Boris Johnson hits the nail on the head for me when he describes William Hague's "stonking remuneration" for doing Have I Got News For You as a "magnificent sign of labour market flexibility" and a "vital feature" of his "world view", before driving it home with "It is an axiom of sensible economics that people should be paid what the market demands" (Fat cats prosper on the public kitty, 22 May 2003, paragraphs 5, 6 and 7).

I wonder what it would be like to meet him face to face? Probably a bit like John Wayne and Che Guevara being introduced to each other at a cocktail party . . . .

A vital feature of MY world view is recognising the all too normal and familiar (and thus generally unrecognised) perversity and corruption of any celebrity's "stonking remuneration" for a day's fun rather than work, which someone on an average wage (a nurse or policeman, for example, doing something far more important than entertaining) would have to spend months actually working for!

I find it hard to believe that Boris Johnson, or any intelligent person, could really see such grotesque social and economic inequality as a "magnificent sign of labour market flexibility", unless of course, he is totally blinded by his own privileged position, even if not quite as privileged as that of William Hague and some others.

Contrary to what we are taught at school and university, the "Market" does not obey "natural laws" which we can only submit to or use to our advantage, unless that is, one assumes we behave only in accordance with our animal rather than our human nature.

Those disadvantaged by the injustices of our socio-economic system are deceived, intimidated and/or bribed into accepting them, while those who benefit, convince themselves, and one another, of their correctness and legitimacy, using their often considerable intellectual powers (Boris Johnson being a good example) to rationalise their irrationality and justify their unjustness.

But when have we ever had a socio-economic system that was anything other than grossly unfair? At least now, one might argue, millions are doing very nicely, thank you, we all have a degree of equality before the law and no one is destitute.

Circumstances, as we all know (but hardly appreciate) have changed dramatically during the past century. It is no longer the injustice of gross socio-economic inequalities that is the real problem (we have survived with them for centuries), but their non-sustainability, the fact that they are driving us, not just to exploit, but to plunder our planet's natural resources, and disrupt its climate and life-supporting ecosystems in the process, thus threatening the future survival (let alone prosperity!) of our own children and coming generations.

The POOR are usually assumed to be the world's biggest problem, but a little uncommon sense reveals that in fact it's the RICH who are the real problem. Not simply because they place a much greater per capita burden on our planet’s resources and carrying capacity than the poor, but more importantly, because they act as “role models” whose non-sustainable use of money, values, aspirations and lifestyles - projected into every household by the media - millions (ultimately, billions) of others are seeking to emulate.

If the world's role models and trendsetters are constantly held up, admired and envied for their material "success" and extravagant, non-sustainable lifestyles, as they generally are, what hope is there of persuading others to live less materialistic, more sustainable lives? None whatsoever. Especially when one considers that our economy requires and encourages us to do the very opposite. But on a planet with finite resources and a limited carrying capacity this can only lead to disaster on an unimaginable scale.

Assuming that you have read this far, Boris, you are going to laugh your head off at what I am going to suggest as a remedy: a MAXIMUM WAGE, or rather, an attitude and ethos within which the idea of a MAXIMUM WAGE can develop and be taken seriously. It's a crazy idea, I know, but one which might just save us from the hopeless, suicidal course we are currently on.

You don't believe that we are on a suicidal course? Bear with me, just in case there is some truth in what I say, since it would be tragic to realise that there is only after it is too late to do anything about it. We all  know the story about "the straw that broke the camel's back". But have you ever wondered whose straw was to blame?

Paradoxically the answer is, no one's and everyone's. 

Now, let the camel represent Earth's finite carrying capacity, on which we all have to place a certain number of straws in order to live. Although we do not know exactly how many it can carry, we do know - unless we are very ignorant or in complete denial - that there is, must be, a limit, which will be exceeded if increasing numbers of people continue to pile on more and more straws.

But insanely this is exactly what we are doing. Everyone, once they can afford it, wants their own car (more than one, if they have the money) and to be able to fly in an aeroplane as often as they wish, not to mention all the other goods and services which our growth-dependent, money rather (not sustainability) oriented economy is only too eager for us to buy.

At the moment, everyone can pile as many straws onto the camel's back as they have (or can borrow) the money to pay for, and are encouraged to do so, not just by their own inclinations, but by the whole system, including a multibillion dollar advertising industry whose baneful influence is fatefully bound up with the media industry.

It is difficult to recognise the insanity of a situation that we have all grown up with and thus see as being perfectly normal. What makes it even more difficult to see is the fact that the madness is so deeply rooted in the socio-economic system on which we all depend, in which we all have vested interests, and in lifestyles and aspirations to which we have become so accustomed and attached.

The paradox of it being "no one's and everyone's" straw which caused the camel's back to break is based on the assumption that everyone places just one, or an equal number of straws on its back. The answer is rather different if some people placed more straws on the camel's back than others. 

This is the situation in which we find ourselves in respect to achieving sustainability on our planet, Spaceship Earth.

If we care about our children and coming generations - and I'm not addressing those who don't - it is absolutely imperative that we achieve sustainability, i.e. a sustainable global economy and lifestyles (for a population of 7 - 9 billion), as soon as possible.

If we carry on as we are, with everyone competing - free-market style - to place as many straws on the camel's back for themselves (and their families, of course) as possible, there is no hope of us ever achieving sustainability. It is never going to be possible for a majority of the world's population (unless we half it from its current level) to have anything like the kind of lifestyle, Boris, that you are accustomed to. And attempting the impossible, which is what our psychology and economy is driving us to, is taking us towards an abyss.

What really matters, of course, is not individual wealth and income per se, i.e. the number of straws you possess, but what you do with them, i.e. how many you actually place on the camel's back and what you do with those you don't. 

But inevitably it seems, the more straws (money) someone has, the more they place on the camel's back (the greater the burden they place on Earth's resources and carrying capacity). That's one very good reason why we need a MAXIMUM WAGE, so as to limit the number of straws that anyone person is allowed to place on the camel's back and to prevent them setting such a bad - fatal - example to others.

I've included a link to the following article, despite having made no reverence to it above, because it also seems to express a (Tory) view of the world, values, aspirations, day-dreams, which are implicitly monetary, materialistic and thus wholly unsustainable: Am I broke enough to be a Tory?, 22 May 2003