the incentives to innovate and take risks that grow the economy. They don’t intend to do any of those things. Their intentions are pure and noble. So none of those things can possibly be the result of these well-intentioned policies. Anyone who predicts, or even observes these results, must have bad intentions. After all, only someone with bad intentions would criticize policy based on good intentions.

      2. It’s been a century of collectivism dressed up as science, yes, but there’s the entirety of human history up until a century before that I have no desire to repeat.

    2. Meh. I see gradual improvement. Libertarian spoiler votes change laws faster and faster, and if our true vote share were 6% in 2008 the looters would lie and report 1% of the unverifiable secret ballot vote. I’ve seen the equivalent many times in Texas.
      Back in 1909, when socialism was theory, before the GRU, KGB, NSDAP, Gestapo, Treblinka, Auschwitz, Ukraine famines and Siberian gulags, commies and fanatics changed the laws and constitution with less than 1% of the vote. Now the Unknown Ideal is kicking in and it looks like a tipping point. Take heart.

      1. Spoiler votes spoil what the spoilers want. Why would anyone trying to get elected or re-elected try for 6% of the vote instead of as much as they could get of the other 94%?

    3. If socialism’s millions of dead bodies, hundreds of millions more slaves and 100% failure rate isn’t enough to discredit socialism, I don’t think Hilary having a rough 4-8 years is going to do much better at getting the point across.

    4. But socialists ideas will never be denounced.

      It’s seriously fucking dismaying that this bullshit, eminently (in the entire history of civilization) evil set of ideologies continues to endure, continues undenounced and undismissed immediately (like, say, Nazism) based on their track records. And we think we’re post-Enlightenment peoples who hold to scientific, empirical principles and mores… Please. The Open Society is the first and ultimate suspect, and always will be, evidence be damned.

      Fuck it all.

  7. The problem, according to Hoenig, is that Donald Trump seems to represent capitalism, while being explicitly anti-capitalist on numerous issues.

    Is . . . is the thinking here that since Trump appears pro but is really anti then Clinton, who is openly anti, must then the be secretly pro?

    1. Seems to me that the thinking is that hypocrites (Trump) do more damage than opponents (Hillary). And I think that is true.

    2. The important thing is that Trump’s supporters obviously don’t object to people making $ by making & selling product. (The fine points about his political influence?which in urban real estate development are necessary?are just that, fine points that few pay att’n to. The big picture is that he built stuff & made $ by it.) Don’t know about the supporters of other candidates.

  8. I can’t imagine any scenario whereby Clinton’s failed socialist policies would ever be blamed on anybody but the capitalist kulaks and wreckers in the Republican party. Socialism works perfectly, that’s just a stone-cold scientific fact and there’s no use denying it. The first principle of socialism is that socialism creates a Paradise on Earth – if it didn’t create a Paradise on Earth then it couldn’t have been socialism, could it? That’s just simple logic! How can you not understand simple logic? Socialism creates Paradise, ergo, if it didn’t create Paradise it wasn’t socialism. Jeez!

    And capitalism, capitalism is just the system whereby greedy pigs run around stealing everything. All thieves, rapists, murderers – whatever it is they’re taking that doesn’t belong to them – they’re all capitalists because that’s what capitalists are. Putin is a capitalist. Hitler was a capitalist. Attila the Hun was a capitalist. When you specifically call on the government to steal stuff from other people and give it to you and your cronies, that’s the worst capitalism of all.

    1. wait, government is the worst incarnation of capitalism? I know you’re not being serious, but Im confused.

      1. He’s using the fallacy of affirming the consequent as a rhetorical exemplification. I’m relieved it wasn’t a DeMorgan’s Transformation. A lot of that stuff, like math, needs periodic refresher practice or we forget it. It is useful for translation though. Also, Hitler’s National Socialist party preached Christian altruism (documented at It’s like a construction crew here, lotta sarcasm.

    2. Post this around the internets and see the traction it gets.

  9. when Hillary’s policies fail, as they will, her socialist ideas will rightfully be denounced.

    This is basically the same argument George Will makes. That Republicans will be forced to be better small-govt advocates when Out of power rather than In it.

    Which makes you wonder where the hell these “market-conservatives” have been during the Obama era. The great-denunciation somehow failed to manifest itself. Obama’s impositions in the healthcare and energy sectors haven’t been met with robust opposition.

    This idea that “Donald Trump” would be blamed for being ‘too capitalist’ is idiotic. As the author (Pig) noted = Bush wasn’t exactly Scrooge McDuck with Medicare Part D, or his handouts to the banks w/ TARP. OOoohh, he cut some taxes?? We already hear Trump suggesting he’ll raise them.

    Why exactly is Trump to be so feared as “damaging the Republican-Capitalist brand”, exactly? Who still BELIEVES their bullshit? Its been fucking dead for so long that its the very reason Trump exists. Its like he doesn’t even recognize it

    I’d give him some points if he tried to make a case that international Free Trade “might” fare better under Clinton than Trump… or some other specific set of policies where ‘too many unknowns’ under Trump made him less appealing.

    But you can’t tell me Hillary will be less prone to regulation, pandering to greens, raising taxes, and expanding agencies. Its absurd to suggest otherwise.

    1. Bush Senior and Dubya both advocated the same tax confiscations Herbert Hoover used to enforce Volstead Prohibitionism under the Five and Ten (beer a felony), and wrecked the entire economy doing it. He even used the same thing the Bush dynasty called Asset Forfeiture Sharing to sic greedy state looter gummints on bootleggers. Money moved out of the banks, the credit structure collapsed, every bank closed… the Great Depression–exactly as in 2007, only with inelastic gold currency in 1933. Even Murray Rothbard missed this connection, but Ayn Rand reported it fairly accurately in Atlas Shrugged by combining communism and prohibitionism in one blob.

      Bottom line: mystical conservative prohibitionists cause economic crises every bit as ghawdawful as the most communistic of socialists, and for the exact same reason. The money supply contracts at the sound of the leper’s bell of the approaching looter. Why do you imagine the Federales were so eager to quietly bail out the mortgage-backed-securities shipwrecks? TARP is Taxpayer Assets Ruined by Prohibitionism

    2. Republicans will be forced to be better small-govt advocates when Out of power rather than In it.

      But then their advocacy is inconsequential.

  10. So what favor is this guy expecting from Hillary? Hillary is the crony queen, he’s expecting something and no one is ready to hand out more tax payer dollars to cronies than Hillary.

    1. My guess is that he thinks she is predictable and he can make money on predictible. Whereas he’s not sure what Trump might do.

  11. It’s very easy to come up with convoluted reasons to vote for one of these hacks. I say that Trump will do more to further the libertarian cause than anyone by demystifying the presidency and putting another nail in the coffin of government credibility. Put a clown in the White House. How do you respect that office? Make people realize that these hacks don’t matter.

    In reality, I’m not going to vote. But I sure as fuck wouldn’t vote for either of these even if I did.

    1. Vote for the LP candidate.

    2. Look at Gallup graphs of Confidence in Congress. It doesn’t get any lower than it is. If you vote LP your spoiler vote changes ten times the laws. It’s “the case for voting libertarian.” Repealing bad laws is WINNING.

      1. I appreciate your unique optimism on these threads lately, Hank.

        I wish I were capable of sharing in it even a trifle.

  12. Yawnaroonie.

    Who didn’t know that the financial class would come out in opposition to a populist candidate?

  13. And when Hillary’s policies fail, as they will, her socialist ideas will rightfully be denounced.

    Are you simply not paying attention? As it is, the only denouncements have been “Not socialist ENOUGH!”. The existence of Bernie is proof of that.

  14. 6?once I saw the draft of 3500 bucks, I admit that my sister was like really generating cash in his free time with his COM. My aunt has done this for only 6 months and by now repaid the loan on their home and bought a new BMW..Start Here…..


  15. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last friday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 6-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $97 per hour. I work through this link,
    Go to tech tab for work detail.==========

  16. Shorter headline: “Pig endorses Pig”

    1. Now, now, Ms Clinton has been a steadfast supporter of capital’s control of our nation, but ‘pig’ goes a little far.

  17. You might be amused to know those of us to the left of Ms Clinton (and Mr Clinton, and Mr Obama)?e.g., anyone at least as socialist as a conservative German Social Democrat?feel the equivalent: policies misrepresented as ours will fail, and serve only to help our opposition.

  18. Are you single tonight? A lot of beautiful girls waiting for you to
    The best adult dating site!

  19. Mr. Hoenig is a fellow traveler of the Ayn Rand Institute and as “limousine leftist” as they are:

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.