Madame DeFarge Would Be Pleased
AIG…bet you can’t even tell me what it stands for. All you know is that it must be populated with hordes of money hungry capitalists. People who are out for the fast buck. Men (and women) who cut and run. The worst of America’s shining lights. In short, folks who reflect the values we all cherish. Or seem to.
As evidenced by the remorseless blood-lust displayed by the media, members of Congress and the President, the 416 people who salted away $165 million deserve to be drawn and quartered, at least. A public hanging might be better…with street vendors selling voodoo dolls and popcorn. Bring back the guillotine. Off with their heads. Even Sweetie is beside herself not knowing who to blame for this effrontery. So she, like you, blames everyone.
What self-righteous indignation. The nerve of those people at AIG. Expecting the American people to abide by the terms of a lawful agreement is just too much to bear. Rebellion is in order. Anarchy rules.
After all, we’re the good guys. Congressmen expressing outrage and the squandering of public funds…the same ones who in 2008, along with the Presidential candidates, spent over $2 billion getting elected…with nary a concern about where the money came from or what was expected in return. Us, after enjoying the bloated gains of the market based in part on the very security shenanigans that got AIG into the shitter, are the ready executioners.
And the poor schmuck who gave up his 5% wage increase so he and his fellow union members could keep their jobs. What about them? If a million dollar bonus from GM had dropped into his lap, would he have torn it up and gone back to searching the want ads. Or the teacher who got pink slipped. Or the guy in Elkhart who got laid off because folks aren’t buying RVs. Would he have shipped back the nefarious bonus dollars to his employer and said…”take it, give it to someone who really needs it. I’ll struggle along as best I can.” Maybe.
Were the bonuses deserved? I haven’t the slightest idea or the foggiest notion of the terms of the employee agreements. Were they a smart idea given AIG’s incredible collapse? Duh, I don’t think so. Were they a good idea given the need for continuing public support? An Einstein I’m not, but a little common sense I got. Should some genius in the last administration, the current one or any of the zillion congressional committees that doled out the money have said “Ya know, maybe we should review any proposed bonuses before they’re paid.”
But that’s all hindsight. Meaning they were all thinking with their asses. Just like AIG did when they dabbled in securities that they couldn’t explain to a Harvard Business School graduate. Then again, maybe they were Harvard Business School graduates.
So now it’s time for fresh meat. Time to beat up on AIG and anyone who knows what it means. Forget about the real business at hand.
Madame DeFarge would be pleased.
| Permalink | author bio | 
Comments (6)
American International Group. Not googled, by the way. I just posted a comment on my facebook status about all this:
Facebook Status:
Comment from a fellow Ojai Citizen on my status:
Comment from me back to fellow Ojai citizen:
Now, we know for certain that 44 million of that paltry 120 million went directly to the division that is most responsible for these CDS and other exotic, paper shuffling instruments designed to make profit out of thin air. Worse, we know that the contracts mandating these bonuses were penned last March and that they called for at least 100% of 2007 bonus amounts regardless of performance. By March we knew what was coming, not a hindsight situation. Pure and simple white collar crime.
Comment #1 Posted by: spk | March 19, 2009 04:48 PM
Some more useful background on this, Eliot Spitzer's article on Slate is great. The bonus debacle is a smokescreen. Sorry if you can't bear to read the writing of the likes of Eliot Spitzer because of his "disgrace", but realize that he was working on this very issue way before the collapse. In fact, he wrote an article in the op ed of the WSJ the week before they brought him down. No hindsight there either.
Comment #2 Posted by: spk | March 19, 2009 04:57 PM
"they" brought him down? what? wasn't that HIS doing? I'm a dem, but, dude, come on, Eliot owns this one.
Comment #3 Posted by: Eliot's Wife | March 19, 2009 05:07 PM
Whatever he was doing in his private life is really not my concern. By "they" I'm referring to the suspicious timing. He was most definitely wrong in his sexual "judgement", but that does not transfer to his understanding of Wall Street criminals. Here's his op ed in the Washington Post, not the WSJ sorry. Less than a month after writing this article, he was exposed with the whole prostitute thing.
Comment #4 Posted by: spk | March 19, 2009 05:24 PM
agree, BUT, ever since my fave pres bill clinton got caught with his pants down, the dems know the price they pay for cheating on their wives - eliot should have steered clear of the hooker. and thanks fred for your post and for allowing this tangent!
Comment #5 Posted by: the wife | March 19, 2009 07:34 PM
Since you appear to be determined to talk about nonsense, I'll retire from the argument. The fact that Bill Clinton was your favorite President pretty much says it all.
Comment #6 Posted by: spk | March 19, 2009 07:54 PM