The top 1% of Sociaism - featuring the Chavez daughters

Discussion of current events
Post Reply
User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 3344
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

The top 1% of Sociaism - featuring the Chavez daughters

Post by cassowary » Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:33 am

Venezuelan 'daughters of Chavismo' exposed living lavishly overseas
A Twitter account set up by members of Venezuela’s opposition has become a window into the opulent lives of the so-called “daughters of chavismo” — young women who grew up in privileged households owned by members of the socialist government and now continue enjoying the good life abroad.

In the past few weeks, VVsincensura has been posting photos provided by its followers showing family members of the political elite having a good time in their brand new car, eating in Paris or surfing in some exotic beach.


Whoops! We couldn't access this Tweet.
HUGO CHÁVEZ DAUGHTER IS THE RICHEST INDIVIDUAL IN VENEZUELA, REPORT CLAIMS

One of them is Lucia Rodriguez, daughter of hard-left mayor of Caracas and niece of the foreign minister, who actually started the trend by posting images of herself as a student at a private university in Sydney. This enraged many in the hyperinflationary country, where the population is struggling with accute shortages of food and medicine.

According to The Times of London, Rodriguez was tracked down by an opposition activist to Bondi Beach, where she was photographed surfing and sipping cocktails.
According to this, Maria Gabriella Chavez is worth $4 billion.

Excerpt from link:
This, despite Chávez—a leader who was supposed to be “for the people”—being worth an estimated $2 billion at the time of his death two years ago. It’s believed that he stole much of his wealth from the country’s oil industry. Today, his daughter Maria Gabriela is the wealthiest woman in Venezuela, worth double that.
Chavez was worth $2 billion at the time of his death. What did he do to deserve that wealth? Did he benefit mankind by providing people with a superior product or service and create jobs like successful capitalists do? No, he did not. He impoverished his people and caused job losses. Yet he got rich. Isn't that unjust? Let's all be social justice warriors and get rid of socialism.
The Imp :D

neverfail
Posts: 4213
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: The top 1% of Sociaism - featuring the Chavez daughters

Post by neverfail » Thu Jan 10, 2019 12:34 pm

cassowary wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:33 am

Chavez was worth $2 billion at the time of his death. What did he do to deserve that wealth? Did he benefit mankind by providing people with a superior product or service and create jobs like successful capitalists do? No, he did not. He impoverished his people and caused job losses. Yet he got rich. Isn't that unjust? Let's all be social justice warriors and get rid of socialism.
Corruption in high public office on a grand scale in the bane of much of the Afro-Asian third world. Just as CEO's of large private enterprise corporations will reward themselves with millions in stock options and other golden handshake benefits upon retirement or resignation even when, as a consequence of his tenure, the firm has been driven from profitable into unprofitability. They do it because they have the power to do it. Likewise kleptocrat rulers in Afro-Asian-Latino countries will award themselves extra-salary payments because there is nothing to stop them doing so.

Changing the "party line" from a left wing policy agenda to a right wing one is not going to improve the character of the incumbent ruler. This is where your apparent outrage at the cupidity of left politicians and blindness to that of the right ring ones is prejudiced and unreasonable.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 3344
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: The top 1% of Sociaism - featuring the Chavez daughters

Post by cassowary » Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:42 pm

neverfail wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 12:34 pm
cassowary wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:33 am

Chavez was worth $2 billion at the time of his death. What did he do to deserve that wealth? Did he benefit mankind by providing people with a superior product or service and create jobs like successful capitalists do? No, he did not. He impoverished his people and caused job losses. Yet he got rich. Isn't that unjust? Let's all be social justice warriors and get rid of socialism.
Corruption in high public office on a grand scale in the bane of much of the Afro-Asian third world. Just as CEO's of large private enterprise corporations will reward themselves with millions in stock options and other golden handshake benefits upon retirement or resignation even when, as a consequence of his tenure, the firm has been driven from profitable into unprofitability. They do it because they have the power to do it. Likewise kleptocrat rulers in Afro-Asian-Latino countries will award themselves extra-salary payments because there is nothing to stop them doing so.

Changing the "party line" from a left wing policy agenda to a right wing one is not going to improve the character of the incumbent ruler. This is where your apparent outrage at the cupidity of left politicians and blindness to that of the right ring ones is prejudiced and unreasonable.
It is rare that a ceo can reward himself generously if his company is losing money. There is the board of directors.

Changing from a left wing policy agenda to a right wing one can make a lot of difference even when the leaders are corrupt. China is a good example. Deng’s capitalist reforms sparked prosperity even though Chinese leaders are corrupt. Compare that with Maoist era poverty and even famine.

Chiang Kai shel’s regime was also corrupt. So was Suharto. Yet with capitalism, there was more prosperity than under Socialist regimes.
The Imp :D

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 3344
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: The top 1% of Sociaism - featuring the Chavez daughters

Post by cassowary » Fri Jan 11, 2019 7:58 pm

People like Najib and Suharto stole from relatively rich people. Chavez and Castro stole from poor people.

If you want a case that holds the cultural variable constant, Pinochet only took $18 million. That’s peanuts compared to Socialist dictators like Chávez. By the standard of the region, he was an honest man. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldn ... amily.html.

And he restored prosperity and democracy. I think he deserved the money.
The Imp :D

neverfail
Posts: 4213
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: The top 1% of Sociaism - featuring the Chavez daughters

Post by neverfail » Sat Jan 12, 2019 2:41 am

cassowary wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:42 pm

It is rare that a ceo can reward himself generously if his company is losing money. There is the board of directors.
Well, it has happened even in my country and on a greater scale in the United States. Boards of directors sometimes fo not do their jobs properly.

At least half of the nation-states on this planet still have no equivalent to a corporate board of directors to protect "shareholders", (i.E citizens) interests and even in some of the ones who do the protectors of the public interest are not performing their duties adequately. Herein lies the problem.
cassowary wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:42 pm
Changing from a left wing policy agenda to a right wing one can make a lot of difference even when the leaders are corrupt. China is a good example. Deng’s capitalist reforms sparked prosperity even though Chinese leaders are corrupt. Compare that with Maoist era poverty and even famine.
Mao's China was not only poor (well, China was that even before the Communists gained control) and suffered mass starvation through the mismanagement of the Great Leap forward (China had suffered periodic famines right throughout its long history, the most recent being during the 1940's when it was under Chiang's Nationalists). Important to me was that it was overcontrolled, repressed and unfree. China still is. The canary's cage might today be gold plaited instead of being of rusty iron but the bird is still imprisoned.
cassowary wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:42 pm
Chiang Kai shel’s regime was also corrupt. So was Suharto. Yet with capitalism, there was more prosperity than under Socialist regimes.
Trust you to selectively hold up the likes of Pinochet and Chiang as poster boys to prove the argument that right wing autocrats are good and left wing ones are bad. Now why don't you try out Mobutu Sese Seiko of Zaire (as he renamed the Congo) for size:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 61945.html

No one has ever accused Mobutu of being a socialist yet he left his already poor and backward country even poorer and more backward still - while acquiring a private fortune that matched and even exceeded that of the Chavez clan of Venezuela.

Oh, we must never forget President Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines. Special mention must be made of him by me because he was still in power when I married my bride in his country:

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/wor ... government

Marcos was ostensibly fighting a Communist insurgency on the main Philippines island of Luzon while banking money in private bank accounts overseas that should have been spent giving the Philippines armed forces better pay, training, conditions and weaponry so that they could combat the insurgency better. Starving the military of funds was not the only way that marcos fed the insurgency. In the 1950's before Marcos came to power the Philippines enjoyed the best average incomes and living standards anywhere in Asia. By the time of his overthrow it had become one of the poorest in Asia. All of the time during those dark decades of corruption and misrule the population of the Philippines and the country's problems were multiplying. In summary, marcos' legacy to the Philippines resembles that of Mobutu's to the Congo.

We should not ignore the forlorn example of Equatorial Guinea either:

https://freedomhouse.org/blog/dictators ... anked-west

Another rapacious regime with no known socialist leanings.

Will you please give up on your online propaganda campaign against all things left wing? Sadly, It only blinds you to objective truth.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 3344
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: The top 1% of Sociaism - featuring the Chavez daughters

Post by cassowary » Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:11 am

You should not compare Mao with Mobutu because we need to keep the ethnic variable constant, neverfail.

Different cultures have different economic capacities. So we need to compare Mao with Chiang or LKY to prove that the capitalist system produces more wealth.

Besides this, you can compare Pinochet with Cubs, East with West Germany and North and South Korea.

The above comparisons prove that capitalism creates more wealth than Socialism.
The Imp :D

neverfail
Posts: 4213
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: The top 1% of Sociaism - featuring the Chavez daughters

Post by neverfail » Sat Jan 12, 2019 1:33 pm

cassowary wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:11 am
You should not compare Mao with Mobutu because we need to keep the ethnic variable constant, neverfail.

Different cultures have different economic capacities. So we need to compare Mao with Chiang or LKY to prove that the capitalist system produces more wealth.

Besides this, you can compare Pinochet with Cubs, East with West Germany and North and South Korea.

The above comparisons prove that capitalism creates more wealth than Socialism.
....and my above comparisons prove that you do not need socialism in order to ruin a country.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 3344
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: The top 1% of Sociaism - featuring the Chavez daughters

Post by cassowary » Sat Jan 12, 2019 3:02 pm

neverfail wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 1:33 pm
cassowary wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:11 am
You should not compare Mao with Mobutu because we need to keep the ethnic variable constant, neverfail.

Different cultures have different economic capacities. So we need to compare Mao with Chiang or LKY to prove that the capitalist system produces more wealth.

Besides this, you can compare Pinochet with Cubs, East with West Germany and North and South Korea.

The above comparisons prove that capitalism creates more wealth than Socialism.
....and my above comparisons prove that you do not need socialism in order to ruin a country.
Actually that true. But it’s a leading cause.
The Imp :D

Post Reply