5 ms·

What's the difference between an American oligarch and a Russian oligarch? Aside from the nationality.

germinalphrase 5y ago
Level of control over governmental functions?
blendergeek 5y ago
Oligarch tend to need outsized control over the government in addition to billions of dollars. I don't know if Elon and Jeff have that yet.
- nextstep 5y ago
  This seems like an oligarchy to me https://theintercept.com/2021/05/25/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-senate-bailout/ https://theintercept.com/2021/05/25/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-s...
  - reissbaker 5y ago
    Redundancy for NASA funded projects makes sense, and it's how we regained the ability to launch human crewed rockets from US soil: Boeing wanted to be the sole contract, and has bungled their launch projects, and it was due to NASA also contracting SpaceX that we've had any successful launches. When SpaceX was recently awarded a sole contract, plenty of people — including here on HN — howled that NASA was letting SpaceX turn into a monopolist like Boeing tried to become. NASA has historically chosen multiple providers for redundancy, and the SpaceX sole contract was a unique departure due to NASA lacking sufficient funding. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/04/16/nasa-lunar-lander-contract-spacex/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/04/16/nasa-lu... The Intercept isn't exactly known for... neutral... reporting.
    - cholantesh 5y ago
      'neutrality' is a mirage, but WaPo isn't known for it, either, and in this context it's an especially egregious choice
      - reissbaker 5y ago
        Okay, here's CBS saying the same thing: NASA always wanted two contracts, and was forced to give up on redundancy on the lunar lander due to their budget getting slashed. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/spacex-wins-2-9-billion-contract-to-build-moon-lander-for-nasas-artemis-program/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/spacex-wins-2-9-billion-contrac... "Agency managers originally hoped to award follow-on HLS contracts to two of the companies to encourage competition and protect against the possibility of major problems or delays that might affect one company but not the other. But Congress only allocated $850 million in NASA's fiscal 2021 budget for lander development, about one quarter of the amount the agency said it needed to have a new vehicle ready by 2024. Given the available money and projected future spending, NASA "down selected" to a single contractor — SpaceX — deciding the California rocket builder offered the most attractive combination of cost, technology and management expertise." Neutrality may always have some element of manufacture, but that doesn't mean it's equivalent to intentionally trying to generate partisan outrage. This isn't a "bailout fund for Jeff Bezos" — word-for-word quote from the headline of the Intercept article! — it's just NASA continuing to try to get budget for the projects it wanted all along, so it can have redundant contractors like it did with the commercial crew program and avoid getting stuck with monopolist pricing (and monopolist poor performance) like it nearly did with Boeing.
gogopuppygogo 5y ago
One creates businesses that have scale in a quasi open market while the other privatized formerly state run businesses and keeps their position by further supporting the head of the nation in all matters.
jonplackett 5y ago
Oligarchs were basically given large existing monopolies and then just sit on them and make money with no reason to innovate. While it’s a fun jibe to throw at them it’s a completely different thing to just being insanely wealthy through actually doing something effectively (if sometimes immorally)
- dalbasal 5y ago
  Is that what makes an oligarch? The way I use it, oligarch implies political power. You could, in theory, be a poor oligarch.
  - tmountain 5y ago
    As you said, oligarch implies power, and with power one typically controls resources in a way that wealth can be generated for selfish purposes. The strict definition is something like "ruling by few", but I've always thought of it as rule by the extremely wealthy since that's how it typically seems to play out.
    - dalbasal 5y ago
      Sure, they are pretty closely related in pratice. The Senatorial oligarchy of Rome were pretty much also the wealthy of Rome, and often those with military power. Still, the term implies politics... not just money. I would also hazard that it implies hereditary power. You could argue that dynastic politicians are oligarch. I'm not really disputing, just pondering. Ultimately, for both Russians and Americans, oligarch is a (usually derogatory) analogy. It's not a formal oligarchy. We could also say aristocrats, which is more appealing to me. Also, there's an idea that all governments, or systems of power are oligarchies. No matter what the formal system of government, some group of powerful people wield a lot of power. Rich people, religious leaders, senators, backscene power brokers, generals...

Level of control over governmental functions?

Oligarch tend to need outsized control over the government in addition to billions of dollars. I don't know if Elon and Jeff have that yet.

nextstep 5y ago
This seems like an oligarchy to me https://theintercept.com/2021/05/25/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-senate-bailout/ https://theintercept.com/2021/05/25/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-s...
- reissbaker 5y ago
  Redundancy for NASA funded projects makes sense, and it's how we regained the ability to launch human crewed rockets from US soil: Boeing wanted to be the sole contract, and has bungled their launch projects, and it was due to NASA also contracting SpaceX that we've had any successful launches. When SpaceX was recently awarded a sole contract, plenty of people — including here on HN — howled that NASA was letting SpaceX turn into a monopolist like Boeing tried to become. NASA has historically chosen multiple providers for redundancy, and the SpaceX sole contract was a unique departure due to NASA lacking sufficient funding. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/04/16/nasa-lunar-lander-contract-spacex/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/04/16/nasa-lu... The Intercept isn't exactly known for... neutral... reporting.
  - cholantesh 5y ago
    'neutrality' is a mirage, but WaPo isn't known for it, either, and in this context it's an especially egregious choice
    - reissbaker 5y ago
      Okay, here's CBS saying the same thing: NASA always wanted two contracts, and was forced to give up on redundancy on the lunar lander due to their budget getting slashed. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/spacex-wins-2-9-billion-contract-to-build-moon-lander-for-nasas-artemis-program/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/spacex-wins-2-9-billion-contrac... "Agency managers originally hoped to award follow-on HLS contracts to two of the companies to encourage competition and protect against the possibility of major problems or delays that might affect one company but not the other. But Congress only allocated $850 million in NASA's fiscal 2021 budget for lander development, about one quarter of the amount the agency said it needed to have a new vehicle ready by 2024. Given the available money and projected future spending, NASA "down selected" to a single contractor — SpaceX — deciding the California rocket builder offered the most attractive combination of cost, technology and management expertise." Neutrality may always have some element of manufacture, but that doesn't mean it's equivalent to intentionally trying to generate partisan outrage. This isn't a "bailout fund for Jeff Bezos" — word-for-word quote from the headline of the Intercept article! — it's just NASA continuing to try to get budget for the projects it wanted all along, so it can have redundant contractors like it did with the commercial crew program and avoid getting stuck with monopolist pricing (and monopolist poor performance) like it nearly did with Boeing.

gogopuppygogo 5y ago

One creates businesses that have scale in a quasi open market while the other privatized formerly state run businesses and keeps their position by further supporting the head of the nation in all matters.

jonplackett 5y ago

Oligarchs were basically given large existing monopolies and then just sit on them and make money with no reason to innovate. While it’s a fun jibe to throw at them it’s a completely different thing to just being insanely wealthy through actually doing something effectively (if sometimes immorally)

dalbasal 5y ago
Is that what makes an oligarch? The way I use it, oligarch implies political power. You could, in theory, be a poor oligarch.
- tmountain 5y ago
  As you said, oligarch implies power, and with power one typically controls resources in a way that wealth can be generated for selfish purposes. The strict definition is something like "ruling by few", but I've always thought of it as rule by the extremely wealthy since that's how it typically seems to play out.
  - dalbasal 5y ago
    Sure, they are pretty closely related in pratice. The Senatorial oligarchy of Rome were pretty much also the wealthy of Rome, and often those with military power. Still, the term implies politics... not just money. I would also hazard that it implies hereditary power. You could argue that dynastic politicians are oligarch. I'm not really disputing, just pondering. Ultimately, for both Russians and Americans, oligarch is a (usually derogatory) analogy. It's not a formal oligarchy. We could also say aristocrats, which is more appealing to me. Also, there's an idea that all governments, or systems of power are oligarchies. No matter what the formal system of government, some group of powerful people wield a lot of power. Rich people, religious leaders, senators, backscene power brokers, generals...