Response to a Reader Comment

More to the point, this is a response to a response to my posting on Space As a Remedy for Solving Society's Problems. I apologize now for not having heard of this correspondent, but I don't get out much. He's the one whose posting prompted the blog in the first place. I had a much longer, point-by-point response to Allen's comments in mind, but finally my inner editor took over, and I decided that the statement below best summarizes my feelings.

***

Human nature is not a problem to be solved, though Jesus did offer an alternative: "Love your neighbor as yourself." What a wild concept! A shame more people don't practice it. Regardless, I don't see human nature changing much. We will continue to have the brilliance of rocket scientists, but also the pathos of the Octomom. That's not to say that I think "it's not our problem." It's everyone's problem to address in his/her own way.

Being a conservative, I shy away from big-picture, top-down "solutions" to humanity's problems offered by one expert or even a small group of them (see the Simpsons episode "They Saved Lisa's Brain" for a more humorous take on the subject). One solution is not going to fit all needs, for the individual or group, nor is that solution always appropriate, and the willingness to impose some solutions on others "for their own" good has rarely led to good outcomes. As they said in the TV adaptation of Children of Dune, "All leaders are human, and all human beings are imperfect." So I believe in fighting evil or ignorance at the individual level. My question to you is: what are you doing to make the world a better place?

Private-Sector Solutions to Future Credit Messes

I probably should have focused on solutions instead of slapping around an editorial by Obama. Okay, so it goes:

• Give people frequent flyer or bonus miles for paying their bills, not racking them up.
• Allow banks to set and advertise their own leverage numbers in accordance with their risk level and investment portfolio.
  Example: Bank A, focusing on high-risk investments, is leveraged at 15:1 or 20:1, and their disclaimers state as much. Bank B, focusing on more traditional blue-chip investments, is leveraged at 5:1 or 10:1, tops. Bank C, focusing more on individuals with passbook savings accounts or living on fixed incomes, is leveraged at 2:1, 1:1, or less, meaning that the bank will only loan money if they have it to spare--100% of the depositors would always be able to withdraw all their money, if they saw fit.
• Start a stockholder revolt focused on executive compensation. I've been complaining for years about the Sisters of Mercy and their never-ending stockholder proposals to stop Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and other defense contractors from selling arms to countries that don't like us. I complain about this because the right place to address this issue is with your congressmen and senators and the president. Likewise, just as you shouldn't appeal to the business world to address political matters, you shouldn't be petitioning government to fix problems with corporate governance. And the compensation issue is a governance issue, not a political issue (until the government takes over the business). Having said all that, the focus of the revolt should be to tie awards of all optional compensation, including stock options and bonuses, to specific, measurable performance outcomes, including short-term growth, long-term growth, and ethical compliance.

Other things will come to me, and I welcome other thoughts, but I have a caveat--I'm interested in solutions that can be executed without the need for additional government regulation.