How does the change in the ratio of salaries correspond to what they are actually doing now that they weren't required to do 30 years ago? Is it that now they have to read email and sometimes look at a spreadsheet in Excel? Anybody can to that. So really, what is the difference in their job descriptions now versus 30 years ago that justifies the rise in compensation?

The job is not harder now than it was then, it is EASIER. Any CEO can use Google to find info that will make him/her seem like they are up on things. They should be getting proportionately LESS than before not more. There are so many more people willing to step in and take their jobs, and they could probably do just as well as a CEO - just put on a happy face and delegate.

Essential people with hard to find skills will make really good money, but not greater than 20 times what some full time grunt does.

The statement:

There is more energy in a drop of water, in terms of the subatomic bonds that hold the molecules together than what you can get from burning a barrel of oil

is not quite correct. The bonds that hold molecules together are atomic bonds. The subatomic bonds are what hold individual atoms together - better known as the source of nuclear energy. You can combine 2 nuclei (fusion) or you can split one nuclei (fission). But splitting molecules is either combustion or electrochemistry.

We should take the crumbs they throw at us and be grateful. It is really just offensively greedy to think that we might actually look after our citizens who don't have health care, we have corporations to nurture for chrissakes! Now THAT is American exceptionalism - the best health care system in the world (for those who have jobs with health insurance benefits, the rest of you can go to hell).

These guys are not buy and hold investors who want to participate in capitalism by investing in a company with long term plans to make a profit. I am.

They are f*ing gamblers who have convinced a lot of people that they have some undeniable right to make profit, even though their interests have nothing to do with the long term economic health of companies, workers, or our nation.

Things would be a whole hell of a lot different if all of the stake holders who have investments in our economy had the same interests (ie - long term prosperity for our nation and it's citizens). Some people have completely different interests and that can't possibly be good for the economy, especially given the large number of dollars that these vulture hedge funds have at stake. To protect those investments, they will be opposed to every action, law, and idea that threatens their potential profits. That is tantamount to treason.

too bad I don't watch teevee, having better things to do...

Yeah, like post comments to discussions about topics you know nothing about and care nothing about?!?

Why?

Salmon states it as a matter of fact:

Without the banks' buy-in, no new regulatory structure is going to work...

Seeking buy-in is something you do when you are dealing with a party on an equal footing, who is entitled to have some say in the matter.

Why do we need their say? They failed, we taxpayers are coming to the rescue, we can dictate whatever terms we feel best reflect our long term interest. They are delusional if they think they are entitled to continue the same old sh!t, making massive profits. Sorry, but no that doesn't really work for us. They need to step aside for someone else to run banking. Someone who is willing to settle for strong profits by doing business in a responsible manner.

That is just wishful thinking about the magic power of the market to make things work out. There is such a huge asymmetry between the knowledge of medical providers and most consumers about some procedures that the consumers have no realistic choice but to rely on the experts. That is just reality, because buying medical care doesn't work like going down to the hardware store and buying a hammer. Anyone can understand a hammer.

How many people can understand the difference between the information provided by a CAT scan and an MRI and an X-Ray and when one is appropriate and another is not? How about the ins and outs of chemotherapy? Seriously, how does that work that if people just looked at the bills and became more price conscious, it would make the problems all go away? The bills would still bankrupt people left and right, and a tax deduction is completely worthless to any low income citizen. Besides what would they pay with in the first place, if you are broke, you are broke.

The concept of pooled risk and purchasing of services does makes sense, and helps keep everyone's average cost lower. But the problem is that our pool in the US is managed by a profit-driven companies. It should be managed by all of us citizens instead (that is what our government actually is - our fellow citizens, not boogeymen).

The profit driven markets we currently use work just fine for delivering clothes and food, that's why.

How many people do you think go bankrupt because of a massive, unavoidable clothing or grocery bill that exceeds their annual income by a factor of 2 or 3?