then we were, say, 40 years ago. The level of transfers to the poor we keep voting for dwarfs the levels seen in the 1960s. Crime is down, volunteer work probably just as high. So if were just as greedy previously, what made up the mythical 'social constraints' that prevented CEOs from giving themselves the millions they undoubtedly already wanted to give themselves? One needs a story for what constituted the culture within organisations and why that has changed. Disappearing middle management fits the bill on both counts: their disappearance means internal culture becomes more orietned towards adultation of the top, and it strengthens the bargaining power. Why does it matter whether you have an easy hand-waving moral explanation or a hard-nosed economic one? The hand-waving moral explanation gets you into the impossible position of calling for some kind of return to moral rectitude in the hop that that will magically solve things. Worse, relying on moralising might make you actually believe you can run the economy without allowing for greed and hence wreck it. The hard-nosed economic explanation gets you into a discussion of actual regulatory actions one can take and into discussions about how you can change the operation of companies. for me, In recent decades, the notion that greed is good and that pay should be linked to performance overwhelmed the cultural constraints. is not a good enough explanation. For one, I dont buy the notion that people were less greedy in previous decades. No but you