Sometimes it seems that Huge Chaves relishes the prospect of humiliating the United States of America. What is absolutely fascinating is that he sometimes manages to achieve this on the most public instances possible. Barack Obama has learned very quickly that you do not patronize Hugo Chavez without a cost. Likely, anyone can quickly turn the tables on you and expose the fallacy of your positions.

Nevertheless as a business person, I would find it hard to contend with some of the socialist policies that Hugo Chaves adores. Wealth management requires a certain degree of capitalism in as much as entrepreneurs need to be given the space to do their thing. If you are being constantly harassed by ideological suspicion then your wealth management program will have to face instability. I wish that socialists would accept the fact that wealth management can be good for the community, and investment as part of modern living. The only provision on this general point is that that wealth management has to be carefully supervised and managed for sustainable growth, or else exploitation will become the order of the day.

Payback to the community
Where rich people are allowed to undertake their wealth management schemes, the general community benefits the way of increased tax revenues. Even if you look at the more extreme forms of wealth management such as hedge funds, the evidence is clear that they do contribute to the community in general.

The bad reputation that has stuck onto wealth management schemes is partly due to poor publicity and the ineffectiveness of governments. If the government abandons its regulatory responsibilities, then the wealth management community will only be happy to exploit the loopholes.

In order to undertake successful wealth management programs, it is essential to have the government on your side. Imagine the consequences of a ridiculous tax regime that is meant to completely stop wealth creation. I once heard of a liberal politician who advocated for up to ninety percent taxes for the super rich.

While it is possible to get a lot of revenue from such a harsh regime, the reality is that the investors will just stop business. The tax revenues that are due will no longer be available and the government will probably collapse as a consequence.

Prospects for the future
Why then do we allow ideological frameworks to remove things that we know work? Is it a question of intellectual stubbornness or ignorance? In the case of socialist regimes, there is a mixture of factors. I am hoping that the reality of government makes people amend their views accordingly. Wealth management can have dire consequences for a nation but it also has some undeniable benefits that should not be completely ignored. Without wealth, the communities that we are trying to protect would not exist in the first place.