Everybody knows the one about Adam Smith and the selfish baker who, like, wait for it . . . makes people pay before they eat his bread. Dirty money changes hands. I know, shocking.
The key to a happy workplace is understanding that work is hard because of Other People.
There seems to be a general consensus that corporate executives are paid Too Much, though nobody is quite sure what measure is applied to deciding whether other people are paid too much - is it simply a case of saying that if it is much more than other people are earning, then it is by definition too much? That doesn't seem like a very scientific way of measuring things, and it's a bit worrying when the judgment that it's 'too much' will be backed by force of law.
If you want to run your own taxi service but you're too poor to be able to afford an actual car, then you just get two beat up old bicycles, tie them together with ribbon or elastic bands (whatever you have available), attach a platform for your passengers to sit on, and you're good to go.
There is no consensus on the meaning of freedom and liberty. Many people think that liberty means freedom to follow their own path in life but other people view liberty as freedom to wield power over others. Those who view liberty this way, as a measure of power, are inordinately concerned with inequalities of wealth. They would regard freedom as meaningless if they were relatively poor, and powerless to boot. They are not content to get on with their own life, free to do as they please, while elsewhere there are rich people spending money and being most infuriating.
What's that? Children selling produce? In a food market? That's child labour! That's banned!
It is obvious why poor people would have a problem with rich people, but today we will consider why middle class people should also have a problem with rich people. Of course it's about schools, and especially rich people being able to afford better schools (or better homes near better schools) than middle class people. I know, shocking.
No man is an island, we all know that. We all need each other to prosper and thrive. Nobody can create a market by himself, without other people to sell to and buy from. Does this mean that the individual is insignificant, and it is the community or society that matters most? In the politics of inequality, does this mean that we should all share the available wealth and in that way, by building the bonds of society, we will eradicate inequality?
Any system so chaotic and untidy as capitalism is surely begging for a system of rules to restore order. By now everyone has heard of the separation of ownership and control in large corporations. There the corporation stands, shamelessly, a giant capitalist monolith, and when you try to pin down the owner, the person you can hold responsible for the crime of being too rich, he isn't there.
The debate about regulating executive pay is highly entertaining because very few people have any clear understanding of what these executives actually do at work every day, and only a few people have any clear grasp of the form and structure of executive pay schemes.