, Maddus Mattus wrote

*snip*

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. 

"Spent by government" means corporations are on the receiving end of the transaction. How is that socialism?

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.

It would be good if it were a symbiotic relationship. The truth is, it's more like a parasitic relationship. Take a wild guess which is the host and which is the parasite.

And you don't honestly think CEOs represent the capital, do you? You're not even using the right term here. A CEO is neither labor nor capital. Again, a CEO is OVERHEAD.

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.

You're now blaming the fat cat salaries that CEOs receive on government? Bwahaha. You've really lost it. Seriously.

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.

Maybe this will happen. You know who has the most to lose if everybody has to start again from zero? Unfortunately, greed is so blinding it's difficult to see that the 1%'s unrelenting desire to keep all of their wealth is only slitting their own throats. In a game, when one person ends up with all the money, the money ends up being worthless. Because the GAME ENDs. We need to do whatever we can to keep the game going. And if that means "the government has to take the money by force" from the wealthy, then so be it. It's really for their own good.