“Alternative values embrace the ideals of a common humanity”.

That sums up your approach, Stuart, support for ideals which produce centres of corruption like the United Nations, which rip off huge amounts of taxpayers funds, and give nothing in return.

Private corporations have to justify their existence, or fail. The entities based on ideals use their failure as a basis to demand more funding to waste on their nonsense.

Greiner has ability, which is why he is good value. Carr is politically adept, and has inflicted himself on us despite his wrongheadedness and lack of ability.

Generally the most able people attain the top positions. This changed in the 70s when academics were able to convince politicians that academic qualification had the same value as experience.

Our corporations are now infested with impractical academics, to the detriment of the corporations, but fortunately the bottom-up method, whereby people start at the bottom and reach the top through ability rather than letters after their name, is alive and well.

These people are rewarded for their expertise, as they rightly should be, and fortunately, are able to resist the efforts of people like you, Stuart, and of the Occupy Movement.

Nevertheless, some of the participants in the Movement, despite an unfortunate start, could become useful citizens. People like Stuart, encouraging their idealistic nonsense, do not help their rehabilitation.

Senior academic though he is, Rees' article is typical of the occupy movement which he refers to, in that it shows a distinct lack of insight, or knowledge of the corporate world.

He cites the article about former NSW premier Nick Greiner which did not give any information that was new or surprising. Greiner has been sitting on any board that would have him for decades now, and whether the money he's getting is commesurate with the risks he is running or the skills he is bringing to the job is an interesting question. Rees may be surprised to find that QBE directors are not picked off park benches. They are expected to know stuff.

As for the half million in expenses last year, as an ex-Premier Greiner is entitled to an office and assistants at tax payer expense. He would also have to pay a very substantial premium in directors and officers insurance (note the reference to risks above). So does that half million include any of that, which I suspect it does, and how much is left over for the rorting which Rees imagines takes place?

The Occupy movement is notoriously clueless. While there is certainly a problem in executives claiming extraordinary remuneration, the occupy movement has no idea how to go about fixing that problem. They could even be making things worse.

<The Occupy movement is notoriously clueless>
This is an ungenerous truth; at least, they are naive.
After decades of the actual and ideological ascendency of neoliberalism (extraordinary), dissenting groups are bound to be motley, even embarrassing, but they're the first stirrings after a long slumber, the first rude awakening that tyranny is alive and prospering in soiled sheeps' clothing. They're like economic Greenies--no respectability--but that's what sets them apart from the oi oi oi of the union fascists: They're protesting against the concept and lived-reality of inequality, and not just the size of their portion.
I'm with you Stuart and no rehabilitation for me.

Too true Prof. Rees ---The notion that these managers are worth 100 or 200 times the average wage is absurd and just plain wrong. In fact there is very little correlation between excessive income and good outcomes. This is just a racket where those with the keys to the counting house keep the mugs out. And also keep them in ignorance of their exclusion. Change must come.

CEOs, good ones, are worth much more than one or two hundred times the average wage, without good management there will be no average wage to earn. Right now we have a few prime examples of why.

Kodak going into receivership is the most recent. A hugely profitable company, with technology developments far beyond their competition, but poor management has seen it die. Singer sewing machine was another where they controlled the industry, but poor management has seen then die.

Perhaps they did not pay enough for good management, or even worse, did not know what good management was. One difficulty is knowing good management when you see it.

Those running the US auto industry 30 or more years ago sure weren't. Things were great, profits flowed, so they gave into union demands continually, to keep the lines rolling. But they had granted such excessively generous conditions they must ultimately go broke.

I don't mind a few CEOs & ex premiers ripping us off a bit, I'm much more worried about a hugely expanded academia, full of second & third graders, with feather beds stretching as far as the eye can see. They may only be paid 2 or 3 times what they are worth, but with so many of them, they are a much greater drag on the productive sector.

When some of them suggest it is good to have a bunch of smelly drop kicks, all living off some kind or another of welfare, camped in public areas, one has to wonder if we wouldn't be better off without most of them.