[HN Gopher] How Putin's Oligarchs Bought London
___________________________________________________________________
How Putin's Oligarchs Bought London
Author : null_object
Score : 81 points
Date : 2022-03-18 22:02 UTC (57 minutes ago)
(HTM) web link (www.newyorker.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.newyorker.com)
| jka wrote:
| Here's hoping for more transparency and analytical rigour with
| regards to the volume and cost of prime real estate ownership
| within London (and other cities worldwide)
| smcl wrote:
| I hope so too, but I think this is very wishful thinking. If
| Oligarch owned properties somehow get returned to the market,
| they'll just get snapped up by a different collection of semi-
| anonymous billionaires.
| jka wrote:
| Agreed; it's not really a free market, in that sense. They
| share information among themselves and have common interests
| that they try to develop over time. It's all very shady.
| colechristensen wrote:
| But fewer of them. Shrinking demand is good.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| Yeah it's not suddenly going to make hosting more affordable
| sadly. It would be great if investors would be banned from
| the housing market though. Houses should be bought to live
| in, not as investments. It used to be like that but due to
| this practice it's almost impossible for our generation to
| buy a house now :(
| eps wrote:
| > _Putin personally told me of his plan to acquire the Chelsea
| Football Club in order to increase his influence and raise
| Russia's profile, not only with the elite but with ordinary
| British people._
|
| This does not correlate _at all_ with the polonium and Novichok
| cases.
| unfocussed_mike wrote:
| Why not? Putin has a profile with ordinary Russian people, too
| -- and yet he has someone murdered, defenestrated, poisoned,
| discredited, ruined, or jailed without reason literally every
| single day.
|
| Why would he think he should act differently abroad? Remember:
| he's a _psychopath_.
| gerdesj wrote:
| Anyone arriving at an airport in the UK with a Russian accent
| will be asked the height of Salisbury cathedral. An answer
| correct to 0.5m will lead to instant arrest.
|
| I live quite close to Salisbury and have no idea apart from
| "bloody tall", how high the spire thrusts skywards. Apart from
| anything else we'd generally measure it in feet.
|
| I'd better spell it out: One of the gentlemen accused of
| poisoning a Russian ex-pat in Salisbury (Hants. UK) claimed
| that he was a tourist and came to see the cathedral in
| Salisbury. He quoted the height of it to quite a degree of
| accuracy as proof of his touristic intentions. He really did
| not smear novichok on Mr Skripal's door.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| While I agree that the "tourist" excuse was likely bullshit,
| I suspect someone that recently visited a tourist site would
| know more about it than someone who lived near it all their
| life. They just learned about it, how often do you think
| about it?
|
| And if they had been visiting the spire, which they probably
| weren't, it's likely they would have gotten information about
| it in their native language which would use meters.
| pfisherman wrote:
| Salisbury cathedral houses the Magna Carta, and that is why
| tourists go there. Literally nobody cares about the height of
| its spire.
|
| The "tallest church" explanation is kind of like of someone
| saying they buy playboy magazine for the articles. It's
| transparently false to the point of absurdity.
| ogogmad wrote:
| > He quoted the height of it to quite a degree of accuracy as
| proof of his touristic intentions
|
| Doesn't really prove anything. Could just be a really strange
| individual who memorises statistics. To 3 significant figures
| doe.
| mikeyouse wrote:
| Bellingcat identified their real names and the fact that
| they worked for the GRU... it's not remotely in question
| whether they were there assassinate Skripal. One of the
| benefits of a hopelessly corrupt Russian state is that just
| about every government database is available for sale.
|
| https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-
| europe/2018/09/26/skr...
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| Lol this is typically something locals don't know yeah. I've
| also been reluctant to even visit tourist hotspots in the
| places I've lived. Never felt like waiting an hour in a queue
| with busloads of Chinese snapping photos and listening to a
| tour guide with a flag to make sure her herd doesn't lose
| their way :P Friends visiting me in Amsterdam would be
| appealed I never saw the Anne Frank House.
|
| It's just not really a fun thing to do in your own town. And
| to be fair most tourist attractions are hugely overrated.
| pklausler wrote:
| It's 123m and that's an easy number to remember. (404ft).
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_church_buildin.
| ..
| chayleaf wrote:
| I'm Russian, travelled to UK once, didn't get asked that.
| Sorry if that was a joke and I ruined it...
| nickdothutton wrote:
| Property in (certain parts of) london is just an asset class.
| Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30721216
| codedokode wrote:
| > Russian oligarchs have donated millions of pounds to the
| Conservative Party
|
| I don't understand how this is possible. Is it legal in Britain
| for foreigners to finance political parties?
| usrusr wrote:
| Assuming they'd care (unlikely): how hard could it be to
| introduce a middleman?
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| I think it's just as questionable a practice for both nationals
| and foreigners to be honest. When it involves large amounts of
| course. Not talking about the 50-odd bucks membership most
| parties charge yearly.
|
| But donating millions like it's commonplace in the US I find
| pretty questionable. And it leads to corruption like the "pay
| to play" lists.
| unfocussed_mike wrote:
| Naturalised citizens in the USA can donate too, can't they?
|
| The point is these guys have visas, residency etc., they aren't
| a criminal class, in the UK.
|
| It's funny how until the Ukraine crisis, every time I mentioned
| how serious a problem this was, people told me I was
| exaggerating. Even in the first week of the war, that happened
| here on HN.
|
| The London Laundromat is a significant corrosive influence.
| outside1234 wrote:
| This would be legal in the United States as well. They would
| just first form a corporation and then donate it from there.
|
| This is why the "Citizens United" decision was so horrible and
| should be reversed.
| EGreg wrote:
| Money in politics is a symptom of a larger problem:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv5mI6ClPGc
|
| Capitalism and Free Speech
| nickff wrote:
| The Citizens United decision doesn't allow corporations to
| donate unlimited or anonymized funds to campaigns. Citizens
| United wanted to release and promote an independent, short,
| anti-Hillary Clinton documentary film, and the decision was
| that this was protected free speech.
| woodruffw wrote:
| > Citizens United wanted to release and promote an
| independent, short, anti-Hillary Clinton documentary film,
| and the decision was that this was protected free speech.
|
| This is what Citizens United _wanted_ , but it's not the
| outcome of the Supreme Court case.
|
| The outcome of the case was the gutting of BCRA 2002[1],
| which previously prevented unlimited corporate and union
| spending in political campaigns. The rest (anonymized
| funding, "super" PACs) are logical consequences of the
| overturning of that law and American corporate structure.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Refo
| rm_Act
| nickff wrote:
| To be clear, I was responding to a comment which
| specifically said:
|
| > _" This would be legal in the United States as well.
| They would just first form a corporation and then donate
| it from there. "_
|
| These statements were factually incorrect. You are making
| different claims.
| jfoutz wrote:
| as far as I know, there's nothing wrong with creating
| 1,000,000 corporations and having each donate $1,000 for
| each election.
|
| But it's easier to create a super pac, accept unlimited
| money, and then pay out in whatever way is effective.
| NaturalPhallacy wrote:
| I'd love a similar article on how America's oligarchs are buying
| America.
|
| For some weird reason they get called "elites" if they're
| American, but oligarchs if only if they're Russian, even though
| they're the same class of wildly disproportionately powerful
| people.
| yaacov wrote:
| the richest people in america got that way by creating enormous
| amounts of value and then capturing lots of it for themselves.
|
| the richest people in russia got that way by plundering the
| country of its natural resources and the remnants of the
| soviet-era industry.
|
| those are not the same.
| pm90 wrote:
| Most of the richest people in the US got their wealth through
| inheritance.
| jeffbee wrote:
| People think of the people at the very top of the list, who
| are mostly late-20th-century entrepreneurs, but you're
| right: the bulk of the American rich are people like the
| Waltons, Mars's, and other heirs.
| ReaLNero wrote:
| > creating enormous amounts of value
|
| To be honest, the poster child for American businesses are
| Intuit, Equifax, that company that manufactures EpiPens, or
| insulin etc. They all essentially exist by rent-seeking
| without creating value, enforced through lobbying or
| government-enforced monopolies.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| the US' top billionaires have often profited _a lot_ from
| government funding, whether it's subsidies, tax breaks,
| regulatory capture, etc... the "rich because they created
| equivalent value" is old school American Dream flavor
| propaganda
| wavefunction wrote:
| A number of the most wealthiest (Top 15?) people in America
| inherited their wealth. The rest, well they seem to have
| exploited various aspects of the country and people.
| ogogmad wrote:
| I think the term started life in Russian (just before my time)
| before being translated directly into English. It's got little
| to do with Oligarchy in Plato's sense. The term Aristocracy is
| also used in a corrupted sense, but not in the context of
| Russia.
| [deleted]
| mikeyouse wrote:
| I don't think anyone disputes the power of American
| billionaires - especially with their incessant meddling in
| politics and their proximity to regulators - but the Russians
| earned their scorn by looting the state to earn their billions.
| Sweetheart deals to "privatize" public assets with no
| accountability - random people like Putin's chef/cater being
| given billion-dollar companies and multi-billion dollar state
| contracts. It really is a wide difference in degree.
| space_rock wrote:
| Because in Russian the KGB associated people took political and
| economic power. Hence ruled by few as is the definition. I'm
| assuming you believe Mark Zuckerberg has a iron grip on your
| country and will have you killed if you cross him?
| [deleted]
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| > amassed a giant fortune by taking control of businesses that
| once belonged to the Soviet state.
|
| The Soviet Union was so vast and disorganized, both accidentally
| and intentionally, that for decades after it collapsed they
| showed a trade surplus based on selling the resources hoarded to
| meet future central planning goals. You had a huge trade surplus,
| but the money just seemed to disappear. Officially there was
| nothing to spend it on, but individuals bringing back anything
| cheap and in-demand within their personal allowance ($2000 I
| think?) created an enormous grey/black market with no regulation,
| taxation or statistics. Many of these oligarchs were cogs in the
| middle of this machine and ideally suited to essentially become
| "fixers" on both sides of the market.
| agumonkey wrote:
| Do you know any trusted sources about the structure of the
| soviet union and its collapse ?
| [deleted]
| i_like_waiting wrote:
| I am realistically wondering now, what changes does this bring.
| If London won't be interesting anymore for oligarchs, what will
| happen with prices of accomodation in center? If Switzerland is
| not a neutral country anymore, where will the money go?
|
| There should be prisoners dilemma and therefore some country
| should emerge to fill this "market need"
| nostromo wrote:
| China.
| ImprovedSilence wrote:
| Dubai
| csee wrote:
| Nothing will substitute that well because these are prestige
| luxury goods. Xi wants to send his daughter to Harvard, not
| to a university in Moscow. Abramovich wants to sail in
| Europe, not China.
|
| It was the case in the Soviet Union too that even though the
| West was the enemy, the status symbols were still all
| Western. In a weird way the elites aspired and lusted over
| the produce of Western consumerism.
| hpkuarg wrote:
| I doubt it. Anyone with any money or power in China already
| has a foot out the door, in almost all cases in a country
| with strong property rights and rule of law. Russian
| oligarchs won't find anything in China that they don't
| already have at home.
| Kenji wrote:
| miohtama wrote:
| Dubai is currently the go-to destination of shady money. It's
| the next Monaco/Swizerland. The local rulers have de facto
| control over government, jurisdictional and businesses. Any
| money is welcome as long as the right parties get their share -
| the rule of the law does not apply as long as you hire the
| right lawyer and advisors. It's still the US ally in Middle
| East and so far, Dubai/UAE has had a blind eye on their lax
| money-laundering practice.
|
| Here is a good article from The Economist on the situation. I
| apologise for the low quality of photo of the page.
|
| https://twitter.com/moo9000/status/1504425086073413639
| selectodude wrote:
| For those who don't want to try to read a picture of a
| magazine embedded in a tweet:
|
| https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-
| africa/2022/02/26/...
| danans wrote:
| Their yachts are apparently escaping to the Maldives [1], so
| that's an option, as long as it's not underwater. But then
| again, they have yachts.
|
| 1.
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-02/russian-o...
| AeroNotix wrote:
| The geographic or political consolidation of tyranny is not a
| bad thing.
|
| The sooner we get to a point where tyranny overtly seeks
| tyranny, for all to see, the better.
| alexklark wrote:
| Piggies got fat enough, they can be finally eaten.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-03-18 23:00 UTC)