If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Hugo Chavez, the champion of the poor, somehow amassed a $1 billion fortune while in office   (celebritynetworth.com) divider line 322
    More: Obvious, Hugo Chavez, double major, military sciences  
•       •       •

8650 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Mar 2013 at 9:30 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



322 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-06 06:14:19 PM

give me doughnuts: FarkedOver: Joe Blowme: Einstein didn't construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn't revolutionize the automobile industry that way.

Einstein was a socialist.  Henry Ford believed in paying a living wage to employees.

Further more, I think a case can be made that greed as we all know and love it is actually a construct of capitalism itself.

Einstein was a patent clerk. He worked for a government agency that guaranteed property rights on ideas.

Ford paid good wages so his employees would be happier and healthier and thus more productive. He also got hugely rich. He may have had some ideas on social experimentation (good and bad), but never forget that he was a rich capitalist CEO and factory owner.


Ford's "$5 dollar day" was revolutionary but came with a lot of strings. He expected a lot from his employees for it. Surprise inspections of his employees homes being one. If you were living foul you got a warning and a fine, if the come back and you're still living like a pig you got fired. He still ended up being like the people he hated on some level.
 
2013-03-06 06:28:51 PM
You gotta love the socialist/marxist wingnuts on this thread trying to justify this pillaging of the Venezuelan coffers - hahahahahaha! Hey he was gonna give the $2 billion back - right?  The Bush's, Romney et al will never amass that much money. Who's the "devil" now Chavez?
 
2013-03-06 06:32:22 PM

factoryconnection: In the end, he died relatively young and his big plans are half-fulfilled.


Good thing

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlead/articles/20070222.aspx

February 22, 2007: Venezuela is rearming, mainly via six billion dollars worth of Russian weapons. Officials insist that claimed the stuff is needed to protect the country from an American invasion. But for the last two years, Venezuelan officials, including the country's demagogic president, Hugo Chavez, have made numerous public statements about the "reunification" of the islands of the Dutch West Indies (Aruba, Bonaire, and Curaτao) with Venezuela. Added to that there is the ancient claim on most of neighboring Guyana, some disputed Colombian territorial waters, and very flimsy claims on Caribbean islands like Trinidad and Tobago. There has been some actions as well. Venezuelan violations of Dutch air space and territorial waters, including illegal over flights by military aircraft, have occurred with some frequency. In addition, Venezuelan authorities have urged residents of the islands to form "Bolivarian" cells, in support of eventual "reunification."

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX)  wanted to help Chavez in his search for weapons. Lee is infamous for asking whether the Mars Rover could find the flag planted by the astronauts on the moon.
 
2013-03-06 06:56:38 PM

Tyrone Slothrop: Chavez's rule looked like something out of Woody Allen's Bananas. There must be something in the water down there that turns a champion of the people into a ruthless dictator as soon as they get power.


Gamerscore:
http://www.xbox360achievements.org/game/tropico-4/achievement/56789- Fi lthy-Rich.html
 
2013-03-06 07:07:18 PM

FarkedOver: liam76: The mom and pop store would be the kulak you so gleefully labeled retards for not having over evertyhing they own.

If your fantasy was ever realized (communist revolution in the US) you would be in the forefront calling the blood of th emom and pop. Luckily that will never happen.

I don't think that is necessarily true.  There may be some hard liners that may say that I wouldn't be one of them.  BUT to compare kulaks to mom and pop stores is not a good comparison at all.  There was very little of a capitalist economy built up in Russia at the time, there was the ending of WWI and an on-going civil war.  They needed to ramp up production and kick start an economy that didn't exist in the first place.  They had to collectivize farms for this purpose.  In the US it is a completely different scenario and the comparison is just not valid.


Actually no they didn't "have" to collectivize farms to do that.  Collectivized farms were less efficient.

You seemed pretty chipper about the treatment of Kulaks, I don't see how you don't classify yourself as a hardliner.

The comparison is completely valid.  The mom and pops will suffer because they will have or at leas appear to have more than the lowest common denominator.  They will suffer not because it is more "efficient" but because the state will demand control and wants to strike fear in anyone who doesn't bend over for it.
 
2013-03-06 07:14:46 PM

FarkedOver: Einstein was a socialist. Henry Ford believed in paying a living wage to employees.


Communism, especially the flavor you support (a farmer doesn't have the right to better himself through hard work on his land) has nothing to do with socialism.
 
2013-03-06 08:19:29 PM
Last i checked, most people in the US were poor also...
 
2013-03-06 08:25:00 PM
Hrm, still no cure for cancer.
 
2013-03-06 10:46:15 PM
Phinn
What exactly is "taking advantage"?

Suppose someone gets their foot stuck in train tracks, a train's coming, and no one else is around. They yell for help, and you saunter over and say you'll pull them out... but only if they give you $200 first.

All parties in all voluntary transactions seek an advantage, compared to what situation they will be in without the transaction.

Obviously, that person ended up stuck because they made a voluntary transaction. Not because of bad luck. Nope, bad luck doesn't exist.

wealth is largely subjective. You might find sitting in a small college-town apartment with some buddies, strumming a guitar and eating pork rinds, to be the pinnacle of human bliss and happiness. Others might liken that situation to being in prison. If you enjoy what you have, then you are a wealthy man.

Clean water, food, shelter, health care, educational opportunities, and a few amenities like occassional vacations. Everything above that is a luxury. Not that I'm saying that people should be forcibly limited to that.

If one person offers another person a trade, to which either party can respond by agreeing or declining, without fear of being attacked by that other party for declining, then the trade is voluntary. When that trade occurs, it's BECAUSE both parties expect to profit by the trade.

That's a pretty specific caveat. If workers on strike, picketing outside the workplace but not trespassing, get attacked by police under orders from a mayor who's protecting the advantages held by the ownership class by crushing workers who are trying to organize, is that "the other party"?

What exactly is wrong with profit? As I said, in any voluntary transaction, by definition, both parties are profiting. You seem to have an emotional attachment to one type of party (employees), and hate the other (employers), and so you reflexively conclude that one person's profit is good and just, while the other person's is wrong. But you have completely failed to articulate a principle that show exactly why it is wrong, or to distinguish between good profits and bad profits.

Profit is (units sold) x ((sale price per unit) - (cost per unit)). That only applies to people who sell commodities. Workers don't sell commodities. We get paid for labor-time. You can't increase that. Sure, you can go to college or technical school and get paid more per hour, but that's only going to get you to a certain point- maybe $100,000 a year if you're extremely lucky. The people who are pulling down millions are doing it by selling commodities. But as you said earlier, that's really just 'entrepreneurial functions' which are specific tasks... which is really just work. So why the difference in compensation mechanisms? One person gets $12/hr busting their ass all day to pull in $300 net profit for a boss... just because he put up the capital? Risk is not the same as work! Especially since the 'primitive accumulation' of capital was a series of acts of incredibly violent robbery (as I said- enclosures, imperialism, etc)

The act of "driving people off their land" is a problem flowing from a LACK of property rights, not from the presence of property rights. And, yes, I would certainly agree with you that the feudal system of property that preceded an emerging free market in land was, comparably, worse. The poor (and unfree) definition of feudal property, derived as it was by more or less constant war (i.e., theft) and de facto slavery, was economically inferior, precisely because it was unfree.

I don't think you understand what I said. The act of people being forcibly driven from their land happened at the START of capitalism. For most people, village communism was BETTER than early-through-industrial capitalism (i.e. all but the last ~80 years, in Western Europe and the US anyway).

I'm all in favor of prohibiting deceptive trade practices, as a subset of fraud. That has nothing to do with communism and the economic and ethical benefits of clearly-defined property rights.

Impossible. Small disparities turn into systemic manipulations. Do you think the banks just all of a sudden became corrupt one day? No, the modern failure of capitalism is systemic. Your ideal for functional capitalism is even more of a far-fetched fantasy than the ravings of Leninists.


FarkedOver
Sure, I can do that. I can reasonably assume that through information and education the working class will realize they are being duped by free market zealots and con men.

This is why you fools will never be anything more than tiny cults. Capitalism is seductive. You're going to try to beat seduction using... education and information?


Phinn
Which free market zealots and con men have impoverished the people of Venezuela over the last, say, 10-15 years?

Are you kidding? Practically every social/health indicator in Venezuela is better since the mid-90s. Infant mortality is down, poverty is down, literacy is up... I'm an anti-Marxist, but radical social democracy is still a hell of a lot better than being a victim of neoliberalism (oh, did you think Venezuela was capitalist before Chavez?).


SheltemDragon
"From each his ability, to each his merit."

er, what? I'm not sure if you got that wrong on purpose.

///My Masters Degree keeps me warm at night

Burning for heat is all most are good for.


Thats_right_ALL_the_tea
territorial animals struggling for the areas with more food and the better mates.

Intraspecies competition is, by far, the exception.

The reason Communism has turned out so badly when attempted in real life is that some of those oppressed workers, given any semblance of power, will just start using it to accumulate their own wealth

It wasn't the workers in the Soviets (which just means "councils") who became the Red bureaucrats. That was the Bolsheviks, who took power from the Soviets by force in the coup d'etat of October 1917.
The problem with past revolutions is that we've given far too much leeway to Marxists, who subsequently found incredibly brilliant and evil ways to seize power, annihilate any democracy and worker control, and round up and execute any potential rivals no matter how devoted- in fact, the more devoted ones may be shot first, since they pose the greatest threat. "Next time the people rise they'll turn against the red butchers first. That will be the first moment of the real revolution!"

Capitalism isn't fair, but it tries to take advantage of humanity's bad aspects, and as cynical as it, and as imperfect as the results are, that's why it works out better than idealistic societies that assume all humans want to share or be equal or work together.

Capitalism assumes that everyone is a selfish prick. Communism (well, college-hippy communism, but whatever) assumes that everyone just wants to get along. In fact probably about 95-97% of the species just wants to get on with their lives and not be a dick, with the rest being sociopaths who have no concept of empathy. We can make a system which is basically communistic but which accounts for the occasional evil bastard.
 
2013-03-07 02:24:11 AM

FarkedOver: Phinn: Communism: The Long Con.

Capitalism: Straight Up Rape


I lol'ed
 
2013-03-07 02:55:48 AM

Beeblebrox: TheDumbBlonde: FarkedOver: Onkel Buck: FarkedOver: Onkel Buck: FarkedOver: Onkel Buck: so you're pretty much jealous and worthless. no wonder you want something for nothing

Labor is entitled to all that it creates my friend. (Hint: Labor creates pretty much everything)

Then why do want to pay people who refuse to work?

They don't refuse.  They are unable.  You are aware that in a capitalist society unemployment is a necessity? Right?

Well that works out well for you then doesnt? It makes  plenty of  charity cases you bleeding hearts can pander too and blame mean ol rich people

I'm not a bleeding heart liberal.  I am a socialist.  I want to empower the working class.  I want to agitate the working class.

Liberals are pussies.

Wow. I always wanted to see a socialist. Post a picture, please.

[encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com image 259x194]


ha!  goin' old school
 
2013-03-07 04:08:34 AM

FarkedOver: Joe Blowme: Einstein didn't construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn't revolutionize the automobile industry that way.

Einstein was a socialist.  Henry Ford believed in paying a living wage to employees.

Further more, I think a case can be made that greed as we all know and love it is actually a construct of capitalism itself.


Well, Henry Ford believed that if his workers prospered, he would eventually prosper.  It's a shame that so few execs today can see how much richer they'd be if they actually paid their workers commensurate to their production.
 
2013-03-07 09:22:10 AM

IlGreven: FarkedOver: Joe Blowme: Einstein didn't construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn't revolutionize the automobile industry that way.

Einstein was a socialist.  Henry Ford believed in paying a living wage to employees.

Further more, I think a case can be made that greed as we all know and love it is actually a construct of capitalism itself.

Well, Henry Ford believed that if his workers prospered, he would eventually prosper.  It's a shame that so few execs today can see how much richer they'd be if they actually paid their workers commensurate to their production.


And it's not socialism, either.  It's just not near-sighted capitalism.  Profit today doesn't mean that you'll have it in 5 years.  That style of belief is basically an R&D budget for your employees, betting on "development" to pay off in the form of productivity(quality, quantity, whatever).  I do believe that Ford wouldn't have gotten away with it in today's world as a public company, but that's a problem with today's economic world and our laws, not necessarily capitalism(too many investors that have no stake in the business other than the quarterly return on their dollar).
 
2013-03-07 09:39:04 AM

bhcompy: And it's not socialism, either. It's just not near-sighted capitalism. Profit today doesn't mean that you'll have it in 5 years. That style of belief is basically an R&D budget for your employees, betting on "development" to pay off in the form of productivity(quality, quantity, whatever). I do believe that Ford wouldn't have gotten away with it in today's world as a public company, but that's a problem with today's economic world and our laws, not necessarily capitalism(too many investors that have no stake in the business other than the quarterly return on their dollar


Our laws set it up so it isn't so much capatilism as corporatism.  If you are too big to fail or can profit with no risk or hard work (simply y having a lot of money and connections), that isn't capitilism.
 
2013-03-07 10:21:52 AM

liam76: bhcompy: And it's not socialism, either. It's just not near-sighted capitalism. Profit today doesn't mean that you'll have it in 5 years. That style of belief is basically an R&D budget for your employees, betting on "development" to pay off in the form of productivity(quality, quantity, whatever). I do believe that Ford wouldn't have gotten away with it in today's world as a public company, but that's a problem with today's economic world and our laws, not necessarily capitalism(too many investors that have no stake in the business other than the quarterly return on their dollar

Our laws set it up so it isn't so much capatilism as corporatism.  If you are too big to fail or can profit with no risk or hard work (simply y having a lot of money and connections), that isn't capitilism.


That's only on the top level, though I agree it exists(and actually that's mostly political, without government intervention it would be more capitalistic).  The vast majority of businesses(80%+) in the US are entrepreneurial: sole proprietorships, partnerships, etc.  No one is going to give them corporate welfare benefits if they struggle.
 
2013-03-07 10:57:22 AM
I'm glad the guy is dead, he was such a jackhole.
As far as getting rich tho..
have you ever seen a poor congressman in the U.S.?
 
2013-03-07 12:10:37 PM

uber humper: [i.imgur.com image 318x450]

I still need to see more proof for Chavez, but I don't quite doubt it.

Reminds me of Arafat of the Palensitnian LIberation Organization.  Amassed over a billion dollars, bribes and scraping from aid packages, while Palenstinians lived in shiat.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,995651,00.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-582487.html


Didn't he also tour with the Beatles under the name Ringo Starr?

static.gigwise.com
 
2013-03-07 02:29:45 PM
RanDomino:  Capitalism assumes that everyone is a selfish prick. Communism (well, college-hippy communism, but whatever) assumes that everyone just wants to get along. In fact probably about 95-97% of the species just wants to get on with their lives and not be a dick, with the rest being sociopaths who have no concept of empathy. We can make a system which is basically communistic but which accounts for the occasional evil bastard.

I think that number is way too high, even if you exclude only those with Libertarian ideals.
 
2013-03-07 07:43:36 PM
Latinwolf
I think that number is way too high, even if you exclude only those with Libertarian ideals.

The prevalence of this disorder is 3% in males and 1% in females
That's how many people are actual sociopaths.
 
2013-03-08 07:23:37 PM

RanDomino: Capitalism assumes that everyone is a selfish prick. Communism (well, college-hippy communism, but whatever) assumes that everyone just wants to get along. In fact probably about 95-97% of the species just wants to get on with their lives and not be a dick, with the rest being sociopaths who have no concept of empathy. We can make a system which is basically communistic but which accounts for the occasional evil bastard.


Guess what?  You are wrong.  Most people are selfish pricks.  Citation:  All of human history.

Well, maybe not quite that extreme.  But what drives people to work hard at a job isn't because they just like hard work.  They are hoping for a pay raise or a promotion.  That's greed.  Under the communist system, there was no real reward for hard work.  Unless you count getting a lovely medal to pin on your jacket on parade days.  In fact, working too hard could be detrimental to your employment.  Your boss might see you as a threat to his job and look for a reason to get rid of you.  The result, everybody worked at the absolute minimum required to retain their job.  Each year, that bar was lowered (look at production statistics in the Soviet Union over the years for proof).

If you give people an incentive to put in a little extra effort, most people will take advantage of that opportunity.  Some people will be happy where they are and coast along.  If the only incentive is "the good of the community", everyone becomes "coasters".  A side note, companies that make false promises about production bonuses can only get away with the lie for a couple of years before the workers say, "fark that, I'm coasting".
 
2013-03-08 09:42:50 PM
OgreMagi
Guess what? You are wrong. Most people are selfish pricks. Citation: All of human history.

Suppose you have a village with a few hundred people who generally get along fine, except that one of them is a sociopath. He's also the biggest and strongest guy around. He spends most of his time mugging the others, but then he gets an idea: one day he kidnaps someone's kids, and tells that person that if they ever want to see their kids again, they have to start mugging the other villagers and giving him the proceeds.

That person has two terrible options. Does that make them a selfish prick?

Suppose the sociopath forces everyone to pay him tribute, and gives some of it to the most desperate villagers (who can't otherwise afford the tribute) in order to get them to form posses to enforce the tribute. Everyone's been put in a bad situation and is making the best of it. But there's still only one person who we can definitively say is a selfish prick.

Now, suppose the villagers got organized... Oh, but that would be communism!
 
2013-03-08 09:47:17 PM
Under the communist system,

I'm ignoring the rest of this, because you're not talking to me. Maybe FarkedOver was the intended audience?
 
Displayed 22 of 322 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report