The managers of Treasury and Federal Reserve aren't paid too much money, it seems to me their primary payment is in power (except for payment in celebrity, which will be a neutral in my proposal). It occurs to that that this form of payment will draw people primarily interested in payment increases in the form of power. Which may be in part what we're seeing today.
In contrast, tech entrepreneurship has been a field where the primary payment has been in the form of money -there's nowhere else where people are regularly paid billions for their work before the age of 30. And these guys don't quickly use up the bulk of their money to buy up political power, which makes it seem to me their their payment motivation genuinely is for money, not power.
So, if we want the type of financial managers that will focus on building US wealth instead of building institutional power for themselves (perhaps an overreduced comparison, I acknowledge) we should recruit and pay accordingly. Perhaps we should be recruting late teens, early twenties cognitive science savants from places like Stanford and Harvard undergrad and grad schools in electrical engineering and computer science, to run sectors of the economy, offering pay performance incentive packages similar to what they could make starting a yahoo, a google, a facebook, or a microsoft. Then have a difficult to rebutt presumption that they'll be replaced by fresh blood by the time they hit their late 30s.