Comments on: The AIG Bonus Mess: Let's Pick it Apart

By: Jack Brooks

Jack Brooks — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:57:39 +0000

Madame LaFarge, knitting while the French dropped the guillotined heads of the nobility at her feet, is an example of someone who was quite happy with the Court of Public Opinion. Just like Barney Frankenstein wants the names and addresses of AIG executives published, in the hopes that mobs will attack them and thus distract attention from his own thievery.

By: Byron

Byron — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 02:28:17 +0000

Pip pip, tally ho, jolly good show ‘n all that, my good man Graham! Well put! If a government gets to the place where it is more concerned with the “Court of Public Opinion” than it is the actual courts, it’s time to toss that government out on its ear.

By: Byron

Byron — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 02:24:31 +0000

But the point is that they entered into contracts (and they didn’t pay people bonuses FOR driving the company into the ground; they paid bonuses because they were contractually obligated to). A contract is a contract. We can debate the wisdom of the contracts–and we might well be on the same side in that debate–but the fact is it’s not about what they deserve; it’s about honoring contracts entered into. Neither is it about allowing people to spend money on whatever; if the money is owed, by virtue of a legally-rendered contract, then the money belongs to those people, and they are free to spend it however they well please. We may not like it, but it’s not any of our business, frankly, and besides, our government should set certain ground rules before handing out money, not after the fact. I wouldn’t at all be opposed to the government putting as many strings on its money as it wants; in fact, I’m in favor of it. But it’s shoddy business on the part of our government–and hypocritical grandstanding of the worst kind by certain demagogues in our government–to come back now and complain after the government didn’t do its job.

Further, do we know that these folks “deserve to be fired”? Is it possible that some of these folks actually prevented the situation from becoming worse? My point is that I think you’ve jumped to a lot of conclusions. Yes, I understand the frustration, because it looks bad, but I put the blame squarely on our own government before I do AIG.

But of course, we shouldn’t have handed out money to begin with…

By: Graham

Graham — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 21:52:34 +0000

I think, Byron, you’ve hit the nail on the head about this being a contract.

We have had a similar fuss about the pension given to the Royal Bank of Scotland’s Sir Fred Goodwin, and the complaints from Labour politicians, such as how he should be stripped of his knighthood (erm, only ever done if Sir commits treason- as far as I am aware, having a large pension which makes socialists envious is not actually treason) or that it is simply not paid. The British Government is the major shareholder and has contractual obligations, like it or not.

Am I over the moon that some of my taxes are going to Sir Fred’s pension? Not at all. But there is a contract.

As for the idea from Labour’s deputy leader Harriet Harman (so politically correct that she is mocked as “Ms Harperson”) that such a contract is enforceable in a Court of Law, but is not enforceable in the “Court of Public Opinion”, I start to get worried. Who chooses the judges in the Court of Public Opinion?

Once any Government indicates that it chooses not to be bound by contracts it either enters into or inherits, then there is one consequence- no serious company will do any business with it. Why sign a contract with a Government which then says “sorry, this contract is not enforceable in the Court of Public Opinion”?

By: Danielle

Danielle — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 19:24:42 +0000

I understand they entered into contracts, but I just think it is unbelievable that they would be paying these people bonuses for driving the company into the ground. They claim in this video that these top people needed the money or they would leave, but I like the counter arguments in it much better- http://tinyurl.com/d845az. They don’t deserve bonuses, they deserve to be fired! Maybe bailing them out to begin with was a bad option, but allowing them to spend the money on new cars/houses/boats/designer clothes is ridiculous.