From the NYT:
Business Titans Seek to Ease Fears in Ukraine
By ANDREW HIGGINS 8:53 PM ET
Kiev is hoping that naming businessmen too rich to bribe to positions of power will help allay fears in the east.
"Too rich to bribe:" this seems to be a common bit of wishful thinking, but how often does it turn out that the guys best at clawing for money suddenly stop clawing? I have the impression that basically this worked with 19th Century Downton Abbey-style English landed aristocrats but nobody else. It certainly didn't work with the ancestors of 19th Century English aristocrats -- you don't get Downton Abbey in the first place by being scrupulous.
More from the NYT:
Actually, I find that pretty unlikely, too.
The traditional feudal solution is to make these regional ruling jobs hereditary to encourage the oligarchs to be "stationary bandits" with a long term interest in not despoiling the place too badly because their heirs will inherit it. That doesn't seem like a terribly great solution, but it seems to be better than having "roving bandits" expecting to get their's while the getting's good and fleeing when things get a little too hot for them.
More from the NYT:
DNIPROPETROVSK, Ukraine — Two months ago, Hennadiy Korban, a millionaire businessman, fled to Israel to escape retribution for siding with opponents of Ukraine’s president, Viktor F. Yanukovych. After Mr. Yanukovych’s ouster, he flew home in triumph aboard a private plane to begin a new life — as a harried civil servant.
Mr. Korban, 44, now works 14 hours a day in a drab Soviet-era office block here for a meager salary that he does not bother to take. Business, he said, was more enjoyable and far less stressful than trying to keep Ukraine together.
But since Russia’s annexation of Crimea in March, and with tens of thousands of Russian troops now massed on Ukraine’s border, to the east of this sprawling industrial city, men like Mr. Korban have become part of a frantic, all-hands-on-deck struggle against President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.
Unable to throw money at the many problems besieging Ukraine’s bitterly divided east, the fragile and nearly bankrupt government in Kiev, the capital, has instead thrown rich people into a drive to convince the country’s Russian-speaking regions that their future lies not with Russia, but with Ukraine.
Mr. Korban’s boss is Ihor Kolomoysky, who was recently appointed governor of the Dnipropetrovsk region by officials in Kiev. Mr. Kolomoysky, a billionaire involved in banking, oil, metals and the media, ranks as the second- or third-wealthiest man in Ukraine, depending on who is counting. He said he has not counted his fortune himself, noting that “a real rich person is someone who does not know how much he has.”
Actually, I find that pretty unlikely, too.
Another of Mr. Kolomoysky’s deputies is Boris Filatov, Mr. Korban’s business partner in luxury shopping malls and other ventures. ...
The naming of wealthy businessmen to positions of power marks a curious twist in the Ukrainian revolution, which was driven in a large part by public fury at the extensive wealth of a tiny group of plutocrats who prospered under Mr. Yanukovych and, with a few exceptions, stayed on the sidelines throughout three months of protests against him.
Mr. Kolomoysky, who was mostly outside the country during the protests, said he came up with the idea not as a way to entrench himself and other businessmen in power, but as an emergency response to the fears of Russian speakers in the east, terrified by a revolution they saw as dominated by Ukrainian nationalists from the west.
“This is a signal to society,” Mr. Kolomoysky said. “If oligarchs are in power, feel at ease and view their future as being in Ukraine, then ordinary people will feel even more that they are not under threat.” He conceded, however, that average people “might not respect oligarchs or like them.”
But after being bombarded with Russian claims that fascists had seized power, he said, people in the east were heartened to see a move into government by multimillionaires with no interest in extremist turmoil or a neo-Nazi revival, “particularly when they are of Jewish origin.”
Mr. Kolomoysky, a Russian-speaking citizen of both Israel and Ukraine, lived until recently in Switzerland, where his wife and son still live. Mr. Kolomoysky and his deputy, Mr. Korban, are both Jewish.
Mr. Filatov describes himself as “100 percent Russian without a drop of Ukrainian blood.” He, too, fled to Israel in late January.
The traditional feudal solution is to make these regional ruling jobs hereditary to encourage the oligarchs to be "stationary bandits" with a long term interest in not despoiling the place too badly because their heirs will inherit it. That doesn't seem like a terribly great solution, but it seems to be better than having "roving bandits" expecting to get their's while the getting's good and fleeing when things get a little too hot for them.
Posts
33 comments:
Putting a cabal of Jewish looter billionaires into political power -- what could go wrong?
Situation summary:
Pro-Russian separatists have taken regional administration buildings in Donetsk, Kharkov and Lugansk. Local police seems to be on their side. The Kiev government has not tried to dislodge them yet. Perhaps they're afraid that if they shoot at pro-Russian demonstrators, Putin will respond by sending Russian troops into the Ukraine. The twitterverse is calling the whole thing Russian Spring.
"but how often does it turn out that the guys best at clawing for money suddenly stop clawing? I have the impression that basically this worked with 19th Century Downton Abbey-style English landed aristocrats but nobody else."
Um, very few of the aristocratic politicians of the 19th century had clawed their way to anything. Your example might support making the sons and grandsons of the those that clawed to wealth into your political leaders except for the fact that a lot of those leaders
There was a time in English history when its politics was dominated by those who clawed their way to wealth. That is the period directly after the dissolution of the English monasteries. Now maybe that wasn't the best time to be alive, but it is hard to argue with the results. Elizabethan England was a lot better than it could have been and politically it was dominated by some of the most thieving and graspy people England ever produced.
Great reference to stationary bandits, but that does not seem to be how it works, unless you posit co-evolution between the stationary bandits and their, ahhh, victims.
"This seems to be a common bit of wishful thinking, but how often does it turn out that the guys best at clawing for money suddenly stop clawing?"
Those who do best at clawing for money would be those for whom clawing is more innate than learned. Innate behaviors are more difficult to tame. So no, it won't work. They will keep trying to tilt the playing field their way.
The world is becoming a caricature of Kevin MacDonald's books. This fact is annoying to people who are sane.
What works* seems to be inculcating a view of a profession - police, military, judiciary, academia, civil service, even politics - as a sacred vocation, pay them enough to live on, and ostracise defaulters.
*In outbred countries. Not in clan-based countries, unless you can first detach the professionals from their clan by making them celibate priests, eunuchs etc.
Appointing super-rich people to positions of power works only if their existing wealth is vast compared to the amounts they could make from corruption. A billionaire usually won't stoop to cheat to make a few thousand. But a multi-millionaire will certainly cheat to make tens of millions. And you already know he likes money or he wouldn't be a multi-millionaire.
Our host said: "Too rich to bribe:" this seems to be a common bit of wishful thinking, but how often does it turn out that the guys best at clawing for money suddenly stop clawing?
Hunsdon said: In fairness, didn't FDR appoint a number of "dollar a year" men to czar-like positions?
Higgins wrote: Mr. Kolomoysky, who was mostly outside the country during the protests, said he came up with the idea not as a way to entrench himself and other businessmen in power, but as an emergency response to the fears of Russian speakers in the east, terrified by a revolution they saw as dominated by Ukrainian nationalists from the west.
Hunsdon said: Well, Lenin wasn't in Russia during the revolution either! Oh. Wait. That might not be the best example I could use.
Higgins: “This is a signal to society,” Mr. Kolomoysky said. “If oligarchs are in power, feel at ease and view their future as being in Ukraine, then ordinary people will feel even more that they are not under threat.”
Hunsdon: An Ode To Sashko Bilij: Thanks for all the help with the street fighting, but you were starting to embarrass us. Sucker!
Back before Poland was "plucky little independent Poland," back when Poland was the Poland of the Commonwealth of Lithuania and Poland, and sat astride Central Europe like a giant, with borders that stretched nigh unto the Crimean peninsula, the nobility, and the Jewish magnates, lived pretty good lives. Ordinary people, not so much. Under the IMF stabilization plan, subsidies to private businesses and individuals of gas must be cut, pensions are being halved, and interesting times are coming back.
Zombie Bogdan Khmelnitsky must be clawing at his coffin.
Higgins: But after being bombarded with Russian claims that fascists had seized power, he said, people in the east were heartened to see a move into government by multimillionaires with no interest in extremist turmoil or a neo-Nazi revival, “particularly when they are of Jewish origin.”
Hunsdon: No, they're happy to have us take over again. It's like it's the natural order, or something.
Higgins: Mr. Filatov describes himself as “100 percent Russian without a drop of Ukrainian blood.” He, too, fled to Israel in late January.
Hunsdon: The maddest I ever saw my main Russian teacher get was the day I was having trouble with the "kotori" clause. She chided me on not understanding it. I said, "Of course it's easy for you, you're Russian." She started to shake, and her hand dipped to her chest and brought out a Star of David. "I am NOT RUSSIAN," she shrieked. "I AM JEWISH."
Nice lady, really. Great teacher. Just don't call her Russian.
"The world is becoming a caricature of Kevin MacDonald's books. This fact is annoying to people who are sane."
The world have been this way for a LONG time.
As a Jew, I would suggest to my brethren to be more subtle. More deep state, less peak state.
David: "The world is becoming a caricature of Kevin MacDonald's books. This fact is annoying to people who are sane."
Annoying, yet darkly funny.
They are successful oligarchs but how much of what they learned in becoming that is applicable towards being public servants? The NYT seems to think that they'll also be politically inspirational to the average Ukrainian, leading them away from the dreaded Mr Putin. That's questionable, leaning on a presumed psychological effect but glossing over other more material considerations. Is the US advising the Yatsenyuk government as to who the good candidates are, much as he himself was promoted?
Those with the claw reflex are like domesticated pets whose hunger satiation sense has been disrupted; they'll eat themselves to death.
Sorry but I disagree with you on the 'stationary bandits' theory.
During the Wars of the Roses lots of the 'bandits' left for France when their side was losing, then came back, then left, etc.
"Two months ago, Hennadiy Korban, a millionaire businessman, fled to Israel to escape...."
"Mr. Kolomoysky, a Russian-speaking citizen of both Israel and Ukraine,....."
"Mr. Filatov describes himself as “100 percent Russian without a drop of Ukrainian blood.” He, too, fled to Israel in late January."
Yes, I am sure that they are all selfless Ukrainian patriots, with no interest in any goal other than that "little Russia" should become a propsperous homeland for it's slavic people.
"The world is becoming a caricature of Kevin MacDonald's books. This fact is annoying to people who are sane."
What the NTYs is doing here is rather aggressive. They used to just ignore this stuff, now they rub your nose in it.
BTW, read the recent hatchet pieces appearing on Hungary's populist leader, who had lead the country to stronger economic performance. Yet he is being pilloried.
"The world is becoming a caricature of Kevin MacDonald's books. This fact is annoying to people who are sane."
He exaggerates his case, but I lament to admit he has a point. Jews always support the left, and if you're a righty you don't like that. In the rare cases where they support the right, it tends to be of a Zionist bent that doesn't always benefit the host country. (Sometimes it does--trade with Israel etc.--but you can't blame the paleocons for fearing a fifth column, as the interests of two different nations will always diverge at some point.)
Personally, I plan to convert once my mom is dead (poor old lady's not anti-white even if her distant extended relatives are, and she doesn't deserve the heartbreak) and marry a shiksa. My kids will be second-degree Mischling, and their kids will be eligible for citizenship in the Reich.
I have found that there's no such thing as "too rich to bribe." I've seen case after case of people who already had a lot of money going up the river over matters which only would have made them a fraction of a percent richer.
I think that the average person worth $1 billion or more would do something criminal or immoral to make another $1 million. It's not the wealth, it's the risk and the thrill that drives.
...people in the east were heartened to see a move into government by multimillionaires with no interest in extremist turmoil or a neo-Nazi revival, “particularly when they are of Jewish origin.”
I suppose something like this can only be written in the NY Times. If Steve, Buchanan or others had written it, they'd end up with another "controversy" entry in their wikipedia stub.
Hunsdon said: In fairness, didn't FDR appoint a number of "dollar a year" men to czar-like positions?
Wasn't Wild Bill Donovan a "dollar a year" man?
Sorry but I disagree with you on the 'stationary bandits' theory.
You disagree with basic evolutionary theory then. It's well established that horizontal transmission evolves virulence.
I have the impression that basically this worked with 19th Century Downton Abbey-style English landed aristocrats but nobody else.
I regret to inform you that "Downton Abbey-style" English aristocrats only made this work by marrying rich American heiresses... as is described accurately in Downton Abbey itself (the current earl's father saved Downton for his son, the current earl, by having him marry the current countess, the rich American heiress.
Others made their estates work by exploiting mining and other non-traditional (that is, non-tenant farming) revenue sources as ruthlessly as middle class captains of industry did.
As a Jew, I would suggest to my brethren to be more subtle. More deep state, less peak state.
David Brooks, is that you?
Does it ever work? Per FDR, 'Takes a crook to catch one." Joe Kennedy @ the SEC
"After Franklin Roosevelt called Joe to Washington, D.C. to clean up the securities industry, somebody asked FDR why he had tapped such a crook. "Takes one to catch one," replied Roosevelt.
Kennedy's reforming work as SEC Chairman was widely praised on all sides, as investors realized the SEC was protecting their interests. His knowledge of the financial markets equipped him to identify areas requiring the attention of regulators. One of the crucial reforms was the requirement for companies to regularly file financial statements with the SEC, which broke what some saw as an information monopoly maintained by the Morgan banking family."
In my opinion, the few effective firewalls that prevented highly destructive deflationary spiral were the old, 1930's reforms that hadn't been "Modernized" A lot of that stuff was considered capital inefficient -- i.e. not leveraged enough. Plus the FDIC.
There were some really old leverage requirements -- for example the 2 to 1 requirement (borrow 1/3 maximum) for mutual fund leverage that were never repealed. A lot of 2008 mutual funds issued preferred stock to leverage returns, and that provided sufficient subordination for the preferred to hold up. Compare this to the subordination in highly efficient, modern instruments like CDO^2 or CDO Squared.
Joe was already richer than God and interested in moving into politics. It worked once.
Too rich to bribe?
or
Too rich to be bribed?
Perhaps it is a distinction without a difference because likely they are neither and have done and will continue to do both.
Being rich is in itself a bribe.
Wow. The size of the Big lie here is staggering.
What is actually happening is a coup organized by Jewish billionaires in USUK and Jews in the US state department installed a Jewish President in Ukraine who has handed out parts of Ukraine as fiefdoms to other Jewish billionaires to loot.
If they stop lying do they drown?
Still - it gives Putin his excuse so I guess it's good they are programmed this way and are physically incapable of stopping themselves.
.
"stationary bandits"
The banditry is proportional to level of stewardship which among other things is proportional to how related the bandits are to their victims.
The current stationary bandits are exactly the same people who have driven Ukraine into the ground since the fall of communism.
"The traditional feudal solution is to make these regional ruling jobs hereditary to encourage the oligarchs to be "stationary bandits" with a long term interest in not despoiling the place too badly because their heirs will inherit it. That doesn't seem like a terribly great solution, but it seems to be better than having "roving bandits" expecting to get their's while the getting's good and fleeing when things get a little too hot for them."
Hereditary rule also has the advantage of presenting somewhat fewer opportunities for people to fight over the job, either by corrupting the elections, or with actual violence. This stuff doesn't go away completely- anybody familiar with Medieval and early Modern history knows how often supposedly hereditary royal thrones were contested by force- but in a county where the prerequisites for stable democracy don't exist (i.e., most of them), hereditary succession tends to be a lot more peaceful than letting all the powerful, ambitious men in the country duke it out with each other every time there's a vacancy.
For example, everybody remembers the Wars of the Roses, but those were an aberration in what was generally a fairly orderly succession througout most of the Middle Ages, since at least the end of The Anarchy in 1153. Contrast England, with its relatively stable hereditary succession, and Ireland, with its multitude of kingdoms under the quasi-elective system of "Tanistry". Fingal or kin-slaying was regarded with horror as the worst possible crime under Irish law, but it seems to have happened quite a lot whenever several brothers or cousins all had a shot at the succession (Read about Shane O'Neill sometime). As usual, though, it's hard to separate cause and effect- Geoffrey Keating points out that the non-hereditary system was itself a response to pervasive war and conflict:
"[T]here are three evil customs in [the legal system]. The first custom of these is that the tanist takes precedence of the son of the lord of the soil... [T]hose customs were not sanctioned in the law of the land until the Irish had entered upon war and conflict between every two of their territories, so that they were usually slaying, harrying, and plundering each other... [T]anistry was suitable in order that there should be an efficient captain safeguarding the people of every district in Ireland, by defending their spoils and their goods for them. For, if it were the son should be there, instead of the father, it might happen, occasionally, for the son to be in his minority, and so that he would not be capable of defending his own territory, and that detriment would result to the country from that circumstance."
The Ottoman Turks for a long time took this even further; they regarded the legitimate Sultan as whoever was fastest and most efficient at murdering all of his own brothers, and apparently felt that this was the natural order of things. After all, isn't the most important quality to have in a good Turkish ruler the ability to stab the other guy in the back before he has a chance to do it to you? It's no good to have a Sultan who's such a tender-hearted softie that he lets somebody else get the drop on him just because of some silly blood relationship.
"Hunsdon: The maddest I ever saw my main Russian teacher get was the day I was having trouble with the "kotori" clause. She chided me on not understanding it. I said, "Of course it's easy for you, you're Russian." She started to shake, and her hand dipped to her chest and brought out a Star of David. "I am NOT RUSSIAN," she shrieked. "I AM JEWISH."
Nice lady, really. Great teacher. Just don't call her Russian."
I think Filatov is Russian in the same sense that Yulia claims her grandfather Abram Kapitelman is Latvian.
Post a Comment