People with serious math skills and carefully derived data determine how much the general public is paying (mostly via ads) to be entertained by them. If people get tired of watching Tiger Woods, his pay goes down fast. These people are paid for closely performance performance.

CEO pay is determined by boards of directors, and a CEO in one company is a director in a bunch of others, to use incest as a metaphor here would require half of the population to be both of their own parents. What we have is the European royal family (there was only one, really) of the 17/18th Century except that instead of killing each other they give each other raises. CEO pay does not go down with poor performance.

Spielberg gets his $130M from profitable movies, not from bailout money.

Granted, there are probably a thousand people with more vision and talent than Spielberg who won't get more than a few compliments on YouTube. Never said it was completely fair.

And one other thing: none of those celebrities is drawing enough salary to sink their empires. There is a difference between even an absurd harvest and pillaging.