High Pay

This argument about RBS Chief Executive Stephen Hester's bonus of £963,000 on top of his salary of £1.2m ......

Why does anyone need to be paid more than (say) £240,000 a year?

That's about 20 times the minimum wage.

I am all in favour of people being paid more for doing more. But isn't there enough room for performance-related pay between £12,000 and £240,000?

At a salary of £240,000 you can't buy anything that someone earning £24,000 can't buy. You can only buy more expensive versions of the same thing, or more copies of them. And the reality is that many things are given a high price just to make them attractive to people with more money.

Whatever about unfettered salary levels in the private sector nobody in the public sector (paid or supported by the taxpayer) should be paid more than 20 times the minimum wage. It should be a badge of honour for senior politicians and public servants to serve the public in return for a modest salary.

Euroselfish

The Europhobes in the UK who routinely complain about the Euro and and EU rules and regulations are the sort who reckon they can make more profit at the other person's expense when they they don't have to play by the other person's rules.

In contrast the Germans, French etc. think there should be a level playing field.

Toilet Doors and Architects

Why do the doors in toilet cubicles in Ireland and the UK open inwards. In all civilized countries they open outwards.

When the door opens inwards you usually have to rub the bowl with your legs to get enough space to close the door. And if you have bags with you it becomes a major contortionist act.

Perhaps architects take an oath not to travel abroad in case they get contaminated with good ideas? Especially those that cost nothing to implement!

Spend Spend Spend

Why did David Cameron drop the idea that people should reduce their credit card debt?

Isn't that excellent advice?

Isn't that exactly what his Government is doing?

Isn't excessive debt the root cause of the world's current financial problems?

I can't help feeling that some vested interest (bankers?) stepped in to make the PM change his mind.

And why is everyone fixated on economic growth? Shouldn't we design our economic policies so that we all live comfortably with zero growth?

Why is it necessary for profits to be bigger year after year?

A society with a zero-growth economy would be a lot less damaging to the environment and would probably also be free of the pressures that regularly put thousands on the dole in the name of greater efficiency.

There is an expression "never waste a crisis". Isn't the present economic situation a glorious opportunity to wean the economy from its perpetual need for growth?

More Democracy

Greed seems to be an inevitable part of human nature - survival of the fittest. Even when the greediest people are those whose survival is least at risk.

Democracy takes the edge off that greed. Ancient lords took what they wanted and left the poorest to starve. Now the rich must at least make sure that enough of the rest of us have enough to keep us quiet so that they can get richer in peace.

Up to now we have elected representatives to Parliament with delegated authority to make decisions on our behalf because it would have been grossly impractical to hold referenda (referendums?) several times a month. Unfortunately too many elected representatives abuse their position for personal advantage. And allegiance to political parties takes precedence over the wishes of the people who elect them.

Voting to elect people to Parliament and Local Government should continue in the normal way because people need to have confidence in it.

However (even though politicans won't like it)technology is now good enough for many issues to be decided by electronic referenda instead of by Government. Every TV channel routinely holds nationwide votes to find the winners of trivial competitions. With only minor adjustments similar technology could be used for referenda on any number of issues.

I wonder how people would vote if Government allowed them to decide the top rate of tax for people earning over £300,000 a year or with over £3 million in assets? Or if they were allowed to decide the maximum bonus for bankers?

There is no techincal or economic reason why this can't be done. The only obstacle is the vested interests of those whose wealth and influence might be undermined.

Greed

I enjoy Private Eye. Most issues have one or two items that make me laugh out loud.

But at its heart Private Eye is about the dismal side of human nature. Story after story after story tells how people with wealth and/or influence feather their own or their "friends" nests.

There are many millionaires who would still be rich after giving away enough each year to support 10, 100 or 1000 families in comfort. Yet they call for the abolition of the 50% tax rate; complain about people on welfare and complain about EU laws that prevent them from making their staff work longer hours.

Greed seems to be an inevitable part of human nature - survival of the fittest.

Just as killing is the nature of lions.

Speculation

How have we got ourselves into this pickle where a few get-rich-quick speculators buying or selling a currency, Government bonds or company shares can make nations shudder?

It is simply frightening to think that people who have no concern whatever for the consequences of their actions or the welfare of others can disrupt businesses and economies just to make themselves rich.

It is beyond comprehension why people who live in democracies allow this to happen. (It is easy to understand the anger of people in Greece)

How can a business or a country suddenly (like overnight or over a few weeks) go from being able to meet its commitments to being unable to do so?

Of course this sometimes happens when a delibierate attempt at fraud is found out - and a fraudster deserves what he gets.

But for the most part it occurs because some shyster, who has no role in the management of the business, thinks he can make a profit for himself by buying bonds or shares and selling them a few weeks later, or even a few seconds later. The money he pays for the shares never gets into the business as investment funds - it just circulates among shareholders with a bit being chipped of each time by the brokers. Then the said shyster gets worried that the shares he bought a few days ago might not appreciate in price quickly enough so he wants to sell them in a rush - or maybe he wants the cash to invest in something else. The net effect is that the other shysters see that cheap shares are available and they also become worried - so the share price tumbles and the whole world worries.

But none of this has been caused by, or has any impact on the business which is happily making and selling widgets just as it did several weeks ago before the shysters appeared on the scene.

EITHER the world stops getting in a panic when shysters do what shysters do

OR Governments (acting for the vast majority of voters) legislate to prevent shares, bonds etc from being sold within, say, 24 months from the date they were bought - so that the madness of short term speculation is stopped.

• And equally, if you sell shares or bonds you can't buy more of the same for 24 months either.

• Or perhaps the only person you can buy from or sell to is the company or government that issued them - and they have no obligation to buy or sell and then only at their face value so that the reward comes from company dividends or interest payments and not from capital gains.

• Or, if they are (say) 5 year bonds you simply have to keep them for the 5 years.

• And you can't sell anything you don't already own.

Of course the tiny tiny fraction of the population with a vested interest in the status quo will find all sorts of reasons why you can't interfere with the market like this. They are all well educated and very articulate - and very good at pulling strings behind the scenes.

But we could easily do it if we wanted to.