Example 1 - The Typical Neo-Communist Trap, Zero-Sum-Game Fallacy Plus Emotional Idealism and Outright Hate

There is a really trendy video going around again, the same old thing; "Wealth inequality":

Rule 1:
Do you accept the Framework?
1) Wealth IN-equality is a bad thing.
2) The classice zero-sum-game fallacy i.e. there is a fixed absolute amount of money.
3) The "Ideal" is accepted and the same for everyone, and it is desirable.
4) The notion, based on the above fallacies that a factor of 20 should be the maximum amount anyone can make.
5) That "fair" is good, as defined by the ambiguous appeal to emotion in 1),2),3), and 4) above.

1. Already the title "Wealth inequality" is framed
• What is inequality?
• It implies an insidious jealousy of anyone that makes more money than you
• Does everyone have to make exactly the same amount?
• It implies we should all be equal i.e. same paycheck!
2. The classic zero sum game fallacy
• "The money" and "The wealth"
• This implies that it is not your money or my money, therefore 'OK' to take it.
• If you put your money in a bank, does it become 'the money'?
• Can I take 'the money' from your account because you have some and I don't?
• Even the way the graphic is made, it moves the money from the poor to the rich, implying it was taken from them.
3. "Ideal" is repeatedly used throughout the video.
• Implying that the ideal is, well just that, the ideal.
• The problem with that is someone else's ideal confines another person's freedom
• What if I have another ideal?
• What happens when my idea of utopia is different than yours?
4. "About twenty times"
• This was taken directly from C.Felber's Neo-communist book "Die Gemeinwohlökonomie" , the Common-Good-Economy.  He proposes a cap on wages so that nobody can make twenty times more than any other person. This is pure communism, by definition.
• This is also another naked example of class hate, targeting the CEO of a company. Are the sports stars somehow more worthy of 'earning' their money playing games?
5. Appeal to Authority - Logical Fallacy#1 and Texas Sharpshooter fallacy#2
• "A Harvard Business professor and economist asked more than five-thousand people..."
• Who cares if a Harvard professor made the statistic? Is it better or...
• "...asked more than five-thousand..." is it skewed because only five-thousand people were polled?  I'm sure if that professor would have asked five thousand 'other' people the results might have been different. However five-thousand seems to be enough to warrant 'truth', especially coming from a Harvard business professor.
6. "Ideal Distribution" and "more equitable"
• Fallacy #3 known as 'Ambiguity'.
• Probably the number one tactic of the neo-communists.
7. At 0:43.00 sec "the fact that  it is skewed unfairly"
• Again, a simple conclusion and again, 'unfairly' meaning that those evil rich people shouldn't have 'the money'.
8. At 3:33 "The poor are starting to suffer"
• Implying what? They just started to suffer? Because of who?
• "Sadly, this isn't even close..." was that a judgement on the speakers part? Assuming that his ideal of course is 'correct'.
9. At 4:22 "The top 1 percent -- this guy..."
• This is such blatant class envy and hate and finger pointing it's not worthy of watching anymore. A childish jealousy video fraught with hate and envy:
• "this guy gets a whole new column, because HE won't fit on my chart"
10. "The richest 1% take home almost a quarter of THE NATIONAL income.."
• Again, 'The wealth' and 'The income' do not exist, that is someone's pay, like yours and mine.
• 'The national income' implies again ad nauseum the zero-sum-game fallacy.
11. Throughout the entire video you are forced to accept the framework of a zero-sum-game fallacy.
• "Their share" implying once again a pie - zero-sum-game that they have stolen from.
• "over half THE COUNTRY'S stocks..." -- there it is again, as if the country's stocks don't belong to people but 'the people'.
• "we certainly don't have to go all the way to socialism to find something that is fair for hard working America..." -- again, the neo-communist's favorite word to hide behind is 'FAIR'.
• And maybe Begging the Question fallacy, for what does the speaker propose to make things fair? Throughout the whole video one is lead to believe it is unfair that the 1% have all of 'the money' and that 'ideal' would be a spread of 'the wealth' with the top earners making 20 times more than the poorest. The only way to do that, in by this speaker's own framework is to take 'the wealth' from the 1% and 'distribute it fairly'. That's called theft, or at best a progressive tax which effectively caps the income of people who can earn more. Once again nothing but a pure communist argument out of Karl Marx's book and probably also Adam Smith's book 'The Labor Theory of Value'.

It is frustrating that people keep coming up with the same old jealous arguments and repackage them with different words and then say "I've got something new". It indeed is a circular argument in which you constantly have to remind them of the real world results that are everywhere for us to see. But then they will retort with, "Well now we gotta build the 'good' communism!"

Is there such a thing?

Is there 'good' nazism?

Is there 'good' rape?

Take heed and pay very close attention to the tactics above, the younger generation with less experience and more heart falls prey to these slick re-wordings every time. It seems every ten years a new generation is coming up with something 'new' and it's just the same old communist crap with new names.

Right now it's C.Felber with the Gemeinwohlökonomie, who is it going to be next year with his 'new' system?