[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)