Well in this case if a tax that targets the AIG bonuseers can be legally enacted, I say let's do it!

Those rat bastards at AIG deserve no bonus and instead should be getting an atomic wedgie.  >:(

Employment law, sir!

I assume the US model works in roughly the same way as the British one...

You start doing that and it gives any company carte blanche to sack the entire workforce...not just those creaming the billions!


Good points, but I'm suggesting that the government simply reserve that right for itself.  No company would be allowed to do it.  It would only apply to companies bought by the government.

Good points, but I'm suggesting that the government simply reserve that right for itself.  No company would be allowed to do it.  It would only apply to companies bought by the government.
dag, a libertarian advocating unilateral government hire-and-fire discretion.

such is the magic that is naked kleptocracy.  8) i like it.

dag, a libertarian advocating unilateral government hire-and-fire discretion.

such is the magic that is naked kleptocracy.  8) i like it.


"Naked Kleptocracy" sounds like one of those chic downtown photo gallery exhibits!
:D

dag, a libertarian advocating unilateral government hire-and-fire discretion.

such is the magic that is naked kleptocracy.  8) i like it.


lol...  Well, I'm not a pure Libertarian by any means.  For example, I support socialized medicine.

My thinking simply is this...  when government money is involved, the best way to assure accountability is ruthless control.

AIG clearly doesn't fear public outcries, so the government ought to take from them something they really fear -- complete control of their own company.

If we own 80% of the company as taxpayers, we should have the same dominating power as any majority shareholder would have.

Good points, but I'm suggesting that the government simply reserve that right for itself.  No company would be allowed to do it.  It would only apply to companies bought by the government.


If the Government manage to sneak that one past the lawyers, I'll applaud them wholeheartedly!

(Modified a little, it sounded better that way!)

AIG knew the government would bail them out.  Why should they take Free Market responsibility if there's no fear of Free Market consequences.  That's the better libertarian argument. 

Free Market discipline for poor slobs like me.  The hand-holding nanny state for 100 billion dollar corporations like AIG.  And they tell me not to be bitter!
::)

AIG knew the government would bail them out.  Why should they take Free Market responsibility if there's no fear of Free Market consequences.  That's the better libertarian argument. 


True, that's where the problem started.

But now that we've gone down this road...  well, nationalization is better than continuous corporate welfare.

I'll take Euro-style socialists over corporatists.

True, that's where the problem started.

But now that we've gone down this road...  well, nationalization is better than continuous corporate welfare.

I'll take Euro-style socialists over corporatists.


We can agree on that.  What we've got now is a kind of perverted fascism!
::)

Personally, I think since we (the American taxpayers) own 80% of the company, the Feds should take over the company, fire all the executives, break up the company, and sell off all the pieces. That would solve the entire problem.


As emotionally-satisfying as it would be, there are two problems with that:

1) The government owns 79.9% of the company, because if it owned 80%, it would have to mark AIG's liabilities as its own liabilities.  Those liabilities are... well, nobody knows, but they're large.  Could be in the trillions.  If the government took over the entire company, our foreign lenders would bail on us (they currently believe the US government is capable of taxing its citizens back for interest on the $2T 2009 deficit and $11-12T debt it currently owes), but might change their tune if those numbers were to, say, double)... world economy implodes, game over.

1.waitaminute!)  "But AIG was, in fact, ordered, as a condition of this loan, to sell off its assets to the highest bidder and wind itself down."  Well, yes.  But this hasn't happened, because... well, because we've got a bunch of moochers and looters in AIG, and on the Hill, and it's hard to tell who's who, because they're all basically the same people.  But everyone has the fig leaf of "Well, the AIG Board of Directors says it's  better to wait a bit before winding down" to hide behind, so nothing happens.  Game continues, as long as everyone involved has plausible deniability.

2) The government, as owner of 79.9% of the voting rights (purchased in exchange for the first bailout loan back in Septemberish), has the power to nominate its own slate of directors, and vote 'em in.  In so doing, they would fire the current AIG board.  The new board would be able to effect the sales, control bonus policy, and do all the other things that the raging mob would want it to do.  The problem here is that doing so might trigger any change of control clauses in the company's existing debt (and by extension, CDS) contracts.  See #1.  World economy implodes, game over.

I'm actually OK with that.  The difference between John Galt and Rorschach is that Galt would say "Get out of my way", instead of "No". 

But since Galt's not around (or has long since left the building), I'm down with Rorschacht.

"The accumulated filth of all their graft and corruption will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout 'Save us!'... and I'll look down and whisper... 'No.'"

Burn it all down, even if all of us are consumed in the fire.  The survivors will rebuild.  "No compromise.  Not even in the face of Armageddon."

Now Playing: KMFDM, Adios.

It's been too many times...

Regardless of the short term outcome of all this, what is imperative is that these giants be broken up.  They are trusts in restraint of trade because they are oligopolies. Any firm that is too big to fail is simply too big.

1.) First off if they nationalize AIG I don;t know if thats the best idea I mean Government running the company. The government can;t even spend its money wisely. I mean the 75 billion dollar housing "cramdown bill" is a total failure.

2.) If the problem at AIG is this bad they should have filed for Chapter 11.

3.) If they nationilize AIG temporarily to me thats not socialism its if they permanently nationalize than that would be socialism.

4.) Why did AIG even give these people bonuses there was no reason in my opinion for AIG empoyees to even warrant these bonuses.. AIG gave these people bonuses because they wanted these people to stay at AIG. In my opinion bonuses are supposed to reward accomplishment. These bonuses did not award any kind of accomplishment.

5.) The government should not even be outraged they knew all about these AIG bonuses beforehand. Its was only over the weekend the the American public learned about these bonuses that the American people were outraged over it. The Government had to do last second damage-control because of the outrage from the American people over this.

6.) A contract is a contract even though I don;t like these bonuses that these AIG employees were given they were in a contract plus Chris Dodd in the stimulus bill had in the bill that the AIG employees were to recieve bonuses.

World economy implodes, game over.

This might be in the offing.  It might be time.  Let it all turn to rust and powder.

I'm actually OK with that.  The difference between John Galt and Rorschach is that Galt would say "Get out of my way", instead of "No". 

But since Galt's not around (or has long since left the building), I'm down with Rorschacht.

If you're looking for a fictional figure to represent the near future, I'd go with Mad Max or Conan the Barbarian.  John Galt can't cut the mustard without bourgeois government subsidies.  If it's going to be rude survival, the John Galts of the world will be eaten for breakfast by bands of marauding teenage boys armed with AK-47s.
::)

I prefer Ozymandias over Rorschach.

But yeah, let it burn.

surely you jest.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/19/vikram-pandit-executive-s_n_176785.html

March 19 (Bloomberg) -- Citigroup Inc. plans to spend about $10 million on new offices for Chief Executive Officer Vikram Pandit and his lieutenants, after the U.S. government injected $45 billion of cash into the bank.

Affidavits filed with New York's Department of Buildings show Citigroup expects to pay at least $3.2 million for basic construction such as wall removal, plumbing and fire safety. By the time architect's fees and expenses such as furniture are added, the tally for the offices at the bank's Park Avenue headquarters will be at least three times as high, according to a person familiar with the project who declined to be identified because he's not authorized to comment. Citigroup said the project will help it save money over time.



i'm starting to agree with macphisto. i want to see these people suffer, even if it means i have to suffer too.

tax on bonuses passed.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090319/ap_on_go_co/aig_outrage

have to say this seems like a good idea to me.

It is not enough.  I want names   NAMES, DAMNIT!

It is not enough.  I want names   NAMES, DAMNIT!
they're saying it's unconstitutional and the AIG execs might sue. man i hope so and i hope they do, because then there will be lots and lots of lengthy public trials.

a bunch of republicans are complaining about confiscatory taxes and seizure of private property. totally unbelievable.

hey yall! it wasn't their money! it's not private property! it's government money!

christ, these people must go to a special school where they actively study being stupid. you dont get this stupid just by not learning anything.

a bunch of republicans are complaining about confiscatory taxes and seizure of private property. totally unbelievable.

hey yall! it wasn't their money! it's not private property! it's government money!

christ, these people must go to a special school where they actively study being stupid. you dont get this stupid just by not learning anything.


Son, you best learn what's mine is mine and what's yours...
is mine!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/tophat.gif

Throw (virtual) tomatoes at AIG.  :D ;D ;D ;D


http://www.moveon.org/tomato/?id=15776-1416372-0rq.QQx&t=1




Cat