16 ms·

This kind of thing is a reminder that money, wealth, ownership and related concepts, aren't really real. They're cultural constructs, abstractions, rules.... A

This kind of thing is a reminder that money, wealth, ownership and related concepts, aren't really real. They're cultural constructs, abstractions, rules.... Anyway..... abstractions sometimes fray at the extreme ends. The concept of property doesn't quite apply to Putin. Years ago, I had a conversation urban planner mate about some building that couldn't be changed (preservation) or used (building codes & safety). I argued that this makes it public property Him -'You can't just take property off someone'. Me - 'We already have, haven't we?' He couldn't get his head around my meaning. Around here (Ireland) landowners often "own" roads that border their land. This ownership amounts to a responsibility for cutting hedges and paying taxes on it. They don't (I think) have any rights to it that others don't. Ownership is a set of rules about what an owner can do with something. If you own an apple, but aren't allowed to eat it, gift it, etc. do you really own it? Does the King of Saudi Arabia (another candidate for wealthiest man) "own" everything in the country? I think he has the legal right to do anything with any thing. Does he own all "public" assets controlled by the crown, like Saudi Aramco (valued somewhere between $1trn and $10trn)? If not where's this distinction?

agumonkey 9y ago
> If you own an apple, but aren't allowed to eat it, gift it, etc. do you really own it? The only right left is to not let someone else have it I guess ?
okreallywtf 9y ago
>Does the King of Saudi Arabia (another candidate for wealthiest man) "own" everything in the country? I think he has the legal right to do anything with any thing. Does he own all "public" assets controlled by the crown, like Saudi Aramco (valued somewhere between $1trn and $10trn)? If not where's this distinction? That is an interesting point, but in terms of the Russian Oligarchs I think part of the distinction is they are (and have been) attempting to export that wealth and diversify it so that if they do lose power they will still be insanely wealthy. Maybe not 200bn wealthy but still massively wealthy. That is why the Magnitsky act is so important [1], because it makes it harder for them to move their money out of Russia. Granted a lot of wealth is coupled with control over natural resources and industry, but the more I read the more I realize Russian (like probably chinese and US as well) money is everywhere and much harder to track. The Saudis I'm sure do the same things in terms of investment, but whether they do so with as much secrecy and in avoidance of sanctions I'm not sure. [1] http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/21/politics/russian-adoptions-magnitsky-act/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/21/politics/russian-adoptions-mag...
- freeflight 9y ago
  > That is an interesting point, but in terms of the Russian Oligarchs I think part of the distinction is they are (and have been) attempting to export that wealth and diversify it so that if they do lose power they will still be insanely wealthy. I don't see how that's an actual distinction because the same thing applies just as well to the house of Saud and Saudi Arabia in general. Do you honestly think the house of Saud didn't put a bit of wealth aside for the unlikely event they might be removed from power? For whatever reason, it's become acceptable to just assume that certain countries are "ultra corrupt" while others are supposedly "corruption free". In reality, none of this applies because, in reality, the practices of corruption just differ from country to country depending on the local laws. Corruption always finds a loophole and in many places established forms of corruption are not even recognized as such. Case in point: Germany How many people would think Germany is a country ripe with corruption? The super punctual, super correct, super bureaucratic Germans could never be corrupt, right? Well, Germany was among the last countries who ratified the UN convention against corruption, as a matter of fact, it was the last EU country to ratify it. It took German parliament 11 years [0] to ratify that UN convention against a lot of opposition. High profile German politicians publicly complained that if the UN convention was ratified it would be impossible for them to keep working like they've been working. That's quite long and vehement opposition against something that would usually just be regarded as the sensible thing to do, I'll leave the reasons for that strong opposition up to your imagination. [0] https://www.transparency.org/news/pressrelease/11_years_after_signing_german_parliament_approves_global_corruption_agreeme https://www.transparency.org/news/pressrelease/11_years_afte...
  - dalbasal 9y ago
    For a case in point, there's a high profile (potentially involving the PM) investigation ongoing about a kickback paid by a German shipbuilder to Israeli Navy/Government buyers in order to secure an order for submarines. But... I don't agree with your leanings. All countries are corrupt to some degree, but degrees do vary. I think it dangerously lends to extremism, thinking of issues of corruption in either-or terms or some close proxy.
JetSpiegel 9y ago
I would quote Dune. The measure of "ownership" is if you can destroy something. By that definition, Putin does own the entirety of Russia, "private" enterprises included.
- dalbasal 9y ago
  By that definition, Trump owns the world. So do others, a worrying number of the bastards.
elmar 9y ago
"The power to destroy a thing is the absolute control over it." - Frank Herbert, Dune

agumonkey 9y ago

> If you own an apple, but aren't allowed to eat it, gift it, etc. do you really own it? The only right left is to not let someone else have it I guess ?

okreallywtf 9y ago

>Does the King of Saudi Arabia (another candidate for wealthiest man) "own" everything in the country? I think he has the legal right to do anything with any thing. Does he own all "public" assets controlled by the crown, like Saudi Aramco (valued somewhere between $1trn and $10trn)? If not where's this distinction? That is an interesting point, but in terms of the Russian Oligarchs I think part of the distinction is they are (and have been) attempting to export that wealth and diversify it so that if they do lose power they will still be insanely wealthy. Maybe not 200bn wealthy but still massively wealthy. That is why the Magnitsky act is so important [1], because it makes it harder for them to move their money out of Russia. Granted a lot of wealth is coupled with control over natural resources and industry, but the more I read the more I realize Russian (like probably chinese and US as well) money is everywhere and much harder to track. The Saudis I'm sure do the same things in terms of investment, but whether they do so with as much secrecy and in avoidance of sanctions I'm not sure. [1] http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/21/politics/russian-adoptions-magnitsky-act/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/21/politics/russian-adoptions-mag...

freeflight 9y ago
> That is an interesting point, but in terms of the Russian Oligarchs I think part of the distinction is they are (and have been) attempting to export that wealth and diversify it so that if they do lose power they will still be insanely wealthy. I don't see how that's an actual distinction because the same thing applies just as well to the house of Saud and Saudi Arabia in general. Do you honestly think the house of Saud didn't put a bit of wealth aside for the unlikely event they might be removed from power? For whatever reason, it's become acceptable to just assume that certain countries are "ultra corrupt" while others are supposedly "corruption free". In reality, none of this applies because, in reality, the practices of corruption just differ from country to country depending on the local laws. Corruption always finds a loophole and in many places established forms of corruption are not even recognized as such. Case in point: Germany How many people would think Germany is a country ripe with corruption? The super punctual, super correct, super bureaucratic Germans could never be corrupt, right? Well, Germany was among the last countries who ratified the UN convention against corruption, as a matter of fact, it was the last EU country to ratify it. It took German parliament 11 years [0] to ratify that UN convention against a lot of opposition. High profile German politicians publicly complained that if the UN convention was ratified it would be impossible for them to keep working like they've been working. That's quite long and vehement opposition against something that would usually just be regarded as the sensible thing to do, I'll leave the reasons for that strong opposition up to your imagination. [0] https://www.transparency.org/news/pressrelease/11_years_after_signing_german_parliament_approves_global_corruption_agreeme https://www.transparency.org/news/pressrelease/11_years_afte...
- dalbasal 9y ago
  For a case in point, there's a high profile (potentially involving the PM) investigation ongoing about a kickback paid by a German shipbuilder to Israeli Navy/Government buyers in order to secure an order for submarines. But... I don't agree with your leanings. All countries are corrupt to some degree, but degrees do vary. I think it dangerously lends to extremism, thinking of issues of corruption in either-or terms or some close proxy.

JetSpiegel 9y ago

I would quote Dune. The measure of "ownership" is if you can destroy something. By that definition, Putin does own the entirety of Russia, "private" enterprises included.

dalbasal 9y ago
By that definition, Trump owns the world. So do others, a worrying number of the bastards.

elmar 9y ago

"The power to destroy a thing is the absolute control over it." - Frank Herbert, Dune