No, it doesn't.
If you look at the REAL history of America, you will see that when we had real money and a real two party system, corporate leaders were paid a multiple of maybe a dozen times what other workers made, and no politician of any stripe would ever allow the rapacious system we have today. In fact, just look at any true "right wing" government of the past hundred years and you will see how harshly and viciously they went after greedy capitalists and you will realize that a sense of embarrassment for wanting a natural populist idea like fair wages and fair treatment for workers is totally misplaced as this was just as much a right wing idea as a left one (or to be more accurate, it is that the left / right dichotomy is a fake invention of the 20th century, but most people are so ingrained in the bifurcated political world that they cannot think that way).
Of course not. And there are plenty of examples of the idiocy of some of these "leaders" who come in and totally destroy a perfectly working company, and then leave with a "golden parachute" of millions of dollars when they destroy it. It's funny how when you argue for traditionalism, someone will inevitably bring up the occasional neer-do-well bad son who became king and made some bad decisions that his advisors were not able to stop, but you'll never hear the argument that the CEO is actively destructive to the economy of the nation. I guess bad genes only happen in monarchs?
This is where the "too big to fail" idea has merit--the incompetencies of leaders can actually cause exponential damage if they destroy companies who employ thousands of people who rely on that company to pay their mortgages, and feed and clothe their families.
Henry Ford famously ran his company on a multiple of 15 times the factory worker's pay--and he was the CREATOR of Ford Motors! He also doubled worker pay once his cars began selling. Not gave a nice raise or bonus. DOUBLED pay. That just doesn't happen today.
But yeah the current CEO earnings multiples are absurd.
America had PLENTY of wealthy corporations in the 1960s--General Motors actually had a MAJORITY share of car sales, and has greatly declined its market share since then. An honest, God-fearing, talented, Christian man of good conscious could make a phenomenal living earning 20 times what his workers do.
And as they grew the company more and more, everyone could share equally in that growth, as was done until around 1980, or it could all be hoarded by one man.
I've known one CEO--not particularly bright. He has a lot of *responsibility* -- basically just whatever happens keep things running well and DO NOT SCREW UP but it's honestly not that hard of a job (this is a sample size of 1 but let's be real, the CEO is rarely if ever doing the important work--he is delegating). I've also run a (quite) small business, and the idea that I would make 300 times what the actual producers in the business brought in is just gross and sick to me (so if a guy was making $50,000 I should justify earning 300x or $15 million just by managing a bunch of guys like him?)
But
@Uzisuicide is right, this all stems from the fiat money system, formalized in 1914 and consecrated in 1971.
That is not capitalism. It is fascism.
Now think about why you have been raised since birth to despise that word.
There is this libertarian idea that still persists that "capitalism" and "free market" is the ultimate ideal, because it theoretically means a small government (I used to believe in small government; I no longer do, but nevertheless trying to argue for that while living in the single largest, most oppressive behemoth of a government in history is laughable).
The US is utterly capitalist in that it rewards capital, or the owners of usury, over the productive classes, ie the worker / wages. Real Wage growth has declined for decades while owners of capital have grown more wealthy.
The operation of the US government is focused on ideological and "value" goals such as "gayness should spread freely throughout the world and we will oppress and punish nations which try to restrict it, while rewarding those who encourage its growth."
And when you look at countries in the Gulf, or say Singapore, what you will find is that they direct a lot of efforts not in ideological shenanigans, but in making the lives of the people better--what was called socialism in the 1940s. That is why in Qatar for example, when you marry, the government gives you a huge 6 figure stipend and free utilities for life, and the health and education of your children is provided at no cost (not to mention they are taught their own accurate history and not to hate themselves, and no drag queen stuff is allowed--it's actually openly condemned). And how in Libya, the people were rewarded and aided to form families, and your work or career was seen as a way of life, not a way to make ends meet. Or how France sends a hot young woman to your home after your wife gives birth to help her with household chores.
I've found people get extremely butthurt when you attack capitalism or praise socialism but regardless of what you label these countries, the Gulf/Asian/European-prior-to-2000 nations all have policies which are cohesive, support the culture and the norms and mores of that society, and the American system where the people barely have enough to live on and take no vacations and receive nothing but poor and dangerous public schools and a tiny government retirement fund for 6 years, but work hard to support a globohomo military for Israel is an entirely different model.
Capitalism / Socialism / liberalism are some of the most confusingly misused words today, but the distinctions above, regardless of their labels, are important. The foreign nations (which would have classically been called socialist but I suppose a "free marketeer" libertarian type could label as "capitalist" today because they are "low tax" and not ideological, even though they despise the capitalist fundamental ideology ) are found in Russia, the Gulf nations, Libya, North Korea, and much of the far east.
One of the best sources to look into this problem is (((Robert Reich))). He does a great job of laying out the facts and the problem. Of course, his motives and solutions are to be heavily questioned. He wants to fix income inequality not to help out the average American, but because he is worried that it's the only way to save Capitalism and Democracy. And he's right. As the income inequality rises even more, and as housing prices shoot into the stratosphere, civil unrest becomes more and more likely. He even produced a good feature film documentary about it called, what else? Saving Capitalism lol
