4 ms·
> they might not have been engaging in illegal activities purely for profit. I think the obvious interpretation is that Citigroup was politically connected eno
by qrendel 11y ago
> they might not have been engaging in illegal activities purely for profit.
I think the obvious interpretation is that Citigroup was politically connected enough (through lobbyists, personal connections, campaign donations, etc.) to pull strings in government and use taxpayer money to reduce their exposure. This would be mutually beneficial for the actors involved through the typical mechanisms of revolving door politics. It would seem almost delusional to me to think that those typical motives wouldn't have been present in this case. The article even points out using populist anger about bonuses as a negotiating tool against AIG.
While sections of the article, particularly near the end, certainly seem in need of an editor ("just to fuck with us," "the passage of time ... great for the wealthy"), I don't see that discrediting any of the information presented. Most seems to come from Greenberg's lawsuit + known history.
This stuff really makes me wish Lessig had gotten more traction with his Mayday PAC and presidential run.
- ethbro 11y agoIf you summarize all that, that's pretty much exactly how you'd have expected (and wanted it) to work. The variety of firms in question all in competition for the both attractive offers and largest limitation of their own risk. Where it seems to have gone off the rails, if it did, was in the speed and exclusivity with which this happened. If you'd had a couple years to play this out, everyone would have come to a much more equitable solution. However, because it needed to be done "now" (TM) due to the risks to the economy, the opportunity existed to steamroll deals through that would never have been agreed to by the market otherwise. The question is whether those deals were a reasonable call in a bad situation, or actually intentionally manipulative.