450SEL6.9

Thanks for posting this and starting the debate, Rob.

I'm sounding like a broken record and I'm not singling out this article, but I am absolutely disgusted by the way the media likes to portray executive salaries. Where does the term "Beckhamesque salary" come from? It comes from a certain mediocre footballer! Has anyone ever called his "Beckhamesque salary" excessive? Probably not, because he can kick a ball. The article says executives are getting Beckhamesque bonanzas, but damn it so is Beckham! Why are successful executives are criticized for getting bonanzas, while Beckham and other metrosexual celebrity types are not? They contribute far less to the world than executives. Although the article later makes an acceptable point about exec pay, I just think the media excessively denigrates the contribution executives and companies make to society. If you want to see vulgarity, take a look at Forbes List of Highest Paid Celebs and imagine the outrage if executives earned those sums.

Secondly, fair and equal are different things! Fair is not equal. Equal is not fair! Companies and major stockholders will benefit more from globalization than their workers. That is not equal, but it is fair! It is absolutely fair! Companies own the assets and provide the capital. Without them, workers don't have jobs. It is not the role of business and commercial enterprises to distribute the wealth they create to anyone other than their stockholders. Likewise, it is not the duty of western governments to redistribute tax, aid, economic grants for the benefit of other countries in the developing world. They should not act as Santa Claus.

I am not sold on the commodity price explosion theory. Commodity prices go up and down. During the first oil crisis in the 1970s, analysts all thought oil prices would stay up forever. They fell. When oil spiked again in the early-1980s, again people thought prices would stay high. GM and the other American carmakers even downsized their cars in anticipation of permanently high oil. Remember the 1985 Cadillac Deville and Fleetwood Sixty Special and how "small" they were? Guess what happened after oil stabilized? Oil fell sharply! Commodity prices go in cycles. When everyone expects them to rise forever, they fall. Of course, some Wall St. analyst will grandiosely predict that "it's different this time."

Every stock market analyst and fund manager expects oil prices to remain or rise from these levels. Do you know why they think that? Because they are like sheep that fall in with the rest of the herd. That is why most mutual fund managers are rubbish and cannot consistently beat the average. The public is undaunted and keeps believing these idiots and their so-called "expert" analysis. As a result, the public generally thinks oil and commodity prices won't fall.

Finally, the west has some crazy ideas about wage inequalities driven by globalization. Chinese, Indian and other emerging markets' wages will never be what the western world judges to be "fair" and "ethical", but that does not make them unjust! Different countries have different standards. The west cannot impose their concept of wage equity on any other country. Rob has mentioned that Chinese wages are taking many workers out of poverty. I would just like to add that the alternative to Chinese workers making "low" wages would likely be farming. They would have to survive feast or famine on their own. Despite earning "low" wages, Chinese workers have benefited from globalization, but in a way that the west does not accept. The western media's idea of benefitting economically is probably closer to the way the American middle-class lives - that is, beyond their means using massive amounts of debt to pay for all the frivolous consumption and lawsuits that they can't afford.