5 ms·

"Oligarchs" refer to underground Russian businessmen that cheaply bought up state assets after the USSR collapsed and sold it for exceedingly higher sums later.

"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.
davikr 3y ago
Sounds like capitalism to me.
- Xelbair 3y ago
  Kinda, it's basically capitalism with a lot of insider trading, where your connections mattered more than what you did. t. someone from country which underwent that.
  - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
    Luxe Lifestyle was a recently-formed company with no staff. It was awarded £25 to buy protective equipment for Covid. The very next day, on April 29, DHSC bought another 200 million face masks, this time contracting to pay £252.5 million to Ayanda Capital, a Tory party-linked firm also bumped into the VIP lane despite having no previous PPE experience. It is an investment company specialising in currency trading, offshore property and private equity. To this day, no-one has been charged with any crime. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/ppe-procurement-scandal-uk-2021-b935842.html https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/ppe-procurement-scandal-u...
  - avgcorrection 3y ago
    That sounds like Capitalism minus all the propaganda about merit and capitalist-class productivity. So just Capitalism.
    - Xelbair 3y ago
      It sounds like that, but believe me, it was vastly worse than current times. Except if you were in lucky 0.1% that had those connections, and also had no conscience.
londons_explore 3y ago
> cheaply bought up state assets In the west, we call that "privatization", and it happens pretty frequently, and it's common for the process to be technically open, but practically exclude all but a handful of buyers. It's also common for those buyers to make a lot of money from the assets before returning them to the state 20 years later, unmaintained and debt laden.
- justrealist 3y ago
  > In the west, we call that "privatization", and it happens pretty frequently That's not even slightly true? It's headline news and massively controversial every time this happens.
  - mistrial9 3y ago
    it is deeply true, and everyone actually involved would know that
    - justrealist 3y ago
      Can you name off the top of your head the last 3 significant privatizations?
      - joshuaissac 3y ago
        > Can you name off the top of your head the last 3 significant privatizations? In the UK, privatisation of Network Rail arches (which will 'break even' for the buyers in about ten years), privatisation or TfL land in London at below-market prices to property developers, and the backdoor privatisation of NHS services through public-private partnerships.
        justrealist 3y ago
        - 2019 - 2010s? Hard to tell what you are referencing - Not a real example (subcontracting is not the same as selling off state properties). So yes, 2-3 examples from the UK over the past 2 decades is not really compelling.
ClumsyPilot 3y ago
> "cheaply bought up state assets' If they were 'proper investors' they would cheaply buy up UK water companies, load them with debt, pay out 40 billion of dividends, and then enter talks with the government about insolvency.
tri5635hhfgvv5r 3y ago
[flagged]
avgcorrection 3y ago
Can someone explain this to me? America won the Cold War and had an influence on Russia's (the successor state) transition to a market-based economy. Then how can “we“ at the same time be mad about how the transition was handled?
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  Excuse me? America did not get to define Russia's development, what the heck?
  - throw-ru-938 3y ago
    Many Russians do believe exactly that. While "getting to define Russia's development" is a stretch, there has been some US involvement: https://www.thenation.com/article/world/harvard-boys-do-russia/ https://www.thenation.com/article/world/harvard-boys-do-russ...

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.

davikr 3y ago

Sounds like capitalism to me.

Xelbair 3y ago
Kinda, it's basically capitalism with a lot of insider trading, where your connections mattered more than what you did. t. someone from country which underwent that.
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  Luxe Lifestyle was a recently-formed company with no staff. It was awarded £25 to buy protective equipment for Covid. The very next day, on April 29, DHSC bought another 200 million face masks, this time contracting to pay £252.5 million to Ayanda Capital, a Tory party-linked firm also bumped into the VIP lane despite having no previous PPE experience. It is an investment company specialising in currency trading, offshore property and private equity. To this day, no-one has been charged with any crime. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/ppe-procurement-scandal-uk-2021-b935842.html https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/ppe-procurement-scandal-u...
- avgcorrection 3y ago
  That sounds like Capitalism minus all the propaganda about merit and capitalist-class productivity. So just Capitalism.
  - Xelbair 3y ago
    It sounds like that, but believe me, it was vastly worse than current times. Except if you were in lucky 0.1% that had those connections, and also had no conscience.

londons_explore 3y ago

> cheaply bought up state assets In the west, we call that "privatization", and it happens pretty frequently, and it's common for the process to be technically open, but practically exclude all but a handful of buyers. It's also common for those buyers to make a lot of money from the assets before returning them to the state 20 years later, unmaintained and debt laden.

justrealist 3y ago
> In the west, we call that "privatization", and it happens pretty frequently That's not even slightly true? It's headline news and massively controversial every time this happens.
- mistrial9 3y ago
  it is deeply true, and everyone actually involved would know that
  - justrealist 3y ago
    Can you name off the top of your head the last 3 significant privatizations?
    - joshuaissac 3y ago
      > Can you name off the top of your head the last 3 significant privatizations? In the UK, privatisation of Network Rail arches (which will 'break even' for the buyers in about ten years), privatisation or TfL land in London at below-market prices to property developers, and the backdoor privatisation of NHS services through public-private partnerships.
      - justrealist 3y ago
        - 2019 - 2010s? Hard to tell what you are referencing - Not a real example (subcontracting is not the same as selling off state properties). So yes, 2-3 examples from the UK over the past 2 decades is not really compelling.

ClumsyPilot 3y ago

> "cheaply bought up state assets' If they were 'proper investors' they would cheaply buy up UK water companies, load them with debt, pay out 40 billion of dividends, and then enter talks with the government about insolvency.

tri5635hhfgvv5r 3y ago

[flagged]

avgcorrection 3y ago

Can someone explain this to me? America won the Cold War and had an influence on Russia's (the successor state) transition to a market-based economy. Then how can “we“ at the same time be mad about how the transition was handled?

mrguyorama 3y ago
Excuse me? America did not get to define Russia's development, what the heck?
- throw-ru-938 3y ago
  Many Russians do believe exactly that. While "getting to define Russia's development" is a stretch, there has been some US involvement: https://www.thenation.com/article/world/harvard-boys-do-russia/ https://www.thenation.com/article/world/harvard-boys-do-russ...