Anthony Hilton interestingly compares the social inequalities generated by the City's current boom and that of the Victorian age, but misses a fundamental point: in the 19th century there was no welfare state.
While some Victorians invested only in fine living, a great many used their assets to finance orphanages, schools and hospitals, returning their wealth to the communities that helped enrich them in the first place.
The resentment felt by those of us on relatively modest incomes is not that bankers earn so much, but that their millions appear to be selfishly hoarded. Because people have abdicated all sense of social responsibility to the state, today's multimillionaires feel no obligation to help those who most need it.
It is admirable David Cameron should be talking about fulfilling a duty to society and seeking to reinvolve charities to achieve this. But if we are to persuade today's young bankers to emulate Victorian philanthropists, the state must take several steps back and allow people to reconnect with their fellow man.
Chris Mounsey, devilskitchen.me.uk
They've edited it a bit (and made it, frankly, a bit less prolix and a bit more hippy sounding), but the point is an important one, I think.
The fact is that these wealthy bankers can do whatever they like with their cash, and the government should certainly not be talking about imposing pay caps on private fucking companies, if only because the government's system of pay schemes is not exactly a blueprint for success, is it?
But it is nevertheless true that all of those things that are now serviced by the state are things that were, once, done through the philanthropy of the very wealthy.