Get this… Self-styled “radical” Cornell Law professor Saule Omarova, Joe Biden’s pick to become “Comptroller of the Currency,” recently Tweeted reckless and ignorant praise of the Soviet Marxist system that trained her throughout the 1980s:
Until I came to the US, I couldn’t imagine that things like gender pay gap still existed in today’s world. Say what you will about old USSR, there was no gender pay gap there. Market doesn’t always ‘know best.’
Until I came to the US, I couldn't imagine that things like gender pay gap still existed in today's world. Say what you will about old USSR, there was no gender pay gap there. Market doesn't always "know best." https://t.co/vvnx9DZICN— Saule Omarova (@STOmarova) March 31, 2019
Which is to say that she thinks it is not “best” for free people to make decisions for their own lives – precisely what the free market does. All other systems are based on forms of political coercion and the replacement of personal values with government diktats and political game-rigging.
But this makes sense for a woman trained in the insane Marxist ideology whose followers killed an estimated 61 million people in the USSR between 1917 and 1987.
She graduated from Moscow State University in 1989 on the Lenin Personal Academic Scholarship. Thirty years later, she still believes the Soviet economic system was superior, and that U.S. banking should be remade in the Gosbank’s image.
Will anyone in Congress or the Biden camp ask this nominee to disavow her “academic” scholarship and denounce Vladimir Lenin, who called for the Marxist slaughter in October of 1917, even before he, Stalin, and Trotsky officially took power in November, of that year?
Doubtful, because, her very nomination to this position indicates philosophical agreement with, and promotion of, her Marxism.
And, of course, it is unlikely that anyone in DC – including most members of the GOP – will speak truth to power against her blithe, pop-media-coddled, reiteration of the “gender pay gap” mythology.
Simply put, there is no gender pay gap in the US. Men and women often choose completely different lines of work – choices that are not “products of a sexist structure of social expectations.” Men enter riskier professions, work longer hours, and do not leave jobs to have kids – factors that all are based on personal choices and are not foist on people.
As economist John Phelan noted in 2018, for the Foundation for Economic Education, the methodology behind the “gender wage gap” myth:
…ignores the fact that according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), in 2017, men worked an average of 8.05 hours in an average day compared to 7.24 hours for women.
And there are differences in the type of work men and women do, which bears on their earnings. BLS data shows that, in 2017, 94 percent of child day care services workers were female, the highest percentage of any category, and that the mean annual wage of childcare workers was $23,760. By contrast, just 2.9 percent of workers in logging were women, the lowest share of any category, and the mean annual wage here was $42,310.
For more details, fantasists like the Biden crew can read the 2018 study by Harvard’s Valentin Bolotnyy and Natalia Emanuel, a study that even looked at unionized transit workers in Boston to note:
We see women prioritizing schedule convenience more than men in other respects. As operators move up the seniority ladder and consequently have a greater pool of schedules to pick from, women move away from working weekends, holidays, and split shifts more than men. Women are more likely than men to take less desirable routes (defined as those routes along which men experience more accidents) to avoid the less preferable schedules.
As I have reported time and time again, the gender wage gap can be attributed almost entirely to the different choices men and women make in their careers, and what can’t be explained that way cannot conclusively be linked to any kind of discrimination. Thus, it is not a “wage” gap, but an earnings gap, because it is measured by the median or average amount of money a woman earns at the end of the year versus the median or average amount a man earns.
Schow also reminds readers that even the leftist Atlantic admitted in 2018:
Comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges, women earn close to what men earn: Women in similar workplaces with similar titles and similar credentials make pretty much what their male peers do, whether they are fast-food employees making close to the minimum wage or corporate executives making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.
But the mythology of the “gender wage gap” sounds very “justicey” and falls in line with the anti-free-market, anti-private property “David vs. Goliath” rhetoric of Karl Marx. Something Ms. Omarova appears to embrace.
Omarova later conceded that while there may not have been perfect gender equality in the Soviet Union, it did get one thing right: ‘people’s salaries were set [by the state] in a gender-blind manner. And all women got very generous maternity benefits,’ both of which ‘are still a pipe dream in our society!’
Ah, yes. Have the state set prices – for everything – and see how well supply can fulfill demand. Such paternalistic price-setting creates shortages and overages and problems for consumers, who are not allowed to show their interests by freely engaging in commerce.
And such diktats lead to gaming of the system, as the Harvard researchers discovered within the Massachusetts transit system (MBTA), men found crafty ways to use the federal “Family and Medical Leave Act” FMLA to their advantage:
We find that male operators exploit FMLA to game the system: by substituting unpaid hours for overtime hours, they actually increase their earnings. When faced with having to work a weekend shift in a particular week, men take more unpaid time off that week than in non-weekend shift weeks. They also, however, work more overtime hours in weekend-shift weeks, effectively trading off hours paid at regular wages for overtime hours paid at 1.5 times their wage. We see the same behavior during weeks when a male operator has to work a holiday shift or days when he has a split shift. Having to work an inconvenient shift also drives women to take more FMLA hours and to work more overtime, but their additional overtime hours fall short of making up for the lost pay.
But Omarova not only seems to like these unconstitutional, misused, federal mandates, the Biden nominee wants to further centralize the banking system.
Omarova’s goal is the eventual elimination of private banking and the establishment of the Federal Reserve as the nation’s only bank.
As a lecturer in the field of free-market economics, I should note that private banking doesn’t exist in the US, because the Federal Reserve has the monopoly on the issuance of currency, and the monopoly has been granted to it by the federal government, which in turn, claims the power over money. The Constitution gives Congress the power to “coin money” and affix the value thereof – but it does not grant Congress the power to create the ONLY form of money we can exchange. If we had a truly competitive money and banking system, REAL, private banks (not the government-created Federal Reserve) would be able to issue competing forms of currency backed by stores of gold and real assets. We could check on which currency was sound, and we would be drawn to trade with those, not with fiat currency made up by a government granted bank cartel.
The Hill’s Kristin Tate summed-up the danger of Omaraova’s plan to further centralize the already corrupted banking system:
Taken to its extreme, this would mean that the Federal Reserve, acting on behalf of Washington, could become the only place citizens could deposit their money. Such a massive transformation would be accomplished by replacing consumer deposits into a new digital dollar, held by the Fed.
And that’s what the Bidenistas want. They do not want any American escaping the surveillance and control of the feds, and they might take it to the extreme seen in China, which applies an expiration date to its new digital Yuan, granting the government the power to ramp up or down consumer demand at any time.
Is this really the kind of person the US government wants to put into the “Comptroller” slot – a Marxist?
Perhaps that statement answers itself, since, in his “Communist Manifesto” Marx called for a central, money-controlling bank, and US leftists have happily obliged.
The idea that the government can have ANY hand in private market affairs shows us that it is inclined towards Marxism, regardless of which bureaucrats run it.