Hugh Conway Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 We are talking about formerly private assets that have been seized by the state, and are presently controlled by the state, and are being used to further the state's ends - then they are part of the state, not autonomous corporations owned and governed by private citizens. Pretend that this is "placement of power into the corporations," and not the state eliminating actors that have the capacity to check the state's power if you wish. OGZPY is a tradable ADR - ergo, I'd consider it a private asset. I'm not sure when "corporation" became synonymous with "freemarket capitalism". The two are not one in the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lI1|1! Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 When we are talking about formerly private assets that have been seized by the state, which are presently controlled by the state, and are being used to further the state's ends ... you talking bout rasputin's twinky in a jar someplace? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murraysovereign Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 Every year TIME has to patiently explain, again - 'cause people forget every year - that the "Man of the Year" designation is mostly to do with newsmaking. It's not meant to be a "Mister Congeniality" award. It's not "Someone We Should All Admire and Emulate". It's someone who was in the news a lot, generated a lot of news, significantly effected the news... stuff like that. In TIME's own words: "a man, woman, or idea that "for better or worse, has most influenced events in the preceding year." " That's why Hitler made it, and Stalin. Not because TIME thought they were great guys who deserved a bit of a pat on the back, but because they helped TIME sell more magazines. So on that basis, Putin is a valid choice. Ahmedinijad would have been a good choice also (Khomeini got it in '79). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blake Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 The Time "Person of the Year" is not an honor because of good works or noble deeds, its a subjective evaluation of being "newsworthy" (and what will sell magazines). It's not an award of honor like a Nobel Prize. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 And did you guys know Hitler was Man of the Year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 Yes, but "American Women"! Fucking fucker magazine! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 We are talking about formerly private assets that have been seized by the state, and are presently controlled by the state, and are being used to further the state's ends - then they are part of the state, not autonomous corporations owned and governed by private citizens. Pretend that this is "placement of power into the corporations," and not the state eliminating actors that have the capacity to check the state's power if you wish. OGZPY is a tradable ADR - ergo, I'd consider it a private asset. I'm not sure when "corporation" became synonymous with "freemarket capitalism". The two are not one in the same. If the state or its proxies own a controlling stake in the outstanding shares, then the state is as much the owner of Gazprom as the Ford Family is of the Ford Motor Company. You, Crux, et al seem to be arguing that political liberty increases in direct proportion to the state's control of property - whatever form that may take. To summarize your position: The more the state confines its activity to laws, and the the less it involves itself in the ownership or control over property and productive enterprises - the more likely fascism is to emerge. I'm arguing the contrary point. Fascism and various other forms of totalitarianism are *only* possible when the state secures enough control over private property - be that farms, factories, corporations, or what have you - to render the population incapable of resisting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuMR Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 My dad, being the true finn that he is whats a true finn - drunk, solitary and cantankerous? yeah...that's actually pretty damn accurate description of the old man... he's been off the sauce for a while...good deal, as he was a turbo asshole on it instead of a garden variety asshole... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 Too bad there wasn't a Lithuanian somewhere in the woodpile, eh Stumpy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuMR Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 well, the way i look, i got more laplander than scandinavian that's for sure... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Conway Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 If the state or its proxies own a controlling stake in the outstanding shares, then the state is as much the owner of Gazprom as the Ford Family is of the Ford Motor Company. Controlling interest vs. Owner. A shareholder is an owner. You, Crux, et al seem to be arguing that political liberty increases in direct proportion to the state's control of property - whatever form that may take. No, we aren't. That's the strawman you continue to erect each time this issue comes up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 My dad, being the true finn that he is, and being career military insists that "there is no such thing as "Russian", only Soviet"... oh yeah? well my dad, being the true finn, insists the only good russian is a dead russian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuMR Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 dumbass...that would be dead "soviet"... man, the finns stuck it to them for a bit there...too damn bitchy mean to just roll over... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 but the russkies fucked with the finns before the revolution, hence.... yeah tht was some f'ed up shit in the winter war. my mom lost her dad during the final days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Conway Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 man, the finns stuck it to them for a bit there...too damn bitchy mean to just roll over... Heh. My finnish grandma stuck it to my norwegian grandpa for his country knuckling under! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 My dad drinks radiator fluid straight from the jug, shoots the eyes out of a reeper at 1000 meters, and telemarks on the leg the Russians didn't blow off...all at the same time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 If the state or its proxies own a controlling stake in the outstanding shares, then the state is as much the owner of Gazprom as the Ford Family is of the Ford Motor Company. Controlling interest vs. Owner. A shareholder is an owner. You, Crux, et al seem to be arguing that political liberty increases in direct proportion to the state's control of property - whatever form that may take. No, we aren't. That's the strawman you continue to erect each time this issue comes up. 1.Exchange tradeable does not equal private. Were it otherwise, the platinum bullion held in the Russain state's vaults would be considered private asset, just like the Gazprom ADR's held in accounts controlled by the Russian state. State owned enterprises that issue exchange-tradeable shares are still....drumroll...state owned enterprises. Controlling interest = appoints board of directors = hires and fires CEO. If the state holds a controlling interest in the shares, the state controls the company. Pretend that there's a meaningful difference in the control that an entity like the KGB exerts when it has a controlling interest in the outstanding shares, versus any other form of ownership that grants it an equal amount of control over the corporation if you wish - but don't expect others to participate in the delusion. 2. Looking forward to the clarification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 if you guys want i can tell you how it really is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Conway Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 Are you really arguing that an ADR you hold isn't a portion of your property? Gazprom's ADRs = done by Gazprombank which is not owned or controlled by the state. If you wish to research fact, feel free. Until you've established some basic knowledge of contemporary Russian corporate structure this exchange will be rather futile. Because we argue that state control of a company does not inherently reduce political liberty I'm arguing that liberty can't exist without it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 I really, really doubt that Gazprombank can issue ADRs, unless they have a US subsidiary that handles this form them. Inasmuch as Gazprombank is involved in ADRs for shares in Gazprom, they are probably serving as a local custodian bank for the (American) depository bank(s) that issue the ADRs that trade on US markets. Issuing common stock in an foreign country is one thing, serving as a custodian bank for US banks that issue securities that are priced in dollars and trade on US markets is another - neither of which have anything to do with who actually owns the shares, much less who has a controlling interest in the company, Comrade Financier. Yes - If I have an ADR, that is real property that I own. The extent to which I excercise effective control of the company that I have an ownership stake in is proportional to the number of shares that I own relative to the total shares outstanding. If I own enough shares to determine who sits on the board to represent my interests, then I have effective control over that company. Ergo - if the Russian state, or one of its proxies owns the controlling interest in the company - then the state has effective control over the company. Why you would expend all of this energy to dispute what is a plain fact is beyond me. However, all of this assumes that the country has an independent judiciary, a security apparatus that doesn't intervene in civilian affairs, that anyone who opposes the state in their capacity won't end up jailed on spurious charges like, say, Khodorkovsky, etc. In a country where anyone who is in a position to challenge the Kremlin and avails themselves of the opportunity to do so winds up either jailed, dead, or fearful of either - the names on the shares aren't nearly as consequential. Your nominal argument: "Because we argue that state control of a company does not inherently reduce political liberty I'm arguing that liberty can't exist without it?" Your real argument: "Because we argue that state control of a company the economy does not inherently reduce political liberty..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No. 13 Baby Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 Are we surprised the KKK guy delurked to post about Hitler? No, we are not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 Are we surprised that our ankle-biting, puerile, little snot-nosed teenager, "No. 13", delurked to respond to one of my posts? No we are not. You have nothing to say without me. Query your posting history and a majority of it is in direct response or indirect response to what I post. I lead; you follow. As it should be. Poor, jealous, little Beta. now go run along and study some more. eventually you will graduate from jr. high...maybe. Now go lick sack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Conway Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 Now go lick sack. get in line behind porter, mclitty and dru if you want to lick mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 you wish you had some, castrato Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Conway Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 English motherfucker! Do YOu speak it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.