Another Liberal Myth Exploded

[Marxist]

Nonetheless, the economic trend is moving toward more concentrated wealth in the hands of fewer individuals and companies. Until that is turned around, there is a problem to be solved.

if my Countrymen should ever wish for the Honour of having among them a Gentry enormously wealthy, let them sell their Farms and pay rack'd Rents; the Scale of the Landlords will rise as that of the Tenants is depress'd who will soon become poor, tattered, dirty, and abject in Spirit. ...the Effect of this kind of Civil Society seems only to be, the depressing Multitudes below the Savage State that a few may be rais'd above it"
-- Benjamin Franklin; letter to Joshua Babcock (Jan. 13. 1772)

WHAT problem?
You are doing something that NOT ONE of the wealthiest men in the world in the 1915 could do! NOT ONE wealthy person could do what you do daily!
A) use the Internet.
B) SEE/TALK with anyone in the world anywhere.
Both of which the poorest person can do in the USA what the wealthiest person in 1915 never even imagined!

Tell me what is the problem?

I don't follow your logic, maybe you should look at the working people in India/China/the third world/etc and not just America, which relies on this exploitation to have higher standards, along with some other first world pigs.

 

[healthmyths]

By one measure Hillary earned more than America s top 10 CEOs WashingtonExaminer.com

 

[Agit8r]

Nonetheless, the economic trend is moving toward more concentrated wealth in the hands of fewer individuals and companies. Until that is turned around, there is a problem to be solved.

if my Countrymen should ever wish for the Honour of having among them a Gentry enormously wealthy, let them sell their Farms and pay rack'd Rents; the Scale of the Landlords will rise as that of the Tenants is depress'd who will soon become poor, tattered, dirty, and abject in Spirit. ...the Effect of this kind of Civil Society seems only to be, the depressing Multitudes below the Savage State that a few may be rais'd above it"
-- Benjamin Franklin; letter to Joshua Babcock (Jan. 13. 1772)

WHAT problem?
You are doing something that NOT ONE of the wealthiest men in the world in the 1915 could do! NOT ONE wealthy person could do what you do daily!
A) use the Internet.
B) SEE/TALK with anyone in the world anywhere.
Both of which the poorest person can do in the USA what the wealthiest person in 1915 never even imagined!

Tell me what is the problem?

And your point is?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Nonetheless, the economic trend is moving toward more concentrated wealth in the hands of fewer individuals and companies. Until that is turned around, there is a problem to be solved.

if my Countrymen should ever wish for the Honour of having among them a Gentry enormously wealthy, let them sell their Farms and pay rack'd Rents; the Scale of the Landlords will rise as that of the Tenants is depress'd who will soon become poor, tattered, dirty, and abject in Spirit. ...the Effect of this kind of Civil Society seems only to be, the depressing Multitudes below the Savage State that a few may be rais'd above it"
-- Benjamin Franklin; letter to Joshua Babcock (Jan. 13. 1772)

By "Nonetheless" you are tacitly agreeing that, again, I've belted one out of the park with this OP.

"100% accurate and dispositive" would have been appropriate.
But you're probably saving said adjectives for my next OP.

Wise.

Forbes may have some valid criticism of a particular study. Nonetheless, the wealth disparity increases, as does the disparity in political influence between monied interests and The People. That is no myth, and a real problem for anyone who isn't a fascist.

1. The critique of the trope is not from Forbes.
Read more carefully.

2. "...some valid criticism of a particular study."
Please....a little honesty, here.
The over-and-over over-the-top lie is not to be avoided.
"Do a Google search of the phrase “CEO to worker pay” and you’ll find 150,000 links to reports and articles that almost exclusively compare the salaries of a very small, statistically insignificant group of S&P500 or Fortune 500 CEOs to average worker pay."
When we consider all US CEOs and all US workers the CEO-to-worker pay ratio falls from 331 1 to below 4 1


3. "the wealth disparity increases, as does the disparity in political influence between monied interests and The People."
Spoken like a true Marxist.
The 'disparity' is totally meaningless.

"Even if Piketty’s worst case scenario played out, the human and societal cost of his prescriptions would far outweigh the perceived advantages.

A society that penalizes the successful for no other reason than to cause pain is hardly a society worth creating much less living in. In short, Piketty’s proposal is an exercise in cargo cult economics.

Piketty’s solution to the non-existent problem of wealth inequality would destroy not only wealth but economic mobility and risk taking. It would make us France."
Thomas Piketty Wealth Inequality and Cargo Cult Economics RedState


4. "...a real problem for anyone who isn't a fascist."
If only you had an education...you'd recognize that the Corporatism you claim to abjure is the very hallmark of fascism, socialism, FDR's New Deal, and Obama's policies.

Corporatism...the desire to form a joint venture between big business and big government.....and drive out small entrepreneurs and the middle class.

Wise up.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is referring to the most most paid CEO'S, as stated, and the inequality is completely real when looking at how much they receive compared to their workers, it's not necessarily a lie, the media from both sides pushes out misinformed information.

The OP proves....PROVES....exactly the opposite.

Get a calculator if you can't do the math.

 

[Marxist]

This is referring to the most most paid CEO'S, as stated, and the inequality is completely real when looking at how much they receive compared to their workers, it's not necessarily a lie, the media from both sides pushes out misinformed information.

The OP proves....PROVES....exactly the opposite.

Get a calculator if you can't do the math.

The OP proves your point when looking at all CEO'S, but I like to focus on the major capitalists, which you want to ignore.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is referring to the most most paid CEO'S, as stated, and the inequality is completely real when looking at how much they receive compared to their workers, it's not necessarily a lie, the media from both sides pushes out misinformed information.

The OP proves....PROVES....exactly the opposite.

Get a calculator if you can't do the math.

The OP proves your point when looking at all CEO'S, but I like to focus on the major capitalists, which you want to ignore.

Let's prove you to be a fool and a liar...from your avi on.

1. If the Leftist is interested in a more ‘fair’ redistribution of wealth, let him vote for lower taxes, and then he can distribute his now larger share of his wealth to the lesser compensated folks.
   1. 'Illustrative of reality is the fact that the Leftist refrains from paying above the stated price for goods and services…he wants, as everyone else does, competition between said services. Only then does he stand a chance of getting a “fair” price. In his own enterprise, he strives to improve quality or lower price…’else his potential customers will take their business to others. Unless he has the power of government!' David Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge," chapter 32
   2. “Just for fun, find a Marxist professor- who scoffs at the idea that people work less if they lose the incentive of money- how he would feel if his name were not put on the academic articles he published. Instead the articles would be published under the name of another academic who needed the recognition more than he did. After all…he would still have the satisfaction of having written the articles….His completely reasonable response would be that he earned’ the right to have his name on those articles, and denying him that measure of earned success is viciously unfair. Exactly.” Arthur Brooks, “The Road to Freedom,” p. 26.

 

[Agit8r]

Nonetheless, the economic trend is moving toward more concentrated wealth in the hands of fewer individuals and companies. Until that is turned around, there is a problem to be solved.

if my Countrymen should ever wish for the Honour of having among them a Gentry enormously wealthy, let them sell their Farms and pay rack'd Rents; the Scale of the Landlords will rise as that of the Tenants is depress'd who will soon become poor, tattered, dirty, and abject in Spirit. ...the Effect of this kind of Civil Society seems only to be, the depressing Multitudes below the Savage State that a few may be rais'd above it"
-- Benjamin Franklin; letter to Joshua Babcock (Jan. 13. 1772)

By "Nonetheless" you are tacitly agreeing that, again, I've belted one out of the park with this OP.

"100% accurate and dispositive" would have been appropriate.
But you're probably saving said adjectives for my next OP.

Wise.

Forbes may have some valid criticism of a particular study. Nonetheless, the wealth disparity increases, as does the disparity in political influence between monied interests and The People. That is no myth, and a real problem for anyone who isn't a fascist.

1. The critique of the trope is not from Forbes.
Read more carefully.

2. "...some valid criticism of a particular study."
Please....a little honesty, here.
The over-and-over over-the-top lie is not to be avoided.
"Do a Google search of the phrase “CEO to worker pay” and you’ll find 150,000 links to reports and articles that almost exclusively compare the salaries of a very small, statistically insignificant group of S&P500 or Fortune 500 CEOs to average worker pay."
When we consider all US CEOs and all US workers the CEO-to-worker pay ratio falls from 331 1 to below 4 1


3. "the wealth disparity increases, as does the disparity in political influence between monied interests and The People."
Spoken like a true Marxist.
The 'disparity' is totally meaningless.

"Even if Piketty’s worst case scenario played out, the human and societal cost of his prescriptions would far outweigh the perceived advantages.

A society that penalizes the successful for no other reason than to cause pain is hardly a society worth creating much less living in. In short, Piketty’s proposal is an exercise in cargo cult economics.

Piketty’s solution to the non-existent problem of wealth inequality would destroy not only wealth but economic mobility and risk taking. It would make us France."
Thomas Piketty Wealth Inequality and Cargo Cult Economics RedState


4. "...a real problem for anyone who isn't a fascist."
If only you had an education...you'd recognize that the Corporatism you claim to abjure is the very hallmark of fascism, socialism, FDR's New Deal, and Obama's policies.

Corporatism...the desire to form a joint venture between big business and big government.....and drive out small entrepreneurs and the middle class.

Wise up.

Both parties do that. Both are, to some degree, bought and paid for. That is the problem that I'm talking about.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Nonetheless, the economic trend is moving toward more concentrated wealth in the hands of fewer individuals and companies. Until that is turned around, there is a problem to be solved.

if my Countrymen should ever wish for the Honour of having among them a Gentry enormously wealthy, let them sell their Farms and pay rack'd Rents; the Scale of the Landlords will rise as that of the Tenants is depress'd who will soon become poor, tattered, dirty, and abject in Spirit. ...the Effect of this kind of Civil Society seems only to be, the depressing Multitudes below the Savage State that a few may be rais'd above it"
-- Benjamin Franklin; letter to Joshua Babcock (Jan. 13. 1772)

By "Nonetheless" you are tacitly agreeing that, again, I've belted one out of the park with this OP.

"100% accurate and dispositive" would have been appropriate.
But you're probably saving said adjectives for my next OP.

Wise.

Forbes may have some valid criticism of a particular study. Nonetheless, the wealth disparity increases, as does the disparity in political influence between monied interests and The People. That is no myth, and a real problem for anyone who isn't a fascist.

1. The critique of the trope is not from Forbes.
Read more carefully.

2. "...some valid criticism of a particular study."
Please....a little honesty, here.
The over-and-over over-the-top lie is not to be avoided.
"Do a Google search of the phrase “CEO to worker pay” and you’ll find 150,000 links to reports and articles that almost exclusively compare the salaries of a very small, statistically insignificant group of S&P500 or Fortune 500 CEOs to average worker pay."
When we consider all US CEOs and all US workers the CEO-to-worker pay ratio falls from 331 1 to below 4 1


3. "the wealth disparity increases, as does the disparity in political influence between monied interests and The People."
Spoken like a true Marxist.
The 'disparity' is totally meaningless.

"Even if Piketty’s worst case scenario played out, the human and societal cost of his prescriptions would far outweigh the perceived advantages.

A society that penalizes the successful for no other reason than to cause pain is hardly a society worth creating much less living in. In short, Piketty’s proposal is an exercise in cargo cult economics.

Piketty’s solution to the non-existent problem of wealth inequality would destroy not only wealth but economic mobility and risk taking. It would make us France."
Thomas Piketty Wealth Inequality and Cargo Cult Economics RedState


4. "...a real problem for anyone who isn't a fascist."
If only you had an education...you'd recognize that the Corporatism you claim to abjure is the very hallmark of fascism, socialism, FDR's New Deal, and Obama's policies.

Corporatism...the desire to form a joint venture between big business and big government.....and drive out small entrepreneurs and the middle class.

Wise up.

Both parties do that. Both are, to some degree, bought and paid for. That is the problem that I'm talking about.

Can't argue with that.

As a conservative, I feel like a political orphan.

But one party is clearly worse than the other...

So, I vote based on this axiom:
Let not the perfect be the enemy of the good.

 

[Marxist]

This is referring to the most most paid CEO'S, as stated, and the inequality is completely real when looking at how much they receive compared to their workers, it's not necessarily a lie, the media from both sides pushes out misinformed information.

The OP proves....PROVES....exactly the opposite.

Get a calculator if you can't do the math.

The OP proves your point when looking at all CEO'S, but I like to focus on the major capitalists, which you want to ignore.

Let's prove you to be a fool and a liar...from your avi on.

1. If the Leftist is interested in a more ‘fair’ redistribution of wealth, let him vote for lower taxes, and then he can distribute his now larger share of his wealth to the lesser compensated folks.
   1. 'Illustrative of reality is the fact that the Leftist refrains from paying above the stated price for goods and services…he wants, as everyone else does, competition between said services. Only then does he stand a chance of getting a “fair” price. In his own enterprise, he strives to improve quality or lower price…’else his potential customers will take their business to others. Unless he has the power of government!' David Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge," chapter 32
   2. “Just for fun, find a Marxist professor- who scoffs at the idea that people work less if they lose the incentive of money- how he would feel if his name were not put on the academic articles he published. Instead the articles would be published under the name of another academic who needed the recognition more than he did. After all…he would still have the satisfaction of having written the articles….His completely reasonable response would be that he earned’ the right to have his name on those articles, and denying him that measure of earned success is viciously unfair. Exactly.” Arthur Brooks, “The Road to Freedom,” p. 26.

Isn't it remarkable that you can quote from a book? I want everyone to have access to food, water, medicine, shelter, clothing.. we have the capacity to provide all of this, and we produce enough resources to do it, albeit it's wasted in droves, such is the way of a society where surplus undermines the "profit." Really? You fail to understand the issue, it's a remarkable fact that the wealth continues to accumulate in the hands of a minority, wages have been stagnant, those in poverty struggle to get by. Oh really? Show me these marxist professors, and what a wonderful point which has literally no bearing, writing a paper has nothing to do with marxist theory. I am absolutely fine with crushing the capitalists and redistributing the virtually worthless currency to everyone needed to acquire food, which is also profited off of by the capitalists.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is referring to the most most paid CEO'S, as stated, and the inequality is completely real when looking at how much they receive compared to their workers, it's not necessarily a lie, the media from both sides pushes out misinformed information.

The OP proves....PROVES....exactly the opposite.

Get a calculator if you can't do the math.

The OP proves your point when looking at all CEO'S, but I like to focus on the major capitalists, which you want to ignore.

Let's prove you to be a fool and a liar...from your avi on.

1. If the Leftist is interested in a more ‘fair’ redistribution of wealth, let him vote for lower taxes, and then he can distribute his now larger share of his wealth to the lesser compensated folks.
   1. 'Illustrative of reality is the fact that the Leftist refrains from paying above the stated price for goods and services…he wants, as everyone else does, competition between said services. Only then does he stand a chance of getting a “fair” price. In his own enterprise, he strives to improve quality or lower price…’else his potential customers will take their business to others. Unless he has the power of government!' David Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge," chapter 32
   2. “Just for fun, find a Marxist professor- who scoffs at the idea that people work less if they lose the incentive of money- how he would feel if his name were not put on the academic articles he published. Instead the articles would be published under the name of another academic who needed the recognition more than he did. After all…he would still have the satisfaction of having written the articles….His completely reasonable response would be that he earned’ the right to have his name on those articles, and denying him that measure of earned success is viciously unfair. Exactly.” Arthur Brooks, “The Road to Freedom,” p. 26.

Isn't it remarkable that you can quote from a book? I want everyone to have access to food, water, medicine, shelter, clothing.. we have the capacity to provide all of this, and we produce enough resources to do it, albeit it's wasted in droves, such is the way of a society where surplus undermines the "profit." Really? You fail to understand the issue, it's a remarkable fact that the wealth continues to accumulate in the hands of a minority, wages have been stagnant, those in poverty struggle to get by. Oh really? Show me these marxist professors, and what a wonderful point which has literally no bearing, writing a paper has nothing to do with marxist theory. I am absolutely fine with crushing the capitalists and redistributing the virtually worthless currency to everyone needed to acquire food, which is also profited off of by the capitalists.

You miss the point, you moron.

I read books.

And study.

You should try it.

 

[Marxist]

Nonetheless, the economic trend is moving toward more concentrated wealth in the hands of fewer individuals and companies. Until that is turned around, there is a problem to be solved.

if my Countrymen should ever wish for the Honour of having among them a Gentry enormously wealthy, let them sell their Farms and pay rack'd Rents; the Scale of the Landlords will rise as that of the Tenants is depress'd who will soon become poor, tattered, dirty, and abject in Spirit. ...the Effect of this kind of Civil Society seems only to be, the depressing Multitudes below the Savage State that a few may be rais'd above it"
-- Benjamin Franklin; letter to Joshua Babcock (Jan. 13. 1772)

By "Nonetheless" you are tacitly agreeing that, again, I've belted one out of the park with this OP.

"100% accurate and dispositive" would have been appropriate.
But you're probably saving said adjectives for my next OP.

Wise.

Forbes may have some valid criticism of a particular study. Nonetheless, the wealth disparity increases, as does the disparity in political influence between monied interests and The People. That is no myth, and a real problem for anyone who isn't a fascist.

1. The critique of the trope is not from Forbes.
Read more carefully.

2. "...some valid criticism of a particular study."
Please....a little honesty, here.
The over-and-over over-the-top lie is not to be avoided.
"Do a Google search of the phrase “CEO to worker pay” and you’ll find 150,000 links to reports and articles that almost exclusively compare the salaries of a very small, statistically insignificant group of S&P500 or Fortune 500 CEOs to average worker pay."
When we consider all US CEOs and all US workers the CEO-to-worker pay ratio falls from 331 1 to below 4 1


3. "the wealth disparity increases, as does the disparity in political influence between monied interests and The People."
Spoken like a true Marxist.
The 'disparity' is totally meaningless.

"Even if Piketty’s worst case scenario played out, the human and societal cost of his prescriptions would far outweigh the perceived advantages.

A society that penalizes the successful for no other reason than to cause pain is hardly a society worth creating much less living in. In short, Piketty’s proposal is an exercise in cargo cult economics.

Piketty’s solution to the non-existent problem of wealth inequality would destroy not only wealth but economic mobility and risk taking. It would make us France."
Thomas Piketty Wealth Inequality and Cargo Cult Economics RedState


4. "...a real problem for anyone who isn't a fascist."
If only you had an education...you'd recognize that the Corporatism you claim to abjure is the very hallmark of fascism, socialism, FDR's New Deal, and Obama's policies.

Corporatism...the desire to form a joint venture between big business and big government.....and drive out small entrepreneurs and the middle class.

Wise up.

Both parties do that. Both are, to some degree, bought and paid for. That is the problem that I'm talking about.

Can't argue with that.

As a conservative, I feel like a political orphan.

But one party is clearly worse than the other...

So, I vote based on this axiom:
Let not the perfect be the enemy of the good.

I'm pretty sure one party is focused on

This is referring to the most most paid CEO'S, as stated, and the inequality is completely real when looking at how much they receive compared to their workers, it's not necessarily a lie, the media from both sides pushes out misinformed information.

The OP proves....PROVES....exactly the opposite.

Get a calculator if you can't do the math.

The OP proves your point when looking at all CEO'S, but I like to focus on the major capitalists, which you want to ignore.

Let's prove you to be a fool and a liar...from your avi on.

1. If the Leftist is interested in a more ‘fair’ redistribution of wealth, let him vote for lower taxes, and then he can distribute his now larger share of his wealth to the lesser compensated folks.
   1. 'Illustrative of reality is the fact that the Leftist refrains from paying above the stated price for goods and services…he wants, as everyone else does, competition between said services. Only then does he stand a chance of getting a “fair” price. In his own enterprise, he strives to improve quality or lower price…’else his potential customers will take their business to others. Unless he has the power of government!' David Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge," chapter 32
   2. “Just for fun, find a Marxist professor- who scoffs at the idea that people work less if they lose the incentive of money- how he would feel if his name were not put on the academic articles he published. Instead the articles would be published under the name of another academic who needed the recognition more than he did. After all…he would still have the satisfaction of having written the articles….His completely reasonable response would be that he earned’ the right to have his name on those articles, and denying him that measure of earned success is viciously unfair. Exactly.” Arthur Brooks, “The Road to Freedom,” p. 26.

Isn't it remarkable that you can quote from a book? I want everyone to have access to food, water, medicine, shelter, clothing.. we have the capacity to provide all of this, and we produce enough resources to do it, albeit it's wasted in droves, such is the way of a society where surplus undermines the "profit." Really? You fail to understand the issue, it's a remarkable fact that the wealth continues to accumulate in the hands of a minority, wages have been stagnant, those in poverty struggle to get by. Oh really? Show me these marxist professors, and what a wonderful point which has literally no bearing, writing a paper has nothing to do with marxist theory. I am absolutely fine with crushing the capitalists and redistributing the virtually worthless currency to everyone needed to acquire food, which is also profited off of by the capitalists.

You miss the point, you moron.

I read books.

And study.

You should try it.

I'm sorry, I read the quotes you've posted, and that book you mention is a joke, although I expect this from someone who actually quotes Ann Coulter. I read books aswell, I love marxist literature. Here is some good reading: Economic Manuscripts Capital Volume One

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. Liberal elites and their hand-wringing simpleton paracletes have been moaning about 'income inequality' in an attempt to convince those who function via envy and jealousy that they are VICTIMS!

The playbook never changes.

2. And as proof, they point to CEO salaries...and whine about how unfair the disparity is when compared to the 'average worker.'

"Report: CEOs Earn 331 Times As Much As Average Workers, 774 Times As Much As Minimum Wage Earners. With CEO compensation analysis season in full swing, the AFL-CIO released data this morning stating that American CEOs in 2013 earned an average of $11.7 million–an eye-popping 331 times the average worker's$35,293.Apr 15, 2014"
Report: CEOs Earn 331 Times As Much As Average ...
www.forbes.com/.../report-ceos-earn-331-times-as-much-as-average-...

a. Reading further, the report should give one pause:
"...the AFL-CIO released data this morning stating blah blah blah....."





3. "....this frequently cited AFL-CIO analysis of CEO pay is an example of “statistical bait-and-switch.” Or call it a “statistical canard” or a “statistical fallacy.” Here’s why:

The AFL-CIO is comparing: a) the average salary of a small sample (350) of the highest paid US CEOs, out of a total CEO population in 2013 of 248,760 CEOs, according to BLS data here, and b) the average worker pay for production and nonsupervisory workers, which represents only 8.5 million factory workers out of a total of 136.3 million payroll employees nationwide.

a. "...the AFL-CIO’s reported “CEO-to-worker pay ratio” of 331:1 is calculated by ignoring 99.9% of all US CEOs and 93.8% of all US workers.

b....more accurate description would be to call it a ratio of the pay for 350 of the highest-paid US CEOs to the pay of only 6.2% of the American labor force, or a ratio of an unrepresentative, infinitesimally small, and statistically insignificant group of CEOs to a small minority and unrepresentative group of US factory workers. It’s a completely bogus and meaningless comparison.



4. ....a more statistically valid comparison of CEO pay to average worker in the US pay by considering: a) theaverage annual pay of all US CEOs in every year from 2002 to 2013 (data here) and b) theaverage annual pay of all US workers in a comprehensive, national BLS dataset that includes workers in 22 major occupational groups, 94 minor occupational groups, 458 broad occupations, and 821 detailed occupations (132.6 million workers for 2013). Based on those data, the average CEO earned $178,400 last year, the average worker earned $46,440, and the “CEO-to-worker pay ratio” was 3.84:1,


5. ...the real CEO-to-worker pay ratio has not been increasing as is frequently reported, but instead has been remarkably constant over the last 12 years, averaging 3.8:1 in a tight range between a maximum of 3.89:1 in 2004 and a minimum of 3.69:1 in both 2005 and 2006.


6. In 2013, a full-time minimum wage worker earned $14,500, and therefore the CEO-to-minimum-wage-worker pay ratio was only 12.3:1 compared to the grossly inflated 774:1 ratio reported by the AFL-CIO."
When we consider all US CEOs and all US workers the CEO-to-worker pay ratio falls from 331 1 to below 4 1



Liberal and 'Liar" both begin with "L."
Coincidence?
Hardly.




So sorry that the above post involved numbers, facts, and logic.....

....which, of course, removes said content from the interests of Liberals, Progressives, and Democrats.

The AFL-CIO didn't lie. They showed their methodology.

 

[Marxist]

the average salary of a small sample (350) of the highest paid US CEOs...
Look at how much they make, and how many they employ.

 

[Brain357]

1. Liberal elites and their hand-wringing simpleton paracletes have been moaning about 'income inequality' in an attempt to convince those who function via envy and jealousy that they are VICTIMS!

The playbook never changes.

2. And as proof, they point to CEO salaries...and whine about how unfair the disparity is when compared to the 'average worker.'

"Report: CEOs Earn 331 Times As Much As Average Workers, 774 Times As Much As Minimum Wage Earners. With CEO compensation analysis season in full swing, the AFL-CIO released data this morning stating that American CEOs in 2013 earned an average of $11.7 million–an eye-popping 331 times the average worker's$35,293.Apr 15, 2014"
Report: CEOs Earn 331 Times As Much As Average ...
www.forbes.com/.../report-ceos-earn-331-times-as-much-as-average-...

a. Reading further, the report should give one pause:
"...the AFL-CIO released data this morning stating blah blah blah....."





3. "....this frequently cited AFL-CIO analysis of CEO pay is an example of “statistical bait-and-switch.” Or call it a “statistical canard” or a “statistical fallacy.” Here’s why:

The AFL-CIO is comparing: a) the average salary of a small sample (350) of the highest paid US CEOs, out of a total CEO population in 2013 of 248,760 CEOs, according to BLS data here, and b) the average worker pay for production and nonsupervisory workers, which represents only 8.5 million factory workers out of a total of 136.3 million payroll employees nationwide.

a. "...the AFL-CIO’s reported “CEO-to-worker pay ratio” of 331:1 is calculated by ignoring 99.9% of all US CEOs and 93.8% of all US workers.

b....more accurate description would be to call it a ratio of the pay for 350 of the highest-paid US CEOs to the pay of only 6.2% of the American labor force, or a ratio of an unrepresentative, infinitesimally small, and statistically insignificant group of CEOs to a small minority and unrepresentative group of US factory workers. It’s a completely bogus and meaningless comparison.



4. ....a more statistically valid comparison of CEO pay to average worker in the US pay by considering: a) theaverage annual pay of all US CEOs in every year from 2002 to 2013 (data here) and b) theaverage annual pay of all US workers in a comprehensive, national BLS dataset that includes workers in 22 major occupational groups, 94 minor occupational groups, 458 broad occupations, and 821 detailed occupations (132.6 million workers for 2013). Based on those data, the average CEO earned $178,400 last year, the average worker earned $46,440, and the “CEO-to-worker pay ratio” was 3.84:1,


5. ...the real CEO-to-worker pay ratio has not been increasing as is frequently reported, but instead has been remarkably constant over the last 12 years, averaging 3.8:1 in a tight range between a maximum of 3.89:1 in 2004 and a minimum of 3.69:1 in both 2005 and 2006.


6. In 2013, a full-time minimum wage worker earned $14,500, and therefore the CEO-to-minimum-wage-worker pay ratio was only 12.3:1 compared to the grossly inflated 774:1 ratio reported by the AFL-CIO."
When we consider all US CEOs and all US workers the CEO-to-worker pay ratio falls from 331 1 to below 4 1



Liberal and 'Liar" both begin with "L."
Coincidence?
Hardly.




So sorry that the above post involved numbers, facts, and logic.....

....which, of course, removes said content from the interests of Liberals, Progressives, and Democrats.

How many people are employed by the 350 companies?

I believe they always use 350 companies so it is accurate that ceos pay for the largest companies is growing.

 

[PoliticalChic]

By "Nonetheless" you are tacitly agreeing that, again, I've belted one out of the park with this OP.

"100% accurate and dispositive" would have been appropriate.
But you're probably saving said adjectives for my next OP.

Wise.

Forbes may have some valid criticism of a particular study. Nonetheless, the wealth disparity increases, as does the disparity in political influence between monied interests and The People. That is no myth, and a real problem for anyone who isn't a fascist.

1. The critique of the trope is not from Forbes.
Read more carefully.

2. "...some valid criticism of a particular study."
Please....a little honesty, here.
The over-and-over over-the-top lie is not to be avoided.
"Do a Google search of the phrase “CEO to worker pay” and you’ll find 150,000 links to reports and articles that almost exclusively compare the salaries of a very small, statistically insignificant group of S&P500 or Fortune 500 CEOs to average worker pay."
When we consider all US CEOs and all US workers the CEO-to-worker pay ratio falls from 331 1 to below 4 1


3. "the wealth disparity increases, as does the disparity in political influence between monied interests and The People."
Spoken like a true Marxist.
The 'disparity' is totally meaningless.

"Even if Piketty’s worst case scenario played out, the human and societal cost of his prescriptions would far outweigh the perceived advantages.

A society that penalizes the successful for no other reason than to cause pain is hardly a society worth creating much less living in. In short, Piketty’s proposal is an exercise in cargo cult economics.

Piketty’s solution to the non-existent problem of wealth inequality would destroy not only wealth but economic mobility and risk taking. It would make us France."
Thomas Piketty Wealth Inequality and Cargo Cult Economics RedState


4. "...a real problem for anyone who isn't a fascist."
If only you had an education...you'd recognize that the Corporatism you claim to abjure is the very hallmark of fascism, socialism, FDR's New Deal, and Obama's policies.

Corporatism...the desire to form a joint venture between big business and big government.....and drive out small entrepreneurs and the middle class.

Wise up.

Both parties do that. Both are, to some degree, bought and paid for. That is the problem that I'm talking about.

Can't argue with that.

As a conservative, I feel like a political orphan.

But one party is clearly worse than the other...

So, I vote based on this axiom:
Let not the perfect be the enemy of the good.

I'm pretty sure one party is focused on

The OP proves....PROVES....exactly the opposite.

Get a calculator if you can't do the math.

The OP proves your point when looking at all CEO'S, but I like to focus on the major capitalists, which you want to ignore.

Let's prove you to be a fool and a liar...from your avi on.

1. If the Leftist is interested in a more ‘fair’ redistribution of wealth, let him vote for lower taxes, and then he can distribute his now larger share of his wealth to the lesser compensated folks.
   1. 'Illustrative of reality is the fact that the Leftist refrains from paying above the stated price for goods and services…he wants, as everyone else does, competition between said services. Only then does he stand a chance of getting a “fair” price. In his own enterprise, he strives to improve quality or lower price…’else his potential customers will take their business to others. Unless he has the power of government!' David Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge," chapter 32
   2. “Just for fun, find a Marxist professor- who scoffs at the idea that people work less if they lose the incentive of money- how he would feel if his name were not put on the academic articles he published. Instead the articles would be published under the name of another academic who needed the recognition more than he did. After all…he would still have the satisfaction of having written the articles….His completely reasonable response would be that he earned’ the right to have his name on those articles, and denying him that measure of earned success is viciously unfair. Exactly.” Arthur Brooks, “The Road to Freedom,” p. 26.

Isn't it remarkable that you can quote from a book? I want everyone to have access to food, water, medicine, shelter, clothing.. we have the capacity to provide all of this, and we produce enough resources to do it, albeit it's wasted in droves, such is the way of a society where surplus undermines the "profit." Really? You fail to understand the issue, it's a remarkable fact that the wealth continues to accumulate in the hands of a minority, wages have been stagnant, those in poverty struggle to get by. Oh really? Show me these marxist professors, and what a wonderful point which has literally no bearing, writing a paper has nothing to do with marxist theory. I am absolutely fine with crushing the capitalists and redistributing the virtually worthless currency to everyone needed to acquire food, which is also profited off of by the capitalists.

You miss the point, you moron.

I read books.

And study.

You should try it.

I'm sorry, I read the quotes you've posted, and that book you mention is a joke, although I expect this from someone who actually quotes Ann Coulter. I read books aswell, I love marxist literature. Here is some good reading: Economic Manuscripts Capital Volume One

Well, then.....here's one you should read:

"The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression,"
by Jean-Louis Panné (Author), Andrzej Paczkowski (Author), & 6 more



Get to it as soon as you grow up.

 

[Wry Catcher]

1. Liberal elites and their hand-wringing simpleton paracletes have been moaning about 'income inequality' in an attempt to convince those who function via envy and jealousy that they are VICTIMS!

The playbook never changes.

2. And as proof, they point to CEO salaries...and whine about how unfair the disparity is when compared to the 'average worker.'

"Report: CEOs Earn 331 Times As Much As Average Workers, 774 Times As Much As Minimum Wage Earners. With CEO compensation analysis season in full swing, the AFL-CIO released data this morning stating that American CEOs in 2013 earned an average of $11.7 million–an eye-popping 331 times the average worker's$35,293.Apr 15, 2014"
Report: CEOs Earn 331 Times As Much As Average ...
www.forbes.com/.../report-ceos-earn-331-times-as-much-as-average-...

a. Reading further, the report should give one pause:
"...the AFL-CIO released data this morning stating blah blah blah....."





3. "....this frequently cited AFL-CIO analysis of CEO pay is an example of “statistical bait-and-switch.” Or call it a “statistical canard” or a “statistical fallacy.” Here’s why:

The AFL-CIO is comparing: a) the average salary of a small sample (350) of the highest paid US CEOs, out of a total CEO population in 2013 of 248,760 CEOs, according to BLS data here, and b) the average worker pay for production and nonsupervisory workers, which represents only 8.5 million factory workers out of a total of 136.3 million payroll employees nationwide.

a. "...the AFL-CIO’s reported “CEO-to-worker pay ratio” of 331:1 is calculated by ignoring 99.9% of all US CEOs and 93.8% of all US workers.

b....more accurate description would be to call it a ratio of the pay for 350 of the highest-paid US CEOs to the pay of only 6.2% of the American labor force, or a ratio of an unrepresentative, infinitesimally small, and statistically insignificant group of CEOs to a small minority and unrepresentative group of US factory workers. It’s a completely bogus and meaningless comparison.



4. ....a more statistically valid comparison of CEO pay to average worker in the US pay by considering: a) theaverage annual pay of all US CEOs in every year from 2002 to 2013 (data here) and b) theaverage annual pay of all US workers in a comprehensive, national BLS dataset that includes workers in 22 major occupational groups, 94 minor occupational groups, 458 broad occupations, and 821 detailed occupations (132.6 million workers for 2013). Based on those data, the average CEO earned $178,400 last year, the average worker earned $46,440, and the “CEO-to-worker pay ratio” was 3.84:1,


5. ...the real CEO-to-worker pay ratio has not been increasing as is frequently reported, but instead has been remarkably constant over the last 12 years, averaging 3.8:1 in a tight range between a maximum of 3.89:1 in 2004 and a minimum of 3.69:1 in both 2005 and 2006.


6. In 2013, a full-time minimum wage worker earned $14,500, and therefore the CEO-to-minimum-wage-worker pay ratio was only 12.3:1 compared to the grossly inflated 774:1 ratio reported by the AFL-CIO."
When we consider all US CEOs and all US workers the CEO-to-worker pay ratio falls from 331 1 to below 4 1



Liberal and 'Liar" both begin with "L."
Coincidence?
Hardly.




So sorry that the above post involved numbers, facts, and logic.....

....which, of course, removes said content from the interests of Liberals, Progressives, and Democrats.

The data was released as part of AFL-CIO PayWatch 2014, which focuses on summary compensation and highlights worker narratives from five companies– including Wal-Mart, Darden RestaurantsDRI +0.59%, and T-Mobile– known for low worker wages and high executive compensation.

“People who earn minimum wage, for instance, can’t afford cell phones from T-Mobile or dinner at Red Lobster or the Olive Garden, both of which are owned by Darden Restaurants,” said AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka in a statement from the organization.

“America’s CEOs—as exemplified by the individuals of these companies—are cannibalizing their own consumer base.”

All posted and linked in the link. One reason why I must repeat myself again, we must begin to save Capitalism from the Greed of the Capitalists. Of course our resident Narcissist and the OC Disordered author of the OP will consider any effort to reign in the Capitalists is Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Communism, Fascism and Statism at work.

 

[Marxist]

1. Liberal elites and their hand-wringing simpleton paracletes have been moaning about 'income inequality' in an attempt to convince those who function via envy and jealousy that they are VICTIMS!

The playbook never changes.

2. And as proof, they point to CEO salaries...and whine about how unfair the disparity is when compared to the 'average worker.'

"Report: CEOs Earn 331 Times As Much As Average Workers, 774 Times As Much As Minimum Wage Earners. With CEO compensation analysis season in full swing, the AFL-CIO released data this morning stating that American CEOs in 2013 earned an average of $11.7 million–an eye-popping 331 times the average worker's$35,293.Apr 15, 2014"
Report: CEOs Earn 331 Times As Much As Average ...
www.forbes.com/.../report-ceos-earn-331-times-as-much-as-average-...

a. Reading further, the report should give one pause:
"...the AFL-CIO released data this morning stating blah blah blah....."





3. "....this frequently cited AFL-CIO analysis of CEO pay is an example of “statistical bait-and-switch.” Or call it a “statistical canard” or a “statistical fallacy.” Here’s why:

The AFL-CIO is comparing: a) the average salary of a small sample (350) of the highest paid US CEOs, out of a total CEO population in 2013 of 248,760 CEOs, according to BLS data here, and b) the average worker pay for production and nonsupervisory workers, which represents only 8.5 million factory workers out of a total of 136.3 million payroll employees nationwide.

a. "...the AFL-CIO’s reported “CEO-to-worker pay ratio” of 331:1 is calculated by ignoring 99.9% of all US CEOs and 93.8% of all US workers.

b....more accurate description would be to call it a ratio of the pay for 350 of the highest-paid US CEOs to the pay of only 6.2% of the American labor force, or a ratio of an unrepresentative, infinitesimally small, and statistically insignificant group of CEOs to a small minority and unrepresentative group of US factory workers. It’s a completely bogus and meaningless comparison.



4. ....a more statistically valid comparison of CEO pay to average worker in the US pay by considering: a) theaverage annual pay of all US CEOs in every year from 2002 to 2013 (data here) and b) theaverage annual pay of all US workers in a comprehensive, national BLS dataset that includes workers in 22 major occupational groups, 94 minor occupational groups, 458 broad occupations, and 821 detailed occupations (132.6 million workers for 2013). Based on those data, the average CEO earned $178,400 last year, the average worker earned $46,440, and the “CEO-to-worker pay ratio” was 3.84:1,


5. ...the real CEO-to-worker pay ratio has not been increasing as is frequently reported, but instead has been remarkably constant over the last 12 years, averaging 3.8:1 in a tight range between a maximum of 3.89:1 in 2004 and a minimum of 3.69:1 in both 2005 and 2006.


6. In 2013, a full-time minimum wage worker earned $14,500, and therefore the CEO-to-minimum-wage-worker pay ratio was only 12.3:1 compared to the grossly inflated 774:1 ratio reported by the AFL-CIO."
When we consider all US CEOs and all US workers the CEO-to-worker pay ratio falls from 331 1 to below 4 1



Liberal and 'Liar" both begin with "L."
Coincidence?
Hardly.




So sorry that the above post involved numbers, facts, and logic.....

....which, of course, removes said content from the interests of Liberals, Progressives, and Democrats.

The data was released as part of AFL-CIO PayWatch 2014, which focuses on summary compensation and highlights worker narratives from five companies– including Wal-Mart, Darden RestaurantsDRI +0.59%, and T-Mobile– known for low worker wages and high executive compensation.

“People who earn minimum wage, for instance, can’t afford cell phones from T-Mobile or dinner at Red Lobster or the Olive Garden, both of which are owned by Darden Restaurants,” said AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka in a statement from the organization.

“America’s CEOs—as exemplified by the individuals of these companies—are cannibalizing their own consumer base.”

All posted and linked in the link. One reason why I must repeat myself again, we must begin to save Capitalism from the Greed of the Capitalists. Of course our resident Narcissist and the OC Disordered author of the OP will consider any effort to reign in the Capitalists is Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Communism, Fascism and Statism at work.

Why can't it be MLM?

 

[Marxist]

Forbes may have some valid criticism of a particular study. Nonetheless, the wealth disparity increases, as does the disparity in political influence between monied interests and The People. That is no myth, and a real problem for anyone who isn't a fascist.

1. The critique of the trope is not from Forbes.
Read more carefully.

2. "...some valid criticism of a particular study."
Please....a little honesty, here.
The over-and-over over-the-top lie is not to be avoided.
"Do a Google search of the phrase “CEO to worker pay” and you’ll find 150,000 links to reports and articles that almost exclusively compare the salaries of a very small, statistically insignificant group of S&P500 or Fortune 500 CEOs to average worker pay."
When we consider all US CEOs and all US workers the CEO-to-worker pay ratio falls from 331 1 to below 4 1


3. "the wealth disparity increases, as does the disparity in political influence between monied interests and The People."
Spoken like a true Marxist.
The 'disparity' is totally meaningless.

"Even if Piketty’s worst case scenario played out, the human and societal cost of his prescriptions would far outweigh the perceived advantages.

A society that penalizes the successful for no other reason than to cause pain is hardly a society worth creating much less living in. In short, Piketty’s proposal is an exercise in cargo cult economics.

Piketty’s solution to the non-existent problem of wealth inequality would destroy not only wealth but economic mobility and risk taking. It would make us France."
Thomas Piketty Wealth Inequality and Cargo Cult Economics RedState


4. "...a real problem for anyone who isn't a fascist."
If only you had an education...you'd recognize that the Corporatism you claim to abjure is the very hallmark of fascism, socialism, FDR's New Deal, and Obama's policies.

Corporatism...the desire to form a joint venture between big business and big government.....and drive out small entrepreneurs and the middle class.

Wise up.

Both parties do that. Both are, to some degree, bought and paid for. That is the problem that I'm talking about.

Can't argue with that.

As a conservative, I feel like a political orphan.

But one party is clearly worse than the other...

So, I vote based on this axiom:
Let not the perfect be the enemy of the good.

I'm pretty sure one party is focused on

The OP proves your point when looking at all CEO'S, but I like to focus on the major capitalists, which you want to ignore.

Let's prove you to be a fool and a liar...from your avi on.

1. If the Leftist is interested in a more ‘fair’ redistribution of wealth, let him vote for lower taxes, and then he can distribute his now larger share of his wealth to the lesser compensated folks.
   1. 'Illustrative of reality is the fact that the Leftist refrains from paying above the stated price for goods and services…he wants, as everyone else does, competition between said services. Only then does he stand a chance of getting a “fair” price. In his own enterprise, he strives to improve quality or lower price…’else his potential customers will take their business to others. Unless he has the power of government!' David Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge," chapter 32
   2. “Just for fun, find a Marxist professor- who scoffs at the idea that people work less if they lose the incentive of money- how he would feel if his name were not put on the academic articles he published. Instead the articles would be published under the name of another academic who needed the recognition more than he did. After all…he would still have the satisfaction of having written the articles….His completely reasonable response would be that he earned’ the right to have his name on those articles, and denying him that measure of earned success is viciously unfair. Exactly.” Arthur Brooks, “The Road to Freedom,” p. 26.

Isn't it remarkable that you can quote from a book? I want everyone to have access to food, water, medicine, shelter, clothing.. we have the capacity to provide all of this, and we produce enough resources to do it, albeit it's wasted in droves, such is the way of a society where surplus undermines the "profit." Really? You fail to understand the issue, it's a remarkable fact that the wealth continues to accumulate in the hands of a minority, wages have been stagnant, those in poverty struggle to get by. Oh really? Show me these marxist professors, and what a wonderful point which has literally no bearing, writing a paper has nothing to do with marxist theory. I am absolutely fine with crushing the capitalists and redistributing the virtually worthless currency to everyone needed to acquire food, which is also profited off of by the capitalists.

You miss the point, you moron.

I read books.

And study.

You should try it.

I'm sorry, I read the quotes you've posted, and that book you mention is a joke, although I expect this from someone who actually quotes Ann Coulter. I read books aswell, I love marxist literature. Here is some good reading: Economic Manuscripts Capital Volume One

Well, then.....here's one you should read:

"The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression,"
by Jean-Louis Panné (Author), Andrzej Paczkowski (Author), & 6 more



Get to it as soon as you grow up.

Oh, what a wonderful book, over-inflating numbers, numerous mistakes, and having a completely biased perspective, completely ignoring the horrors done by capitalist nations. You should stop desperately searching for books and learn to have actual discussion. The Black Book of Communism Debunked
Again, Mao/stalin.. they did horrible things, but you have to realize what was happening, and realize trying to blame communism is hilarious.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. The critique of the trope is not from Forbes.
Read more carefully.

2. "...some valid criticism of a particular study."
Please....a little honesty, here.
The over-and-over over-the-top lie is not to be avoided.
"Do a Google search of the phrase “CEO to worker pay” and you’ll find 150,000 links to reports and articles that almost exclusively compare the salaries of a very small, statistically insignificant group of S&P500 or Fortune 500 CEOs to average worker pay."
When we consider all US CEOs and all US workers the CEO-to-worker pay ratio falls from 331 1 to below 4 1


3. "the wealth disparity increases, as does the disparity in political influence between monied interests and The People."
Spoken like a true Marxist.
The 'disparity' is totally meaningless.

"Even if Piketty’s worst case scenario played out, the human and societal cost of his prescriptions would far outweigh the perceived advantages.

A society that penalizes the successful for no other reason than to cause pain is hardly a society worth creating much less living in. In short, Piketty’s proposal is an exercise in cargo cult economics.

Piketty’s solution to the non-existent problem of wealth inequality would destroy not only wealth but economic mobility and risk taking. It would make us France."
Thomas Piketty Wealth Inequality and Cargo Cult Economics RedState


4. "...a real problem for anyone who isn't a fascist."
If only you had an education...you'd recognize that the Corporatism you claim to abjure is the very hallmark of fascism, socialism, FDR's New Deal, and Obama's policies.

Corporatism...the desire to form a joint venture between big business and big government.....and drive out small entrepreneurs and the middle class.

Wise up.

Both parties do that. Both are, to some degree, bought and paid for. That is the problem that I'm talking about.

Can't argue with that.

As a conservative, I feel like a political orphan.

But one party is clearly worse than the other...

So, I vote based on this axiom:
Let not the perfect be the enemy of the good.

I'm pretty sure one party is focused on

Let's prove you to be a fool and a liar...from your avi on.

1. If the Leftist is interested in a more ‘fair’ redistribution of wealth, let him vote for lower taxes, and then he can distribute his now larger share of his wealth to the lesser compensated folks.
   1. 'Illustrative of reality is the fact that the Leftist refrains from paying above the stated price for goods and services…he wants, as everyone else does, competition between said services. Only then does he stand a chance of getting a “fair” price. In his own enterprise, he strives to improve quality or lower price…’else his potential customers will take their business to others. Unless he has the power of government!' David Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge," chapter 32
   2. “Just for fun, find a Marxist professor- who scoffs at the idea that people work less if they lose the incentive of money- how he would feel if his name were not put on the academic articles he published. Instead the articles would be published under the name of another academic who needed the recognition more than he did. After all…he would still have the satisfaction of having written the articles….His completely reasonable response would be that he earned’ the right to have his name on those articles, and denying him that measure of earned success is viciously unfair. Exactly.” Arthur Brooks, “The Road to Freedom,” p. 26.

Isn't it remarkable that you can quote from a book? I want everyone to have access to food, water, medicine, shelter, clothing.. we have the capacity to provide all of this, and we produce enough resources to do it, albeit it's wasted in droves, such is the way of a society where surplus undermines the "profit." Really? You fail to understand the issue, it's a remarkable fact that the wealth continues to accumulate in the hands of a minority, wages have been stagnant, those in poverty struggle to get by. Oh really? Show me these marxist professors, and what a wonderful point which has literally no bearing, writing a paper has nothing to do with marxist theory. I am absolutely fine with crushing the capitalists and redistributing the virtually worthless currency to everyone needed to acquire food, which is also profited off of by the capitalists.

You miss the point, you moron.

I read books.

And study.

You should try it.

I'm sorry, I read the quotes you've posted, and that book you mention is a joke, although I expect this from someone who actually quotes Ann Coulter. I read books aswell, I love marxist literature. Here is some good reading: Economic Manuscripts Capital Volume One

Well, then.....here's one you should read:

"The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression,"
by Jean-Louis Panné (Author), Andrzej Paczkowski (Author), & 6 more



Get to it as soon as you grow up.

Oh, what a wonderful book, over-inflating numbers, numerous mistakes, and having a completely biased perspective, completely ignoring the horrors done by capitalist nations. You should stop desperately searching for books and learn to have actual discussion. The Black Book of Communism Debunked
Again, Mao/stalin.. they did horrible things, but you have to realize what was happening, and realize trying to blame communism is hilarious.

"...to blame communism is hilarious."

Your education continues:

1. "Early socialists publically advocated genocide, in the 19th and 20th centuries. It first appeared in Marx's journal, Rheinishe Zeitung, in January of 1849. When the socialist class war happens, there will be primitive societies in Europe, two stages behind- not even capitalist yet- the Basques, the Bretons, the Scottish Highlanders, the Serbs, and others he calls 'racial trash,' and they will have to be destroyed because, being two stages behind in the class struggle, it will be impossible to bring them up to being revolutionary."
George Watson, Historian, Cambridge University.

a. "The classes and races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way...they must perish in the revolutionary holocaust."
Karl Marx, People's Paper, April 16, 1856, Journal of the History of Idea, 1981

b. "Before Marx, no other European thinker publically advocated racial extermination. He was the first."
George Watson.




2. A year after Lenin's death, 1924, the NYTimes published a small article about a newly established party in Germany, the National Socialist Labor Party, which "...persists in believing that Lenin and Hitler can be compared or contrasted...Dr. Goebell's....assertion that Lenin was the greatest man second only to Hitler....and that the difference between communism and the Hitler faith was very slight...."
November 27, 1925.