[socralynnek]

Random thoughts:

- Matrix: Your first post mangles two things: The question: Shuld it be that way? and Should there be a law against it? (I guess, Killer mainly wanted an answer to the first question, but you answered the second)

- Totally free markets don't work (as well as communist markets), so the best thing should be something in between

- The governemnt has to act different than a company, keeping the whole thing in mind (sadly, the governemtn applies logic of a company too often, e.g. it is better if the government spends money when there is a crisis and vice versa, unlike a company where it is normally the other way round)

- If something is harmful to the whole economy, then there should be a law against it (simplified): If the banks (that aren't like other companies as the state might need to rescue them if they fail) tend to give incentives to their people taking high risks, then there should be a regulation against that

- If people working full time can't make a living of that, then something is wrong (and this is not good for the economy as such either: somebody needs to be able to buy the stuff that the companies want to sell)

Comparing salaries of the bosses to the simple workers needs to consider two things (besides many more...)
- The salary of the boss must be high enough (relative to the simple worker) s.t. you create incentives for trying to reach that position as well (and thus often working harder or better)
- If the salary of the bosses is too high compared to the workers, then the workers might be frustrated and therefore don't work as good as they might do (as they might get the feeling that all their power only helps other people)

In the end the CEOs are also only simple workers to the shareholders. If somebody owning a company earns very much if the company is well, then I don't see any problem with that.(but that's not a salary then anyway)