5 ms·

So how bad is this exactly? I'm all for equality, but the world is built on the game known as capitalism, and this stuff exists because people optimise their pl

So how bad is this exactly? I'm all for equality, but the world is built on the game known as capitalism, and this stuff exists because people optimise their playing strategy. I know the starting conditions can be unfair, but we kinda need people at the top to make the whole thing work. If the world runs on money, then there will always be a poorer place that wants to attract the rich, and so havens are born. Let's not forget the rich spend a lot of money in their own country too, which is an essential part of a thriving economy.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
killjoywashere 9y ago
The havens are not the issue. The fact that YCombinator start-ups are funded by Russian oligarchs (via Milner) is an issue. The fact the the US Commerce Secretary is in business with Putin's family is an issue. The fact that Facebook and Twitter are funded by Russian oligarchs (again, via Milner) is an issue. There are a lot of issues here. These oligarchs have no problem killing people wholesale. You want to give them a positive ROI on their investment? WTF?
- charlesdm 9y ago
  I'm pretty sure plenty of people wouldn't care. If someone offers you $100m for your business today (Ford), and a Russian company offered you $300m (Gazprom) -- guess which one most would sell to? Facebook might not like it now, but at the time, you could be quite certain they didn't care.
  - killjoywashere 9y ago
    Next question: do you think the Saudis got early access to the Paradise Papers too? Any chance the Saudi arrests are linked to all this? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/04/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-waleed-bin-talal.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/04/world/middleeast/saudi-ar...
  - pjc50 9y ago
    I'm not up on the Magnitsky act, but does it make a difference if it's illegal for you to take the $300m from Gazprom?
    - charlesdm 9y ago
      Only if you're an American. Afaik it doesn't apply to Europeans and others based outside of the US. Now, that said, if there are sanctions that cannot be avoided then obviously that would be a clear no. Assume companies without sanctions in this example.
      - killjoywashere 9y ago
        EU, Canada, and probably others now have an equivalent of the Magnitsky Act.
    - ringaroundthetx 9y ago
      Well that’s when you set up a subsidiary in a third country which is not following US led sanctions. Aaaaaand we’ve come full circle. The root here is that money is fungible. The government has developed legislative tools to ATTEMPT to deter behavior it doesn’t like. Over the past 50 years it has attempted to leverage financial institutions to block the flow of payments based on a miscalculation of how much leverage the USA has over international finance. It requires widespread support over its claims to morality to maintain public support for these fictions and you are merely being exposed to the futility of that particular effort.
- ringaroundthetx 9y ago
  Human rights abuses have NEVER been a red line for US cooperation with a foreign government. Ask yourself who benefits from perpetuating this unique goal post for Russia to maintain McCarthy era paranoia?
  - killjoywashere 9y ago
    > Human rights abuses have NEVER been a red line Yes they have been and are. See the Magnitsky Act (2012) and Jackson–Vanik amendment (1974) specifically.
    - ringaroundthetx 9y ago
      But in practice we are trade partners with the Philippines and Saudi Arabia and practically every country on the planet, with very narrowly focused financial sanctions against a few Russian businessmen, while maintaining a unique paranoia against that one country in particular.
    - jgome 9y ago
      Nice joke.
- lordnacho 9y ago
  You may not like the guy, for the same political reasons as many people, but shouldn't he be allowed to buy and sell property just like everybody else? The only issue I find distasteful is how the oligarchs got their money. I wouldn't want to personally make them richer, but isn't it of a nature where you can't point fingers if other people do so? Who am I to stop some startup from taking investment from them?
- NN88 9y ago
  Jeffery Carr wrote about Milner's ties to the FSB/KGB in 2011 http://archive.li/2Lv1b#selection-549.14-549.39 http://archive.li/2Lv1b#selection-549.14-549.39 ...and got fired from Forbes Magazine for writing about it... https://twitter.com/JamesFourM/status/915361529012289536 https://twitter.com/JamesFourM/status/915361529012289536
anigbrowl 9y ago
the world is built on the game known as capitalism Before that it was built on the game known as feudalism, and that seemed equally inevitable to most of the participants. You might find it interesting to look at the percentage of GDP in different countries from the financial services sector, and how that has changed over time. Also look into the work of the late Mark Fisher who does a good job contemplating alternative paradigms in an accessible and non-dogmatic way.
confounded 9y ago
> this stuff exists because people optimise their playing strategy. There any a great many reasons why it’s important to know what the latest strategies are. Few of the people concerned here are passive capitalists looking for ROI. Even if they were, politics is ultimately a contest over resources. Information is power.
forapurpose 9y ago
> we kinda need people at the top to make the whole thing work ... Let's not forget the rich spend a lot of money in their own country too, which is an essential part of a thriving economy. I don't agree: 1. Capitalism inevitably results in some people being wealthier than others. But it doesn't need to be these people. Cutting taxes for the wealthy entrenches the current wealthy people, as if they have some claim to the position. What about tax policies that promote social mobility of others to become wealthy and fill that role? Let's cut taxes for the up-and-comers. 2. If the distribution of money were flat, there would be just as much money in the world. We don't need uber-wealthy. 3. Inequality is at record levels; the economy ran fine (or better) before, when there was less inequality. 4. The same idea fueled Reagan's 'trickle-down' economics, the idea that if the government cut taxes for the wealthy then the benefits would 'trickle down' to everyone else. Ignoring the implicit idea that the non-wealthy were like serfs waiting for their feudal lords to lift them up, rather than capable economic agents themselves; and ignoring the incredibly self-serving nature of the idea; it didn't work at all (see #4). The surprising result is that cutting taxes for the wealthy benefits ... wait for it ... the wealthy. 5. Since Reagan's tax cuts, the wealthy have grown far more wealthier while the other classes' incomes have been flat - that's over decades. (The exception is the last year or maybe two of the Obama administration.) During the prior era, when taxes were much higher, middle class Americans experienced probably their most rapid period of economic growth in history.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

killjoywashere 9y ago

The havens are not the issue. The fact that YCombinator start-ups are funded by Russian oligarchs (via Milner) is an issue. The fact the the US Commerce Secretary is in business with Putin's family is an issue. The fact that Facebook and Twitter are funded by Russian oligarchs (again, via Milner) is an issue. There are a lot of issues here. These oligarchs have no problem killing people wholesale. You want to give them a positive ROI on their investment? WTF?

charlesdm 9y ago
I'm pretty sure plenty of people wouldn't care. If someone offers you $100m for your business today (Ford), and a Russian company offered you $300m (Gazprom) -- guess which one most would sell to? Facebook might not like it now, but at the time, you could be quite certain they didn't care.
- killjoywashere 9y ago
  Next question: do you think the Saudis got early access to the Paradise Papers too? Any chance the Saudi arrests are linked to all this? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/04/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-waleed-bin-talal.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/04/world/middleeast/saudi-ar...
- pjc50 9y ago
  I'm not up on the Magnitsky act, but does it make a difference if it's illegal for you to take the $300m from Gazprom?
  - charlesdm 9y ago
    Only if you're an American. Afaik it doesn't apply to Europeans and others based outside of the US. Now, that said, if there are sanctions that cannot be avoided then obviously that would be a clear no. Assume companies without sanctions in this example.
    - killjoywashere 9y ago
      EU, Canada, and probably others now have an equivalent of the Magnitsky Act.
  - ringaroundthetx 9y ago
    Well that’s when you set up a subsidiary in a third country which is not following US led sanctions. Aaaaaand we’ve come full circle. The root here is that money is fungible. The government has developed legislative tools to ATTEMPT to deter behavior it doesn’t like. Over the past 50 years it has attempted to leverage financial institutions to block the flow of payments based on a miscalculation of how much leverage the USA has over international finance. It requires widespread support over its claims to morality to maintain public support for these fictions and you are merely being exposed to the futility of that particular effort.
ringaroundthetx 9y ago
Human rights abuses have NEVER been a red line for US cooperation with a foreign government. Ask yourself who benefits from perpetuating this unique goal post for Russia to maintain McCarthy era paranoia?
- killjoywashere 9y ago
  > Human rights abuses have NEVER been a red line Yes they have been and are. See the Magnitsky Act (2012) and Jackson–Vanik amendment (1974) specifically.
  - ringaroundthetx 9y ago
    But in practice we are trade partners with the Philippines and Saudi Arabia and practically every country on the planet, with very narrowly focused financial sanctions against a few Russian businessmen, while maintaining a unique paranoia against that one country in particular.
  - jgome 9y ago
    Nice joke.
lordnacho 9y ago
You may not like the guy, for the same political reasons as many people, but shouldn't he be allowed to buy and sell property just like everybody else? The only issue I find distasteful is how the oligarchs got their money. I wouldn't want to personally make them richer, but isn't it of a nature where you can't point fingers if other people do so? Who am I to stop some startup from taking investment from them?
NN88 9y ago
Jeffery Carr wrote about Milner's ties to the FSB/KGB in 2011 http://archive.li/2Lv1b#selection-549.14-549.39 http://archive.li/2Lv1b#selection-549.14-549.39 ...and got fired from Forbes Magazine for writing about it... https://twitter.com/JamesFourM/status/915361529012289536 https://twitter.com/JamesFourM/status/915361529012289536

anigbrowl 9y ago

the world is built on the game known as capitalism Before that it was built on the game known as feudalism, and that seemed equally inevitable to most of the participants. You might find it interesting to look at the percentage of GDP in different countries from the financial services sector, and how that has changed over time. Also look into the work of the late Mark Fisher who does a good job contemplating alternative paradigms in an accessible and non-dogmatic way.

confounded 9y ago

> this stuff exists because people optimise their playing strategy. There any a great many reasons why it’s important to know what the latest strategies are. Few of the people concerned here are passive capitalists looking for ROI. Even if they were, politics is ultimately a contest over resources. Information is power.

forapurpose 9y ago

> we kinda need people at the top to make the whole thing work ... Let's not forget the rich spend a lot of money in their own country too, which is an essential part of a thriving economy. I don't agree: 1. Capitalism inevitably results in some people being wealthier than others. But it doesn't need to be these people. Cutting taxes for the wealthy entrenches the current wealthy people, as if they have some claim to the position. What about tax policies that promote social mobility of others to become wealthy and fill that role? Let's cut taxes for the up-and-comers. 2. If the distribution of money were flat, there would be just as much money in the world. We don't need uber-wealthy. 3. Inequality is at record levels; the economy ran fine (or better) before, when there was less inequality. 4. The same idea fueled Reagan's 'trickle-down' economics, the idea that if the government cut taxes for the wealthy then the benefits would 'trickle down' to everyone else. Ignoring the implicit idea that the non-wealthy were like serfs waiting for their feudal lords to lift them up, rather than capable economic agents themselves; and ignoring the incredibly self-serving nature of the idea; it didn't work at all (see #4). The surprising result is that cutting taxes for the wealthy benefits ... wait for it ... the wealthy. 5. Since Reagan's tax cuts, the wealthy have grown far more wealthier while the other classes' incomes have been flat - that's over decades. (The exception is the last year or maybe two of the Obama administration.) During the prior era, when taxes were much higher, middle class Americans experienced probably their most rapid period of economic growth in history.