tymoshenko

[Max_the_Highlander]

Originally Posted by stepanstas

Max, I suppose that Porochenko is one of the few who did things legit?

LOL.

Do you think large business does things absolutelly legit anywhere?

We can argue about degree of lawfulness but it's never 100%. Such ideas are popular just about salarymen.

I think Poroshenko did the things legally enough. Don't forget, there is a man in Ukraine who to gives absolution and you know who's that.

And they are almost relatives, btw.

I know many leftists here and there blame Ukrainian oligarhes but what for? They are symbol and evidence of our voluntary chosen capitalistic road or call it market road, anyway, it's right way.

[Albatross]

Originally Posted by Max_the_Highlander

I know many leftists here and there blame Ukrainian oligarhes but what for? They are symbol and evidence of our voluntary chosen capitalistic road or call it market road, anyway, it's right way.

Max,

When the government "sells" state assets a fraction of the real value to connected insiders (the olicharchs), that ain't capitalism, that's socialism for the rich!

[stepanstas]

I recall someone told me that his friends father is a diplomat and all he does is stop by once a week, picks up the money, and goes.

Every one of our cities has a mayor. Lets be honest, the president cannot crack down on everything himself.

If these officials did what they are to do and to audit each government official, we would not have half of these problems.

Of course each of us see's coruption at its best. The best examples, the city rails (tranvay) where it only costs 50 cents for the ride, but people still pay of the conductor. If the head of the public transportation monitered more of these things, he would set an example for each and every Ukrainian how well things work when they are legit and how much better things would be if people reported things to the proper autorities. It sounds small, but you gotta start at the lowest point to achive the top.

[Max_the_Highlander]

Originally Posted by Albatross

Max,

When the government "sells" state assets a fraction of the real value to connected insiders (the olicharchs), that ain't capitalism, that's socialism for the rich!

Look, there is state property. There is large business. There are people.

The state is ineffective owner, that’s axiom.

How do you think state can give out large enterprises to “people”? I just don’t understand the model. Let’s say enterprise costs billion, we have 49 millions in Ukraine so every citizen will get 20$ and his share.

All such campaigns with privatization checks or vouchers failed grossly. To give out assets of an enterprise to 49 millions of shareholders means to destroy it. It cannot be ruled. It will die. Moreover, the laws of nature later will get back the property in one hand.

It’s much wiser to sell billion state enterprises to any large corporation exactly for billion – and they will return 200-300 millions of taxes every year. Isn’t it more rational economic model?

The level of dishonesty here is same as on regular stock market.

[Albatross]

Originally Posted by Max_the_Highlander

How do you think state can give out large enterprises to “people”? I just don’t understand the model. Let’s say enterprise costs billion, we have 49 millions in Ukraine so every citizen will get 20$ and his share.

All such campaigns with privatization checks or vouchers failed grossly.

You suggest that the government had only 2 choices: voucher privitization or give away state property to olicharchs. Surely this is nonsense. They could, for instance, have organised a competitive bidding process to ensure a fair price.

Originally Posted by Max_the_Highlander

... Moreover, the laws of nature later will get back the property in one hand.

Many of the world's largest and successful companies are listed on a stock exchange and thus have a diluted shareholder base. So your "law of nature" doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by Max_the_Highlander

It’s much wiser to sell billion state enterprises to any large corporation exactly for billion – and they will return 200-300 millions of taxes every year. Isn’t it more rational economic model?.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but olicharchs are not particularly known for paying their fair share of taxes.

Originally Posted by Max_the_Highlander

The level of dishonesty here is same as on regular stock market.

Corporate corruption exists but it is hardly an excuse for state corruption.

[Max_the_Highlander]

Originally Posted by Albatross

You suggest that the government had only 2 choices: voucher privitization or give away state property to olicharchs. Surely this is nonsense. They could, for instance, have organised a competitive bidding process to ensure a fair price.

There are very strict procedures of giving away stater property, you are wrong if you think this is out of control and public eyes. And it goes exactly through the "organised a competitive bidding process to ensure a fair price". There are two main forms: contest and auction.

Now it's impossible to sell enterprise with unfair price because state counts every buck (it was not so in Leo's time).

But most of Ukrainian enterpises are so expensive, only foreigners and Ukrainian oligarhes can buy them. So, the circle is closed over again.

Many of the world's largest and successful companies are listed on a stock exchange and thus have a diluted shareholder base. So your "law of nature" doesn't exist.

No, enterprise with 49 millions of shareholders couldn't be ruled well. You'll need the all-national referendum to make decisions.

Corporate corruption exists but it is hardly an excuse for state corruption.

This is where I agree.

[Albatross]

Originally Posted by Max_the_Highlander

There are very strict procedures of giving away stater property, you are wrong if you think this is out of control and public eyes. And it goes exactly through the "organised a competitive bidding process to ensure a fair price". There are two main forms: contest and auction.

Now it's impossible to sell enterprise with unfair price because state counts every buck (it was not so in Leo's time).

Max, you suggested above that rise of the olicharchs was the result of capitalist government policy. I disagree and maintain that unfair privitisation practices in the past created the olicharchs. It's possible that the privitisation process is handled better now, however that's irrelevant for my argument (but not irrelevant for ukraine of-course.)

Originally Posted by Max_the_Highlander

No, enterprise with 49 millions of shareholders couldn't be ruled well. You'll need the all-national referendum to make decisions.

This is a purely theoretical discussion, but we still disagree. Shareholders are not necessarily involved in running a company on a day to day basis. If your claim was truth, all publicly listed companies would be in trouble. They aren't because management and ownership are seperated.

Example: General Electric is considered to be one of the best managed companies in the world. They have millions of shareholders. Most of GE's shareholders are not involved in its management at all.