Dear A.I.G., I Quit!

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Daradon

That I can agree with and a a huge problem there. Guy should be relieved of his seat. I mentioned I knew one guy really screwed up in one of my posts but I couldn't remember his name.

I have no love for this guy and think he should be turfed. However it does little to excuse AIG's behaviour. It just adds a culprit.

I think the problem with AIG goes much, much further than anything that happened in regards to these bonuses.

Without a doubt some of the executives who received the millions were probably greedy, but, its tough to argue against them.

[jammies]

Let me say right from the start that I agree the US government is not handling this issue correctly. What the position should have been was: "We will be working closely with AIG to identify which people to retain and which to let go as their contracts expire, but this is a process that cannot be hurried if you want to do it properly and not destroy what you are trying to save. You cannot expect people to work for nothing: if you do not pay out the contracts you will not have the people, and without the people, you do not have a company."

However, I'm sure they considered this approach and rejected it because it doesn't provide for scapegoats. People don't want to hear that impersonal economic forces have screwed them over, they want someone they can pillory and blame, and the politicians are at least smart enough to know that if they don't give the public someone to hate, it'll be themselves on the receiving end.

[Cowperson]

This will go down in history as one of the greatest "Frak Off!!" letters of all time.

Way to go Jake DeSantis!!!

Cowperson

[Azure]

http://firedoglake.com/2009/03/15/le...llion-bonuses/

Very interesting.

Thank the media for doing its job.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Azure

I think the problem with AIG goes much, much further than anything that happened in regards to these bonuses.

Without a doubt some of the executives who received the millions were probably greedy, but, its tough to argue against them.

Oh I agree again. And I agree with the fact that in the long run, the bonuses are a fraction of a fraction of the pie and probably don't even matter in a monetary sense. But it's terrible optics and it's proof of the culture of these types of places and the greed that got us into this problem by people who should know better and are definitely paid like they do know better.

Yes everyone was greedy. From the people that bought big houses they couldn't afford to the people who racked up credit card debt.

But these people are taught to know better. And they are paid HUGE for it. But unfortunately, instead of doing well with hundreds of thousands or even millions, the greed is ramped up even MORE in places like these, even in situations where they should know better. So their responsibility is greater than everyone elses. That's just how I feel.

I think it's funny, we've agreed on most major points, and I never argued that this specific guy was in the wrong. Or that AIG didn't have certain legal responsibilities for some bonuses. All I'm arguing is that the culture in AIG and similar places probably caused a lot of their own problems and I have a real hard time feeling bad for anyone there.

I am also arguing that they probably had opportunity to fix problems (or at least make an effort to fix problems) and decided to just keep as much as possible, and do business as usual, and that's why everyone is against them now, and they are all being branded with the same iron.

That's all I'm really saying. I know they didn't do anything illegal or even wrong in comparison to the old way of doing things. But I am saying they got their asses saved by te taxpayers and yet decided to continue doing business the old ways, when it was apparent it was not the best way to do things.

That's why people are mad, and that's why, as heavy handed as the governments reaction is, and how it's hit some people maybe it shouldn't have, I can't be too upset about it.

They had a chance to try and right the ship. Would have it been tough? Yes. Would it have been weird and different compared to how things were done before? Yes. Were they obligated to do it? No.

But should they have tried? Yes. Yes. A million times yes.

[Itse]

The media has always striven to give names and faces to issues, because they make the world more understandable for human beings. On this issue, AIG is the name and the people who work there are the faces. It was inevitable that some company gets singled out.

It's not right or wrong as such, it's just the way things work.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Oh I agree again. And I agree with the fact that in the long run, the bonuses are a fraction of a fraction of the pie and probably don't even matter in a monetary sense. But it's terrible optics and it's proof of the culture of these types of places and the greed that got us into this problem by people who should know better and are definitely paid like they do know better.

Yes everyone was greedy. From the people that bought big houses they couldn't afford to the people who racked up credit card debt.

But these people are taught to know better. And they are paid HUGE for it. But unfortunately, instead of doing well with hundreds of thousands or even millions, the greed is ramped up even MORE in places like these, even in situations where they should know better. So their responsibility is greater than everyone elses. That's just how I feel.

I think it's funny, we've agreed on most major points, and I never argued that this specific guy was in the wrong. Or that AIG didn't have certain legal responsibilities for some bonuses. All I'm arguing is that the culture in AIG and similar places probably caused a lot of their own problems and I have a real hard time feeling bad for anyone there.

I am also arguing that they probably had opportunity to fix problems (or at least make an effort to fix problems) and decided to just keep as much as possible, and do business as usual, and that's why everyone is against them now, and they are all being branded with the same iron.

That's all I'm really saying. I know they didn't do anything illegal or even wrong in comparison to the old way of doing things. But I am saying they got their asses saved by te taxpayers and yet decided to continue doing business the old ways, when it was apparent it was not the best way to do things.

That's why people are mad, and that's why, as heavy handed as the governments reaction is, and how it's hit some people maybe it shouldn't have, I can't be too upset about it.

They had a chance to try and right the ship. Would have it been tough? Yes. Would it have been weird and different compared to how things were done before? Yes. Were they obligated to do it? No.

But should they have tried? Yes. Yes. A million times yes.

Meh, sometimes its fun to play a little devil's advocate just for the sake of discussion.

We probably agree on more things than you might imagine.