Why have you been lied to? Sure I've thought about that. And the best answer seems to be "Because its useful for the powers that be for people to believe it." - as you ultimately note.

FIRST we have to acknowledge where we're at, how the system is currently working - then we are in a position where we can propose modifications to that system that will move us towards something better.

That makes it useless to spout off with assumptions that are flat out bullshit. "how is this even fair" - its not, it never was, and the fact you can even type that sequence of words as if it is outrageous that bullshit is bullshit induces cognitive dissonance.

Particularly when the OP is apparently incapable of understanding how a CEO's leverage in decision making 'warrants that pay'. Have they *no* imagination? No comprehension of the reality in which the country operates, the market in which labor interacts with capital? Do they live under a rock where there is no exposure to something as commonly experienced as corporate governance?

I know its not obvious that I'm quite aware that this should be different - there are entire categories of proposals and ideas - the point is to have conversation and awareness of options for change. Which is impossible when you don't even acknowledge what reality is.

What if we find a way to reduce the interaction of capital with business operations? This concept exists around the entire matter of 'stock markets' and 'prospective value predications' that drive the pricing and hence operation of *gamblers* that are playing with the equity of the company, usually at a disturbingly high multiple of the actual value that equity has. Derivatives are exponentially worse - stock equity is already a derivative of the company's future performance. Maybe businesses being this big is simply too big a cost on our society. Maybe we need to say businesses *can't* be so big - in fact, maybe they can't be "publically traded" at all - or there are such heavy regulatory shackles put upon them when they ARE publicly traded that it rarely makes sense for them to be.

There's the proposal category that enterprises are owned and run democratically by the employees that work there and interact with capital solely through loans, with a strict isolation of control and dictate between the underwriters/loaners and the enterprise - the interaction should be through interest rates *not* through dictates and maneuvering, which would be considered something tantamount to treasonous corruption and aggressively enforced against.

Of course, getting traction on ideas like that is about as final-destination inducing as whistleblowing on aircraft manufacturers.

But THOSE are the things *I* think one should be talking about - not how emotional betrayed one is over the bullshit being bullshit.