Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth News

Russian City Ever Watchful Against Being Sucked Into Earth 110

Posted by timothy
from the if-you're-not-part-of-the-solution dept.
Jeremiah Cornelius writes "Dmitry Rybolovlev bought the most expensive apartment ever sold in New York City — the $88 million penthouse at 15 Central Park West — and did much for local real estate values. But in Berezniki, the mining city where he made his fortune, properties have literally been plunging. 'Imagine putting a sugar cube in a cup of tea,' Mikhail A. Permyakov, the chief land surveyor for Uralkali, the company that owns the mine. 'That is what happened under Berezniki.' Berezniki is afflicted by sinkholes, hundreds of feet deep, that can open at a moment's notice. So grave is the danger that the entire city is under 24-hour video surveillance. In 2008 a government commission cleared Mr. Rybolovlev of wrongdoing, blaming past unsafe practices for the sinkholes. A senior official close to Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin says that Mr. Rybolovlev bears some responsibility, even though he sold the mine after the occurrence of the first great openings."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Russian City Ever Watchful Against Being Sucked Into Earth

Comments Filter:
  • money talks (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 14, 2012 @01:05AM (#39683263)

    if one thinks the US has problems with wealthy, influential people, just look to Russia to see how bad it can get.

  • Re:money talks (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dexter Herbivore (1322345) on Saturday April 14, 2012 @01:19AM (#39683309) Journal

    if one thinks the world has problems with wealthy, influential people, just look everywhere to see how bad it can get.

    FTFY

  • 2012 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mutherhacker (638199) on Saturday April 14, 2012 @01:49AM (#39683399)

    The year where an apartment in manhattan is sold for an amount that can feed a small country for a month.

  • by Grayhand (2610049) on Saturday April 14, 2012 @02:24AM (#39683489)
    Corporate profits always come first. Coal fires are a problem in some areas and at least one town had to be abandoned since the fires can last for decades and possibly centuries. Many towns had to be abandoned over industrial pollution and yet I constantly hear it's government regulations that cause the problems. How much of the planet do we sacrifice to greed? I'm not talking about halting progress this is about people cutting corners to make higher profits. Coal companies were supposed to have phased in safe guards to limit mercury and other heavy metals from being released but they ignored the regulations and now want them thrown out. A lot of cheap power depends on ignoring the problems it causes. In coal country areas near power plants have cancer rates through the roof. There's a price of pain and suffering. Often in the end the government ends up picking up the bill for health care and clean up. So long as corporations are protected and the people that run them are safe from being held accountable this will continue to happen. Change the rules and bankrupt the owners and corporate heads of the companies and see how fast it all changes.
  • Video surveillance (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 14, 2012 @02:29AM (#39683501)

    "So grave is the danger that the entire city is under 24-hour video surveillance."
    I guess London must be on its way down as well.

  • by rtb61 (674572) on Saturday April 14, 2012 @02:37AM (#39683525) Homepage

    Definitely looks like Russia has learnt the lesson of privatisation well. Privatise the profits and socialise the costs. How come when you buy an existing mine you get the profits but get to deny responsibilities for the mine, where exactly do they squeeze that nifty clause or is that just post contract corruption.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 14, 2012 @03:58AM (#39683735)

    Ask yourself what is being done to the people that cause so much damage. Ask yourself why they are protected by regulations from actual restitution. Ask yourself why profit is defined not by the net value a company brings to society.

    When you hear people denouncing statist regulation as the source of these problems and championing voluntary and peaceful solutions, all you have to do to see that it is true is to look at the definition of a corporation: it is a government enforced legal shield from liability. No amount of regulation(even supposing it is well meaning) can replace what is lost when government violently restricts the people in a society from choosing who they want to be operating in a given market. Protectionism does just that, it protects executives from actually having to serve customers, from serving society. If you want people to decide what is best for themselves(which might not be what you or I think is best, by the way), let them actually choose rather than the politicians. Violent mandates like regulations are at best a flawed attempt to mimic this process. More often, they are designed to further shield these corporations from the masses.

  • Libertarian utopia (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 14, 2012 @04:06AM (#39683755)

    what's not to like?

  • Re:money talks (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 14, 2012 @07:54AM (#39684415)

    In my experience Unions are run by people who want to be Wealth influential people. They don't really care about the works they are supposed to represent.

  • Re:2012 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tomhath (637240) on Saturday April 14, 2012 @09:14AM (#39684923)
    I understand your point, however two other points to keep in mind: 1) The money didn't disappear, it just changed pockets. 2) If you tried to spend that money to feed a small country that needed to be fed it, would almost certainly end up arming a warlord's henchmen. Don't worry about #1, solve #2 first.
  • Really? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by drainbramage (588291) on Saturday April 14, 2012 @09:48AM (#39685163)

    That was the point?
    So, you get rid of the wealthy then everyone will be rich and there will be no crime?
    Do I get a pony too?

  • Re:money talks (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nidi62 (1525137) on Saturday April 14, 2012 @09:53AM (#39685185)

    In my experience Unions are run by people who want to be Wealth influential people. They don't really care about the works they are supposed to represent.

    Well your free to have your opinion Mr Murdoch.

    He's right though. If unions were about representing the worker, they wouldn't be so hard to leave or disband. Once they are created they care more about growing and consolidating their power and influence. I've seen firsthand the lengths unions will go to to try to stay in power. Harassing people at their homes, getting the NLRB to change rules to give them a better chance to get voted in, and complaining and charging interference when the company advertises to its employees when the vote is. Not who to vote for, just when it is. You cannot claim to represent the workers when you don't even want the workers to vote.

Did you know that for the price of a 280-Z you can buy two Z-80's? -- P.J. Plauger

Working...