>>>That wasn't good either, but at least their rich weren't so immensely richer than their poor. There were limits. When salary range in a company went over 10:1, alarms were raised. Now you got 400:1 and everybody seems to like it that way. Ah, yes, that's those who are the people who actually run the economy, they are impeccable. Even the antitrust laws should rather be revoked, they're only hampering progress.
>>
>>That was only because the socialist economies were so inept at producing wealth ( they somehow never figured that part out ) that even the kleptocrats determined to steal everything for themselves they could couldn't get much richer than the people they were stealing it from.
>
>The real-soc systems (as those in the Soviet bloc) really were incapable of that. The raw fear of losing power made sure it was so. If the labor was really rewarded as it was written in their books, those of the nomenklatura would be exposed as just petty politicians they were - so they saw to it that nobody got rich, not even the country.
>
>The Yugoslav system went much further, but then The Party saw to it that it never goes too far. In the self-management system there was a real market (which is where I learned to hate advertising :), and well managed enterprises were thriving, BUT - if they got too big or too rich, they'd be clamped down, salaries would be capped, and the incentive would vanish. This also meant that the party brass couldn't get too rich either, they kept tabs on each other. The extent of their riches went to having their kids study abroad, have a house on the coast (but then also a lot of working people had them, though more modest), enjoying a lot of perks in state owned VIP resorts (but not owning any of that), driving better cars, traveling abroad and shopping designer clothes... and that was that. I don't know of any of them ever reaching a $1 million.
>
>And on the bottom side, if you had a job, you had a decent living. Even if you weren't lucky finding a job, you had a guaranteed healthcare, and even some accomodation - you could be homeless if you really wanted to stay out of system or just deliberately pis*ed the system off.
>
>>If 400:1 means I make 200k a year and the president of a corporation makes 400 times that ( an issue that should only matter to his stockholders ), fine. If the ratio is 10:1 and I make 10k a year, I don't see the advantage to me.
>
>But if you make 50 or 80K, how can the guy making $8000/hr be 200 or more times smarter than you? If you're OK with that... well, I'm not.

But why does it matter if 50k or 80k gives you a better life than in a system where the bosses make much less but the workers live like peasants? I don't think Brittany Spears is worth more to society than Bernard Lewis, but I'm sure she makes more. A star on a sitcom makes a million an episode - but that's because he brings in 15 million an episode in revenue. Nobody said you couldn't be a junk bond trader.

If I were a major stockholder in many corporations I would surely question the CEO packages, but as a consumer I can only react to how it effects the price of their products. Frankly the package for the head of the Cleveland school system is even more indefensible, since it is public money that is being spent.

Inequity is not historically unusual. I guess the issue is what is your chance of grabbing one of the undeserved brass rings. Seems in that sense, we have at least created a place where that opportunity exists. The proof of that is the millions and millions who over the years have voted with their feet.

I was thinking about that a lot on July 4. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Notice the first two are outright guarantees, but the third - there is a guarantee of opportunity - the pursuit - but no guarantee of outcome. the state cannot promise happiness - only promise you your fair shot.

I rather like that. It is both hopeful and cynical - but it does seem to reflect wisdom of the nature of what the state can actually do for an individual.

The French Revolution - and all the Marxist twaddle that followed - promised liberty, equality, and brotherhood. The second simply is never true and the third cannot be created by mandate. And when the disappointment and sense of betrayal sets in, it is Thermidor and the tumbrels start to roll - and life and liberty are the first victims.