5 ms·

Funny how news loves to refer to russian companies as "giants". Russian oil "giant", search "giant", etc. Just an amusing fact.

kkfdkerpoe 3y ago
Yes, lots of giants for a country with GDP lower than that of Italy. Perhaps they refer to the bellies of the oligarchy that owns the companies.
- gumballindie 3y ago
  A GPD lower than that of Italy? Here's something better: per capita is lower than that of Bulgaria's. Perhaps Putin's plan is to lower the country's population to increase the per capita ratio?
  - orangepurple 3y ago
    Speculation: Putin's plan is definitely not to lower the population. His people need young men to wage war against the West.
- malaya_zemlya 3y ago
  Is that surprising for a resource oriented economy? Aramco (Saudi Oil) is the second biggest company in the world, yet GDP of Saudi Arabia is about that of Poland
- sgt 3y ago
  I think the frequent comparisons of GDP leads the West to heavily underestimate Russia. While GDP may be lower than Italy and per capita is weak, a nation like Russia can probably accomplish an order of magnitude more large scale projects, and also sustain a certain economy climate for much much longer than we think. So don't underestimate Russia, even though we'd like to think they're soon running out of steam to continue the war in Ukraine.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    On the other side of the comparison, I think Italy is a lot more capable than many people give them credit for, so the comparison is not quite as damning as it may first seem. On just one axis of consideration, Italy has a blue water navy with power projection capabilities roughly similar to Russia and India, surpassed only by the United States, the UK and France. I think Italy also ranks higher than most anglosphere laypeople would estimate in terms of GDP and scientific output, although this is hard to pin down since I'm talking about layperson perception. Basically, I think Italy is more relevant and capable than people generally give it credit for.
    - sgt 3y ago
      Fair enough, Italy is actually known for science and entrepreneurship. People forget that.
  - VancouverMan 3y ago
    GDP seems like a very questionable, and likely misleading, measure to me, even for Western nations. For example, Canada's inflation-adjusted per-capita GDP has supposedly increased over time, yet for many Canadians, the standard of living is now noticeably lower than it was (or would have likely been) two or three decades ago. In terms of production, Canadian businesses and governments generally don't seem to have become more capable and productive, and actually seem to struggle now with the sorts of fundamental work that they managed to pull off in the past. Many common services and products are noticeably worse now than in the past, in terms of cost, quality, reliability, delivery time, and so forth. GDP is a metric that I can't trust.
    - sgt 3y ago
      And very interesting to note that your name is VancouverMan. The other day I saw a YouTube video about an IT guy struggling in Vancouver and he mentioned one example of two immigrants - both doctors - having to stay in someone's basement as there was simply no way for them to afford a house (rent or buy).
  - 3y ago
veave 3y ago
And lobbyists are not lobbyists, they are oligarchs.
- sdfghswe 3y ago
  > And lobbyists are not lobbyists, they are oligarchs. ??? No, this is nonsense. The normal meaning of the word "lobbyist" is an _employee_ who uses political connections to push corporate interests. The normal meaning of the word "oligarch" is someone with large wealth. These two are not similar at all. So the phrase you're looking for is probably "And billionaires are not billionaires, they're oligarchs".
  - Dah00n 3y ago
    1. a ruler in an oligarchy. 2. a very rich business leader with a great deal of political influence (particularly with reference to individuals who benefited from the privatization of state-run industries after the collapse of the Soviet Union).
- orangepurple 3y ago
  Lobbyists are not oligarchs. They are middlemen and facilitators of corruption and bribery that provide plausible deniability.
pavlov 3y ago
They are giants in the local market, one where making it big practically requires support from the highest level of government. So “Russian [x] giant” really means “Putin’s favored [x] company”.
- tasogare 3y ago
  So quite similar to the US where oligarchs (oups, billionaires) are invited at the White House and companies provide algorithmic censorship favoring a particular political camp (obvious with Twitter before its recent purchase, YouTube actions against public free discourse on covid, Google removing pages related to a certain laptop, etc.)
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
boeingUH60 3y ago
They are giants as far as Russia is concerned...Yandex is the biggest tech company there. Gazprom is a Russian gas giant, Rosneft is an oil giant, etc..
- gumballindie 3y ago
  Yeah but that term is just you know comical. “Giants”. As if meant to inflate one’s ego, cover insecurity, and project power, like those tom and jerry cartoon episodes where they’d call in their giant friends to save the day. It amuses me every time.
tenpies 3y ago
Also Western billionaire versus Russian oligarch - even if the source of wealth is virtually identical and their political power probably higher in the West.
- sidibe 3y ago
  I do think they don't use oligarch for all Russian billionaires. For example it isn't used for Tinkov or Durov. In 90s-00s there really were oligarchs, now they use it for the ones that are or were maybe affiliated with government, like the childhood friends of Putin or former KGB/St Petersburg mayor's office employees who all happen to be CEOs of huge companies
  - AtlasBarfed 3y ago
    I've heard successive stories of oligarchs getting shaken down for money or outright purged by Putin that I don't think Russia is an oligarchy. That implies some collective decision making. The Ukraine war is madness and reflects a ruler with absolute power.
- boeingUH60 3y ago
  "Oligarchs" refer to underground Russian businessmen that cheaply bought up state assets after the USSR collapsed and sold it for exceedingly higher sums later. It's a blasphemy to capitalism to conflate those bandits with Western entrepreneurs that founded and built their own companies from scratch, even though they have their own set of issues.
  - Dah00n 3y ago
    Is it really? I'm positive most would very likely do the same if (when) they get a chance at a collapse.
    - hsjqllzlfkf 3y ago
      They would but they didn't. It's not about intentions.
malaya_zemlya 3y ago
It's all relative. By western standards, Yandex is a mid-cap company, but whereas US has FAANG+, Russia has just Yandex and maybe VK/Mail.ru
HPsquared 3y ago
It's a bit like how republicans always "pounce" and "seize".
CrzyLngPwd 3y ago
Totally agree, has google ever been referred to as American giant Google I wonder. My search threw up a few.
poppytaker 3y ago
[dead]

kkfdkerpoe 3y ago

Yes, lots of giants for a country with GDP lower than that of Italy. Perhaps they refer to the bellies of the oligarchy that owns the companies.

gumballindie 3y ago
A GPD lower than that of Italy? Here's something better: per capita is lower than that of Bulgaria's. Perhaps Putin's plan is to lower the country's population to increase the per capita ratio?
- orangepurple 3y ago
  Speculation: Putin's plan is definitely not to lower the population. His people need young men to wage war against the West.
malaya_zemlya 3y ago
Is that surprising for a resource oriented economy? Aramco (Saudi Oil) is the second biggest company in the world, yet GDP of Saudi Arabia is about that of Poland
sgt 3y ago
I think the frequent comparisons of GDP leads the West to heavily underestimate Russia. While GDP may be lower than Italy and per capita is weak, a nation like Russia can probably accomplish an order of magnitude more large scale projects, and also sustain a certain economy climate for much much longer than we think. So don't underestimate Russia, even though we'd like to think they're soon running out of steam to continue the war in Ukraine.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  On the other side of the comparison, I think Italy is a lot more capable than many people give them credit for, so the comparison is not quite as damning as it may first seem. On just one axis of consideration, Italy has a blue water navy with power projection capabilities roughly similar to Russia and India, surpassed only by the United States, the UK and France. I think Italy also ranks higher than most anglosphere laypeople would estimate in terms of GDP and scientific output, although this is hard to pin down since I'm talking about layperson perception. Basically, I think Italy is more relevant and capable than people generally give it credit for.
  - sgt 3y ago
    Fair enough, Italy is actually known for science and entrepreneurship. People forget that.
- VancouverMan 3y ago
  GDP seems like a very questionable, and likely misleading, measure to me, even for Western nations. For example, Canada's inflation-adjusted per-capita GDP has supposedly increased over time, yet for many Canadians, the standard of living is now noticeably lower than it was (or would have likely been) two or three decades ago. In terms of production, Canadian businesses and governments generally don't seem to have become more capable and productive, and actually seem to struggle now with the sorts of fundamental work that they managed to pull off in the past. Many common services and products are noticeably worse now than in the past, in terms of cost, quality, reliability, delivery time, and so forth. GDP is a metric that I can't trust.
  - sgt 3y ago
    And very interesting to note that your name is VancouverMan. The other day I saw a YouTube video about an IT guy struggling in Vancouver and he mentioned one example of two immigrants - both doctors - having to stay in someone's basement as there was simply no way for them to afford a house (rent or buy).
- 3y ago

veave 3y ago

And lobbyists are not lobbyists, they are oligarchs.

sdfghswe 3y ago
> And lobbyists are not lobbyists, they are oligarchs. ??? No, this is nonsense. The normal meaning of the word "lobbyist" is an _employee_ who uses political connections to push corporate interests. The normal meaning of the word "oligarch" is someone with large wealth. These two are not similar at all. So the phrase you're looking for is probably "And billionaires are not billionaires, they're oligarchs".
- Dah00n 3y ago
  1. a ruler in an oligarchy. 2. a very rich business leader with a great deal of political influence (particularly with reference to individuals who benefited from the privatization of state-run industries after the collapse of the Soviet Union).
orangepurple 3y ago
Lobbyists are not oligarchs. They are middlemen and facilitators of corruption and bribery that provide plausible deniability.

pavlov 3y ago

They are giants in the local market, one where making it big practically requires support from the highest level of government. So “Russian [x] giant” really means “Putin’s favored [x] company”.

tasogare 3y ago
So quite similar to the US where oligarchs (oups, billionaires) are invited at the White House and companies provide algorithmic censorship favoring a particular political camp (obvious with Twitter before its recent purchase, YouTube actions against public free discourse on covid, Google removing pages related to a certain laptop, etc.)
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

boeingUH60 3y ago

They are giants as far as Russia is concerned...Yandex is the biggest tech company there. Gazprom is a Russian gas giant, Rosneft is an oil giant, etc..

gumballindie 3y ago
Yeah but that term is just you know comical. “Giants”. As if meant to inflate one’s ego, cover insecurity, and project power, like those tom and jerry cartoon episodes where they’d call in their giant friends to save the day. It amuses me every time.

tenpies 3y ago

Also Western billionaire versus Russian oligarch - even if the source of wealth is virtually identical and their political power probably higher in the West.

sidibe 3y ago
I do think they don't use oligarch for all Russian billionaires. For example it isn't used for Tinkov or Durov. In 90s-00s there really were oligarchs, now they use it for the ones that are or were maybe affiliated with government, like the childhood friends of Putin or former KGB/St Petersburg mayor's office employees who all happen to be CEOs of huge companies
- AtlasBarfed 3y ago
  I've heard successive stories of oligarchs getting shaken down for money or outright purged by Putin that I don't think Russia is an oligarchy. That implies some collective decision making. The Ukraine war is madness and reflects a ruler with absolute power.
boeingUH60 3y ago
"Oligarchs" refer to underground Russian businessmen that cheaply bought up state assets after the USSR collapsed and sold it for exceedingly higher sums later. It's a blasphemy to capitalism to conflate those bandits with Western entrepreneurs that founded and built their own companies from scratch, even though they have their own set of issues.
- Dah00n 3y ago
  Is it really? I'm positive most would very likely do the same if (when) they get a chance at a collapse.
  - hsjqllzlfkf 3y ago
    They would but they didn't. It's not about intentions.

malaya_zemlya 3y ago

It's all relative. By western standards, Yandex is a mid-cap company, but whereas US has FAANG+, Russia has just Yandex and maybe VK/Mail.ru

HPsquared 3y ago

It's a bit like how republicans always "pounce" and "seize".

CrzyLngPwd 3y ago

Totally agree, has google ever been referred to as American giant Google I wonder. My search threw up a few.

poppytaker 3y ago

[dead]