Actually it’s my understanding that Greenberg was out of the company before they greatly expanded the sale of CDSs which ultimately sank the company.
You need to look into the facts of the situation.
And even if the above is incorrect, it could still be true that AIG shareholders could have gotten a better deal without the government intervention than with it. What even the government seems to acknowlege is that their goal was not helping AIG specifically, but on helping the broader financial system. In light of this, it would be logical and consistent if they used AIG as a convenient vehicle for this, as Greenberg alleges, and at the expense of AIG shareholder.
Assertions that the shareholders would have lost everything anyway (in which case it’s moot) may or may not be true. But if Greenberg alleges that it’s not true, then that’s a rational claim, and deserves to be looked at.
People who refuse to consider the facts and issues and simply call for other people to be ground into catfood, and if pressed just assume whatever facts are necessary to justify this (in their eyes) are part of the problem in this country and world, not the solution.
Well that is a different question altogether. The first point was that all people in the top 1% got there unethically and should be made into cat food. Then you asked how it’s even possible to get rich. My answer is that many people have gotten rich without compromising their ethics. And that a combination of extreme good luck and hard work makes some folks rich.
But the very definition of the top 1% means that most people will never be there. And that includes you and me. I’m not in the top 1% or the top 5% or even the top 20% Resenting some wealthy folks who have never harmed you, and it fact have helped create jobs, will not cure your ‘world of pain.’
Oh man, this hits home. Yesterday I just went to give the results of my analyses, including reports and recommendations to a fortune 100 company. As the meeting approached I had 5…FIVE! high ups in the company (including 1 board member) express interest in the meeting. They all flew in from half way around the company to attend.
Yes, they had input, which, I guess, sorta made sense but didn’t think was needed and was actually discarded by the clients in the meeting.
So here we are…clients, me and 5 high executives in my company all of which probably make 10x what I make…talking about analyses I did, analyses that I invented (for the company) that intrigued this particular client about a report I did and recommendations I suggested.
They behaved themselves and tried to contribute…but it was somewhat painful because they were out of touch. The meeting went well, but they did not help.
Guess what…I bet this client will love my work and become a regular customer…for which these 5 highly paid executives who probably make 10x what I do will take credit for bringing in and will reward themselves handsomely for doing so and I will get, if history holds consistent, nothing…not even a pat on the back/head.
As someone in the “1%” I look forward to the shoot-out. One arse hole does not a group make but then you probably think we are all in the secret cabal planning on how to screw you out of your money.
My guess is that you’re great at doing that all by yourself.
I don’t know if I’m officially a 1-percenter or not, but I’d guess I’m close enough for government work. I’d only ask that, come the revolution, I be made into dog food rather than cat food. I should probably have that put on my organ donation card.
[Moderating] Absolute, telling other posters to fuck themselves is a violation of the Pit language rules. Please avoid this language in the future.
[/Moderating]
As to who is in the actual 1%, opinions seem to differ depending on how the numbers are calculated and whether you’re talking about income or net worth.
The last time i looked at the figures, which were calculated (IIRC) by an NYU economist, being in the top 1% by annual income required about $350K a year, and being in the top 1% by wealth required a net worth of about $9 million.
They can’t be above the top 1% because that is, by definition, the top. They are well above the cut-off mark for the top 1%, and are themselves probably in the top 0.01%, but they are still in the top 1%.
What the fuck? Half a million dollars a year isn’t impressive? It’s going to take me thirty years to pay the bank less than three fifths this amount. Count yourself a lucky fucker that you don’t think a half million is impressive. Jesus but some of you folks have rare minds.
what he meant was having half a million every year and using it to mess up the US economy isn’t likely, even if there’s a whole bunch of them. people “up there” tend to be independent thinkers and like being different from the next millionaire. the only reason i’d like to pit them is when they go to ends just to make themselves look more impressive than they really are, such as surgically altering their jaw bones to make them look more headstrong. things like that.
Oh it’s “impressive” (if making money is an impressive thing) but it doesn’t go as far as you think it would particularly in a high cost area. Regardless, it certainly doesn’t allow me to start directing the economy or even affecting much of anything. I do, however, pay a tremendous amount in taxes as I have next to no capital gains.
Will my paying more improve your life much? Unlikely. Will people make the same housing mistakes again? Probably but let’s hope not.
It’s more complicated than that. The market maker that is Freddie and Fannie forcing diluted credit standards onto the market, without which even the banks couldn’t justify their loans. Greedy banks, greedy consumers borrowing more than they ever should have in the assumption that housing would continue to rise. Poor tax policy that overly rewards homeowners etc.