Liked your summary of management tiers and remuneration multiples John. Also the statement 'excess income can only be wasted on foolish consumption or on helping to cause asset value inflation, to the disadvantage of those already disadvantaged....'. This has indeed happened it is the crux of the malaise we have in Western society.

I have no problems with multiples of 6-8 for senior management provided that they are effective. But multiples of 50 plus for CEO's, directors and some sports/ celebrity types just because 'the market justifies it' are to put it mildly 'over the top'. It is in fact a 'race to the top of the pig trough'.

Other unsubstantiated 'fuzzy logic' has also been used as an excuse for excessive remuneration. For example, 'it's necessary to make the company profitable/ competetive'. Exorbitant payments to executives did not reduce subsantially when banks were bailed out and many companies' share prices dropped. Also this infers that the hundreds of lesser managers and staff on salary multiples of less than about 8 have nothing to do with the effectivenss of a firm.

Another myth is 'the top CEO's and directors have more responsibility/ take more risk' I ask how many of them take a real hit (like going broke, having no income or going to jail) for wrong decisions or poor performance? Instead, they usually pass the buck down the line. If dismissed, many receive golden handshakes of millions - plenty to retire comfortably on and never have to work again.

These people are effectively responsible to no-one but a few majority shareholders who share their greed for excess money. I would argue that it is the job of governments to legislate, bringing the 1% who who take 25% of a nation's income under law like the rest of us. They must be accountable to do reasonable day's work for a reasonable day's pay like the rest of us are. Failure to do so will mean continuing, worsening boom/bust cycles and increasing pools of dispossessed people until eventually there may be no option but revolution.