Angus, let's suppose, just for a moment, that all the pigs in the south west Pacific are fully fuelled and ready to fly...
Now let's apply some simple logic and arithmetic to your statement that, "RM also puts his hard earned back into Axiom and he does not take home or earn what this forums would have people believe." Only thinking hypothetically of course, can you see a difference between a company CEO who earns (say) $300,000 a year and another CEO who earns $800,000 a year and then either lends $500,000 back to the company in which he already owns a significant share, or then buys an additional $500,000 worth of shares through a company capital raising?
Now let's just repeat that simple scenario each year for a few years... After four years the first CEO has earned $1.2 million dollars and the company owes him nothing. After four years the second CEO has earned $3.2 million dollars (of which he has kept $1.2 million) AND either the company owes him an additional $2 million dollars, OR he owns an additional $2 million dollar equity in the company, from a capital raising issue that would not have been necessary except for his exorbitant salary.
Now let's return to reality: In the case of a company that has never earned a dollar, never paid shareholders a single cent, and seen only a progressive slide of its share value from high to very-low-and-suspended, I see something *very* *wrong* with paying an employee $800,000 a year, so that he (or a mate) can lend it back to the company, so that the company has enough money to pay him next year's salary. The company's debt to this employee just goes on increasing, with nothing to show for it. That would not be the case in a situation where the employee's remuneration is commensurate with his productivity.
