If you are so good, why aren't you rich?

In a New York Times Editorial of April 27, 2009, on the on-again, off-again issue of high pay scale on Wall Street Paul Krugman did not mention another, by now trite, justification, namely, the ability to attract the best and the brightest. This point has been easily dismissed by the evidence of brilliance that the lead actors in the current crisis displayed. However, a refuting argument pre-existed 2008 and was often neglected: the fallacy of the assumption that "the best and brightest" (period!) would be "selling" their creative lives to the highest bidder. Such assumption not only reduces our common value scale to pay scale, but is also diminishing to those who subscribe to the alternative ethics in which "best" is not synonymous of highest net worth or income. Paraphrasing a common saying, Wall St. seems to ask "if you are so good, why aren't you so rich?" Besides this apparent moral fallacy, basing human resources strategies on unfettered and exuberant compensation, lends itself to conflicts of interest. As Dr. Krugman and many others have observed, the existing compensation system on Wall St. rewarded short-sighted risk taking. Was this any surprise when the risk takers were hired and made a career primarily if not solely motivated by compensation? It's a common joke on and by the Street that the high and not so-high flyers are there for the money. Being there for the money is likely to be at odds with being there for the shareholders, let alone for the benefit of the economy at large. Let me suggest that the best and brightest denizens of Wall St. think of a more symbiotic motivation for their would-be peers.