Well, since this seems to be the moment for conjecture, I will. I don’t think it will happen. I think it will be shipped over to the Senate, where a means will be found to bottle it up long enough for the popular fury to die down, and it will die a quiet death.
Obama doesn’t want it much. Dems don’t want to open an avalanche of funding from the semi-wealthy to the Pubbies. It’ll simply fade away. Whatever. Still the spectacle of half the Pubbie Reps. in full screaming populist mode, denouncing Da Rich…oh my!..there was a spectacle almost worth the price of admission.
Well, we have to in agreement then at least. So…we aren’t completely at odds. One of us knows that you are not only NOT an expert on this subject, but you don’t play one on TV either…
That’s not reputation; that’s current public perception. See Scylla’s points upthread about how scrupulously securities traders adhere to the letter of the agreements they enter into, and why. The AIG folks can (presumably) show signed documents that show that they have done so. Their side’s inability to perform our side’s due diligence does not become a reputation for untrustworthiness except through the alchemy of rabble-rousing demagoguery. That it has thus far been effective, I do not consider a good thing.
If the requirement was clearly put in place before the program was enacted, I agree with you. Please put forward the argument that such was the case.
Otherwise, the folks responsible for crafting the program, and protecting the interests of the taxpayer in competition with the interests of AIG’s counterparties (and shareholders? I confess I’m not sure) allowed themselves, and by extension, us, to get screwed.
Well, maybe, but again, maybe not. Appears to me that the public anger over this was largely spontaneous, they were pissed as soon as they found out about it. This is evidenced by the blind rush of Pubbies to get out in front of the populist rage, an example of crisis induced political schizophrenia, they not only bit the hand that feeds them, they bit to the bone!
The issue isn’t “getting screwed”, we done been screwed, blued, and tattooed. The question is pulling it all back together so we can recover. And then I’d very much like to call attention to the coziness of the financial industry and our legislators over the past couple of decades. Because if we don’t change* that*, there’s no point in pulling up our pants and getting up from the barrel, we’ll be right back there. Oversimplified, we need the Dems to become the Loyal Left once again, and not Republican Lite.
Did*any *person think the injection of funds was for the purpose of giving out bonuses? How is that being “trustworthy”? And how is failing to be precise about an expectation that a reasonable person would not have thought necessary to discuss not being trustworthy?
The “trust” involved here is not between financial traders, as you claim, but between a company that had not been run responsibly and a government taking it over to prevent it from bringing down the rest of the economy.
Yes, and it can be argued that the agents of the government behaved amateurishly, while the financial sector people behaved professionally (in the context of setting up the corrective financial arrangements). I really don’t think you’re any more pissed about this than I am, Elvis. But, at least at the moment, I have as much ire towards the people whose job it was to keep the public’s interest protected as towards those whose job it wasn’t.
I believe it’s already been pointed out why that is not likely to be possible in a manner that will avoid undoing all the work that has already been accomplished.
Agreed. But it needs to be done in the context of going forward from here with the lessons we have learned.
What did you think they were going to do, just pretend that their legal obligations didn’t exist? Then again, you appear to be a fan of the government pulling that sort of bullshit, so I can see how that would come to mind.
No harm no foul. We oughta start a real thread on TARP, Fed secrecy and Geithner’s bad bank plan. Gah, why not just give money directly to the ibanks instead of pretending there is some sort of due process.
What’s your view on currency debasement now? Still think Uncle Sugar is making money on debt issuance with the trillions this plan is going to cost?
I’m spending the weekend with captains of industry including a buncha banks. Should be interesting their take. All bets are off when it might impact ***my ***bonus after all.
AIG was legally obligated to give the bonuses. You know, a legally binding contract?
You can’t “prioritize” away a legal obligation. Well, at least when there’s real rule of law you can’t. Congress had their chance to prevent them, but they didn’t, so the legal obligation to pay the bonuses remained.
Yeah, that’s so comparable to AIG. :rolleyes: Enron went through Ch. 11 bankruptcy, where the legalities are vastly different…but surely you already knew that and were merely being disingenuous.
By all means, go ahead and list all the legal obligations they failed to meet, then I can go ahead an judge the validity of the rest of your sentence.
It takes quite a bit for a company to legally be able to break bonus contracts with it’s employees. Something kind’ve like…Ch. 11 bankruptcy! Or a Congressional measure in the bailout prohibiting them!
Why no, I wasn’t.
AIG could have been allowed to go through bankruptcy too, but the feds decided to try a softer, gentler way.
That doesn’t detract from the fact that “legal obligations” routinely get short shrift when a company founders.
What’s your profit in denying that and getting pissy about it?
What legal mechanism is there outside of bankruptcy that would have allowed AIG to not fulfill their fully legal contractual obligations they made with their employees? A company simply cannot go around the law to “short shrift” legal contracts just because the ignorant masses believe they should have done so.
Congress originally had a legal mechanism that would have prevented those bonuses. Then they got rid of it and made an explicit exception for those bonuses. AIG had no legal means to ignore their contracts, specifically because they didn’t go into bankruptcy and because of Congressional fiat.
Dunno, however I do know that fancy govt. lawyers made it legal to torture people these past few years.
It may not have been right, it may not have really been legal, but it was certainly doable.
I see nothing which suggests that there is anything to block the government from taking a similar, admittedly flakey, view towards the compensation of AIG execs.
The feds have the power, and if anyone disagrees with that, they certainly have the power to tie things up in court for years.