Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Paradise Papers: New leak from offshore finance firm

icij.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 459 posts

Re: Paradise Papers: New leak from offshore finance firm

#271

Post by vasilipupkin »

thesagan wrote: post #265
vonnik wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He bought it for 1/8th of the price it sold for two years earlier. During those two years, the US economy was on an upswing. http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/07/business/40-wall-street-is... And the building looks like this: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-trump-40-wall-street... It's a shady price, and a shady building, because he now rents it out to crooks like himself. (See Bloomberg piece.) In the future, d…

It's very shady looking into anyone's comment history and bring up other supposed dirt and use it like that. Smear tactic. Now you don't look so good either.

I would say it's not shady, it's just kinda dumb because it's irrelevant

Re: Paradise Papers: New leak from offshore finance firm

#272

Post by sgt101 »

grondilu wrote: post #161
dagss wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Justice" means upholding laws? Most of the world has signed conventions that makes basic livelihood a right -- and puts it on the state to ensure this. Perhaps you don't agree with these laws and conventions. But please consider that the very concept of "ownership" and "property" is also something that is only upheld by laws. Also on a pragmatic level, why should those without property acknowledge and support a stat…

> to social unrest / revolutions that causes problems for rich people as well. Some problems for sure, but it's probably manageable. Poverty is not and should never be an excuse for crime. Rich people can build as many prisons as necessary.

This did not work out well in France in 1793.

Or Russia in 1917.

Things were close in the US in 1932 - hence the new deal.

Poverty isn't an excuse for a crime, but people with children to feed can be used as a tool by revolutionaries very easily. One revolution often leads to another (France and Russia also Germany saw this) as the faction in power loses it's grievance and acquires shiny things.

The problem is that this precipitates economic collapse and therefore more poor people.

"Managing" the problems isn't cheap either; thugs, cameras, guns, torture, prisons and PR are not free. There are a variety of costs, including the personal ones when the children of the rich discover that Daddy or Mummy spends half their weeks chainsawing people's arms off.

And Jesus, what's the point? I mean, isn't it just better to have a world where you can go out for a latte or buy a pair of pants in a store without being afraid ?

Technically we can say that equilibrium is that the rich support a welfare state and the poor do not use the rich to decorate lamp posts. Some players have forgotten this, they are irrational, but that doesn't change the game and in future iterations it will return to it's balanced state.

Re: Paradise Papers: New leak from offshore finance firm

#273

Post by colordrops »

Buttes wrote: post #231
aslkdjaslkdj wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What corrupt shit? What specific action did the DNC do that caused Bernie to lose?

Hillary won like every southern state, the Bernie folks are living in fantasy land if they think the DNC could control that outcome.

She won due to superdelegates and DNC corruption as well as media capture. The fact that Bernie did as well as he did in the face of this is a testament to how bad of a candidate she was.

Re: Paradise Papers: New leak from offshore finance firm

#274

Post by agumonkey »

noobermin wrote: post #79

Since there are no top level comments putting this out for probably obvious reasons, here is a supportive comment for the article. This is what people feel in their guts when they drive out on tattered roads and avoid going to the hospital even though they are sick, when they don't have a real increase in wages but are working longer hours. They have the sense that something isn't right, that there are two sets of ru…

Tiny note:

it's been many decades of the same issue, people work, people share, things go weird, they get angry (and rightly so).

let me blame the victims slightly (barely at all, it's mental exercise). Isn't the problem in the tax -> action function ? it's a big black box. That's always the case when people get angry about anything, it's because they have to deal with an unpredictable and costly black box.

Solution: no more big, no more black. We need a more tractable and open system that can be more efficient.

More questions: should people be able to see all what their money does ? or would it backfire into micromanagement and critics ?

Re: Paradise Papers: New leak from offshore finance firm

#275

Post by barrkel »

grondilu wrote: post #167
aylmao wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's always disappointing to find people on the web who don't believe in basic human rights. Don't we all have the right to a basic level of livelihood? Why should the family I was born to determine wether I have clean water to drink or not, for example?

> Why should the family I was born to determine wether I have clean water to drink or not, for example? Because of this thing called reality. If the circumstances of your birth are unfortunate, that's sad, but it does not have to be other people's problem.

The only thing stopping someone stronger than you taking all your stuff are the rules society makes up. That's reality.

Re: Paradise Papers: New leak from offshore finance firm

#276

Post by chiefalchemist »

Buttes wrote: post #229
erentz wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair a lot were clamoring behind Bernie Sanders. But Hillary bent the DNC to do some fairly corrupt shit and so you got Trump. The democrats are still trapped by this neolib-technocrat-west-wing fantasy-land where the best person at debating wins regardless of the fact they don’t actually stand for anything.

>they don’t actually stand for anything. I've met lots of young women who adore Hillary and would beg to differ. The woman is a feminist icon.

Ok. Fair enough. But how does the blindness that feeds their bias any different than that which feeds say a Trump supporter.

I'm not sticking up for either. But to believe one side is less ignorant than the other is fairly naive.

The proles are the proles. Just because you side with one subset (because they match your beliefs) doesn't make them any less prole-y.

Re: Paradise Papers: New leak from offshore finance firm

#277

Post by goliatone »

fjsolwmv wrote: post #249
weirdstuff wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know Trump voters, the majority of whom don't like Trump at all. Their reasoning: "Why delay the inevitable? How else to wake up the country but to elect a disaster? As things get worse we're ready as we'll ever be." (FYI: I'm in Michigan where enough of us held back our Clinton vote to send a message that we need a progressive non-corporatist. Margin of victory for Trump was smaller than empty presidential section…

I'm sure that electing a regressive corporatist was a wonderful improvement.

I guess is harder to pretend that things are ok? Many people wanted change. I doubt the reality of how that changes is materializing is keeping up with what those who voted for Trump wanted

Re: Paradise Papers: New leak from offshore finance firm

#278

Post by fjsolwmv »

olivermarks wrote: post #185

At this point in history I'd argue that nation states have never been weaker. The idea that 'Russia' is behind anything is somewhat erroneous: powerful mobsters/oligarchs who have been enriched by looting Russia and other nation states and float their money offshore are 'Russia' in this context. That money is laundered into the western world. The concept of a capitalist 'empire' that knows no nation state is often di…

You lost me when you fell back to racist conspiracy theories. What the hell do you think "Zionist" means?

Re: Paradise Papers: New leak from offshore finance firm

#279

Post by viraptor »

closeparen wrote: post #176
wfo wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we decide corporations have no obligation to be moral or decent, they naturally will behave as we expect. If we expect and demand (and punish the absence of) more, we can get more. Corporations are made up of people, and people are fully capable of not committing rampant constant fraud. Spending thousands of dollars to avoid their moral tax obligations instead of paying is in my view fraud and corruption; the fact…

Do you leave the standard deduction on the table? Because this is what you’re asking corporations to do: not take the opportunities to reduce tax liability that we provide them. How about let’s raise taxes instead.

Both. Simpler (potentially higher, but just more enforcable) tax would be good. On the other hand it's not about standard deductions - if an accountant comes to the corp with "we figured out this crazy loophole, we'll call it double Irish with a Dutch sandwich", then yeah, I think the corp should step back. (and the tax office should charge them for taking a piss)

Re: Paradise Papers: New leak from offshore finance firm

#280

Post by dagss »

grondilu wrote: post #258
kelnos wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can you possibly believe that a society where a large percent of people are in prison is a healthy society?

If they committed crime, they should be in prison, regardless of how numerous they are.

You keep defining crime as it suits you.

You want to define one set of laws you agree with "justice" and another you disagree with "charity". That is namecalling and intellectually lazy.

The same state and body of laws that define property also defines taxation.

Without a social contract, there is no property. Property isn't obvious! My viking ancestors considered it good and noble to pillage Englishmen.

The social contract you live in happens to define property, but also define taxes and redistribution to the poor. It gives the poor rights. Not charity.

You seem to consider property more "natural" or God-given or such than taxation and everyones right to eat. Why?

Post reply on HN