, cbae wrote

Even if the statements are true, which is not the case, how is any of that socialism? Where is he advocating social or government ownership of the means of production?

And you didn't answer any of my questions. Do you see nothing wrong with the egregious wealth imbalance that we are witnessing today? What do you think the average CEO in the US makes compared to his/her own workers?

Socialism is much broader then that single definition you have given. One can also consider bringing free institutions under government control, socialism. And if you look at your definition, 49% of the Dutch GDP is spent by government, US is about 40%, that should be a good indication that we have socialist governments. 

Let me ask you this then;

How much would the workers make without CEO's?

Z E R O !

Flip the question around, how much would a CEO make without any employees?

Z E R O !

They need one another, so it's in their best interest to keep each other happy. It's the symbiotic relationship between capital and labor, one cannot exist without the other.

When government sticks it's nose in and provides favors to the one party at the expense of the other, this tension between capital and labor becomes out of balance. Then you end up with either over paid or under achieving CEOs and employees. The more you twist and turn, the more out of balance it becomes and you end up where we are now.

It's staring you right in the face, yet you do not wish to look it into it's eyes.

But it doesn't really matter, the US has to come up with several hundreds trillion dollars in the next 50 years to pay off all it's debts. So the whole thing will come crashing down soon anyway, maybe just after the EU crumbles.