AIG

[Kaliayev]

If they were serious about solving the financial crisis, they would stop dicking around and just nationalize the thing already. Oh, and then they'd be working to put safeguards in place to make sure they were not just dropping money into a black hole of debt.

But nooooo, Geithner and Larry Summers know better! I mean, just look at Lithuania, Summers managed to double the suicide rate and nearly cause the country to vote the Communists back into power with his financial genius. What could possibly go wrong?

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Zhuge Liang

If they were serious about solving the financial crisis, they would stop dicking around and just nationalize the thing already. Oh, and then they'd be working to put safeguards in place to make sure they were not just dropping money into a black hole of debt.

But nooooo, Geithner and Larry Summers know better! I mean, just look at Lithuania, Summers managed to double the suicide rate and nearly cause the country to vote the Communists back into power with his financial genius. What could possibly go wrong?

Yes, they should nationalize some of the banks, and they should definitely nationalize this piece of crap. Either that, or STOP GIVING THEM MONEY! I don't mind the stimulus money, and I think we should be doing more there, but I'm sick to death of hearing about these pricks doing this crap. Just investigate them already and throw their asses in jail. That's where they should be.

Oh, and while we're at it, let's look at Countrywide. A lot of people like to blame Freddie and Fannie, but the subprime mortgages started with Countrywide and companies like that. Now they're cashing in on their mistakes. Really, can it get any worse?
http://www.startribune.com/business/...D3aPc:_Yyc:aUU

What's that about Larry Summers? You got a link where I can read about it?

[Scriveyn]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Why the fuck are we still pumping money into that sucking black hole? grrrrrrr

Is anyone else upset about that?

Yes, yes, yes!

Originally Posted by ZenGum

... Allowing 20 working days per month, this means the peeps at AIG lost $1,000,000,000 per day for three straight months.

No, really, how the #$%* did they manage that???

I am not surprised. - I had to exchange data with their IT department a few years back and I found they were the most incompetent bunch I'd encountered ever. Repeatedly failed to produce a plain text file according to specifications. And called themselves IT experts too!

[limey]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

The money that showed up as lost in the last quarter, was actually lost a year or more ago.

The reason they are propping AIG up is that if it goes down the loses they will continue to report would transfer to dozens, maybe hundreds of institutions and many of them would go down.

The total loss numbers won't change whether it's one or a bunch of institutions, but public perception which is important to recovery, is less damaged with a smaller number of failures.

What he said. I'm guessing hundreds of institutions, the world over, collapse of which would cause serious social instability (to put it mildly).

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

The money that showed up as lost in the last quarter, was actually lost a year or more ago.

The reason they are propping AIG up is that if it goes down the loses they will continue to report would transfer to dozens, maybe hundreds of institutions and many of them would go down.

The total loss numbers won't change whether it's one or a bunch of institutions, but public perception which is important to recovery, is less damaged with a smaller number of failures.

They're going to fail anyway.

But why not do as much damage as we can? Hell with it, just hand the treasury over to these bastards, so they can take bonuses and buy jets.

Oh, wait, we already did that.

[TGRR]

[xoxoxoBruce]

The Flaw in the System: The Bankers Don't Care About the Banks

The enlightened self-interest of the bank executives has been separated from the interests of the banks they work for. In the 1970's, the banks were still privately owned. So, the guy up at the top wanted to protect his company, his interest and his money. If his executives took unwarranted risks with the boss's money, they were goners. But these days the people at the top of these companies don't own the companies. It's not their money.

Do you know that last year, as Merrill Lynch was in its death throes, 696 executives got bonuses over a million dollars? 696! As the company lost tens of billions of dollars, the executives took home a combined $3.6 billion that year. Billions in bonuses in the worst year in the company's history. They're not stupid; they're smart. They're looting the store before the cops show up.

Last year the five biggest Wall Street securities firms lost $25.3 billion. The executives at those companies still took home $26 billion in bonuses. In other words, they wouldn't have lost a nickel if they hadn't taken any bonuses.

I stated before, the rich never cared about the little guy, but now they don't care about America, either. The money, only the money... the way to get their attention is take away the money.

And maybe 100 lashes.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

The Flaw in the System: The Bankers Don't Care About the Banks





I stated before, the rich never cared about the little guy, but now they don't care about America, either. The money, only the money... the way to get their attention is take away the money.

And maybe 100 lashes.

Well, so much for unregulated capitalism. And a big thanks to both parties for making this possible.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I knew one of the guys at work was insured by AIG (house), so I asked him if he is still with them. He said yes but they changed their name to 21st Century Insurance. I don't know if they are ashamed of the AIG name, have been spun off, or what.

[sugarpop]

Can it get any worse with these guys? Really.

"...On Monday, we the taxpayers, through our Treasury Department, committed to further AIG restructuring by injecting $30 billion and taking an approximate 78% stake in the company. Perhaps the company and its officers and employees should be thankful.

Instead, on Friday, AIG sued the United States for over $330 million in a tax dispute with the Internal Revenue Service. Really... I don't make this up. It is case number 1:09 CV 01871 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York filed by the law firm of Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP...." http://businessinsure.about.com/b/20...nd-sues-us.htm

And then there's this. Can you say HYPOCRISY? This guy ought to rot in prison. Seriously.

"Former American International Group Inc. Chief Executive Officer Maurice “Hank” Greenberg accused the insurer in a lawsuit of securities fraud after it reported the biggest loss by a publicly traded U.S. firm.

Greenberg sued yesterday in federal court in Manhattan, saying the company’s “material misrepresentations and omissions” caused him to acquire New York-based AIG shares in his deferred compensation profit-participation plan at an “artificially inflated price.”

The complaint came on the same day that AIG CEO Edward Liddy told Bloomberg News that Greenberg was at the helm during the formation of AIG’s financial products unit, which sold derivatives that cost the company more than $30 billion in writedowns and prompted a government rescue. After reporting its fourth-quarter loss widened to $61.7 billion, AIG announced it reached an agreement to restructure its federal bailout..."
get the full story here: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...fqQ&refer=home

[sugarpop]

If social and economic policies were more fair and equal, then maybe they wouldn't have to choose between what's good for them and what's good for society.

[classicman]

Put it up for auction - sell of the valuable worthwhile pieces and scrap the rest. Thats the reality of whats going to happen eventually anyway. Do it now. Rip off the band-aid, its a terminal patient.

[lookout123]

Simple solution: Quit bailing out failing companies. Strong companies with good management survive while weak companies perish. There will be more pain in the long run by pumping money into failing companies than just letting them go into bankruptcy.

If social and economic policies were more fair and equal,

What is unfair and unequal and what changes would you propose?

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by lookout123

Simple solution: Quit bailing out failing companies. Strong companies with good management survive while weak companies perish. There will be more pain in the long run by pumping money into failing companies than just letting them go into bankruptcy.

I completely agree with that.

What is unfair and unequal and what changes would you propose?

The system we have now is unfair to the majority of the people and works in favor of the top few. I have said all of this before, but here goes again...

*When someone who owns a sports team can get a new stadium built with money supplied by taxpayers, and then gets to keep all the profits, that is unfair to everyone but the owner of the team, and perhaps the athletes, who get giant salaries. Why should anyone have to pay for that, other than the people who profit from it? The owners are rich. They should pay for it themselves.
*When a large corporation like WalMart can get away with not paying for health insurance for their workers, and they end up on medicaid subsidized with taxpayers money, that isn't fair. WalMart is one of the richest, most successful corporations ever. The owners/executives of WalMart are extremely rich. Why should taxpayers be burdened with that?
*When pharmaceutical companies can charge as much as they do in THIS country (but not in any other country), but their R&D is subsidized with taxpayer money, that isn't fair.
*When rich people who have millions or billions of dollars can get away paying less than someone who makes 30k/year, that isn't fair.
*When taxpayers end up having to bail out corporations because they have been mismanaged, but the people who mismanaged them get big bonuses and bloated salaries, that isn't fair.
*When hundreds of people get laid off from work while the people at the top get bonuses and giant salaries, that isn't fair.

What would I do? Well, I'm not sure exactly how to change it, but I would try to enact policies that didn't allow any of that stuff to happen. We need to do something to curtail the greed and corruption. It's obscene, the way this crap happens, and people just put up with it. We are like blind sheep in this country going over a cliff. It's maddening.

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

*When someone who owns a sports team can get a new stadium built with money supplied by taxpayers, and then gets to keep all the profits, that is unfair to everyone but the owner of the team, and perhaps the athletes, who get giant salaries. Why should anyone have to pay for that, other than the people who profit from it? The owners are rich. They should pay for it themselves.

I think it is pretty crummy too, although it is misleading to say the teamowner takes all the profit while taxpayers paid for it. Teams either lease the use of the stadium or have put significant sums into the purchase and share the profits according to contracts agreed to by the cities in which the stadiums were built. I have the same 'not with my tax money' reaction to, though.

*When a large corporation like WalMart can get away with not paying for health insurance for their workers, and they end up on medicaid subsidized with taxpayers money, that isn't fair. WalMart is one of the richest, most successful corporations ever. The owners/executives of WalMart are extremely rich. Why should taxpayers be burdened with that?

Walmart provides insurance benefits for fulltime employees. I know they use the old 35 hour per week, part time employee escape, but the employees do choose to work there. The reason the owners are rich and the company makes huge profits is because they manage their p/l statements that tightly. Taxpayers are unfortunately stuck paying for some benefits for these low pay employers just like we do for the low pay grocery store clerk and the unemployed guy on his couch. That's the nature of the beast.
*

When pharmaceutical companies can charge as much as they do in THIS country (but not in any other country), but their R&D is subsidized with taxpayer money, that isn't fair.

R&D is subsidized through grants and the like but the companies spend far more in drug trials and development. They are private corporations who pay their employees to do a job. Instead of despising their profit, you should applaud it.
*

When rich people who have millions or billions of dollars can get away paying less than someone who makes 30k/year, that isn't fair.

Do you mean in dollars or percentages? I guarantee there is NO millionaire paying less in either category than someone making $30K/ year. That is a nice fallacy though.
*

When taxpayers end up having to bail out corporations because they have been mismanaged, but the people who mismanaged them get big bonuses and bloated salaries, that isn't fair.

There we agree. Those companies shouldn't be bailed out. If they aren't strong enough to compete and succeed they shouldn't exist.
*

When hundreds of people get laid off from work while the people at the top get bonuses and giant salaries, that isn't fair.

Too true. That is the very hallmark of a poorly managed company that should fail.

What would I do? Well, I'm not sure exactly how to change it, but I would try to enact policies that didn't allow any of that stuff to happen. We need to do something to curtail the greed and corruption. It's obscene, the way this crap happens, and people just put up with it. We are like blind sheep in this country going over a cliff. It's maddening.

You've thrown out the usual statements but without an idea of how to make it better they don't mean much.