7 ms·

This really makes my blood boil, but I'm trying to remain impartial while reading. The highlight of the article: > Judge Paul A. Engelmayer wrote that while S

This really makes my blood boil, but I'm trying to remain impartial while reading. The highlight of the article: > Judge Paul A. Engelmayer wrote that while Starr’s complaint “paints a portrait of government treachery worthy of an Oliver Stone movie,” the company “voluntarily accepted the hard terms offered by the one and only rescuer that stood between it and imminent bankruptcy.” Sure, the terms might have seemed "unfair" but what could they possibly expect? It was "accept some harsh terms for royally screwing up or go under." It's not like they were some innocent bystander; they made some really stupid decisions and paid the price. Side note: those "thank you" commercials feel so terribly disingenuous;

Alterlife 14y ago
AIG is trying to get money out of the situation. That's what companies do, and apparently this is what companies are supposed to do.
- varjag 14y ago
  Normally companies make money by providing a product or service. Granted, that's something AIG wasn't very good with lately, but I'm not sure suing the government for money is a sustainable business model.
- DeepDuh 14y ago
  The main problem seems to be that litigation in court is lucrative in the American system. It's not just righting something wrong, to cover ones damages, it's about making money you couldn't make otherwise. And that's when suing becomes a business model. It's amazing to me how the USA is still so innovative despite that legal insecurity.
ChuckMcM 14y ago
I agree with the emotion but I can also see the argument that the agreement was made under duress. If you are about to die and the only person who could save you, offers to do so, but asks you to agree to something reprehensible in exchange for saving you, what do you do? At the risk of creating a strawman (the goal is illustration not substitution) let us construct a scenario, you're hanging by a rope which is breaking, you have maybe 10 minutes before it breaks. And the only person who can save you says, "Ok, I'll save you on the condition that in the near future I will come to you and ask you to do something for me, and you must agree to do what ever I ask." What if your savior asks you to blow up an airplane? Or sell your spouse into the sex trade? or any of a dozen things you would never do voluntarily and are counter to your values. This is the kind of thing that novelists use to create tension, its very effective. So AIG claims here that the Government went too far in its ask, and has crossed some line into moral turpitude. Who is the bad guy? the good guy? Doesn't really matter though, its one of those chickens they talk about that come back to roost. Never a good thing.
- earbitscom 14y ago
  Actually, it's more like a guy who just conned your family out of their life savings is hanging by a rope, which is breaking. You don't feel inclined to save them, but unfortunately, they're hanging over a crowd of innocent bystanders. You agree to save them, mostly so that the others are not injured. While you do, you make them agree to give back all of the money they stole under shitty terms. They do so by screwing over the guys who helped them pull the con job, who are now coming to you asking for their share of the money they stole from your family.
  - ChuckMcM 14y ago
    I like it! Ideally that will come out in court (should it go to trial, although I consider that unlikely). Someone should make a Matrix spoof where the kid at the Oracle's house says, Boy: Do not try and recover the money. That's impossible. Instead only try to realize the truth. Neo: What truth? Boy: There is no money. Neo: There is no money? Boy: Then you'll see that it is not the banks that are broke, it is only yourself.
  - cpeterso 14y ago
    I think you just wrote the next Cohen Brothers film. ;)
  - yummyfajitas 14y ago
    I'm confused about the analogy - who did AIG shareholders con?
    - tatsuke95 14y ago
      This is standard operating procedure on the internet: everyone who wears a suit is a parasitcal criminal. Back in reality, most banks have paid back their TARP funds, as did AIG, generating a hefty return over 3 years to the Treasury. You know what bailout is still significantly in the red? The auto industry. But we hear little about that because those guys don't work on Wall Street.
baddox 14y ago
> Side note: those "thank you" commercials feel so terribly disingenuous; Not to mention misdirected. The implication is that the American people are the ones being thanked, as if they had any choice in the matter.

Alterlife 14y ago

AIG is trying to get money out of the situation. That's what companies do, and apparently this is what companies are supposed to do.

varjag 14y ago
Normally companies make money by providing a product or service. Granted, that's something AIG wasn't very good with lately, but I'm not sure suing the government for money is a sustainable business model.
DeepDuh 14y ago
The main problem seems to be that litigation in court is lucrative in the American system. It's not just righting something wrong, to cover ones damages, it's about making money you couldn't make otherwise. And that's when suing becomes a business model. It's amazing to me how the USA is still so innovative despite that legal insecurity.

ChuckMcM 14y ago

I agree with the emotion but I can also see the argument that the agreement was made under duress. If you are about to die and the only person who could save you, offers to do so, but asks you to agree to something reprehensible in exchange for saving you, what do you do? At the risk of creating a strawman (the goal is illustration not substitution) let us construct a scenario, you're hanging by a rope which is breaking, you have maybe 10 minutes before it breaks. And the only person who can save you says, "Ok, I'll save you on the condition that in the near future I will come to you and ask you to do something for me, and you must agree to do what ever I ask." What if your savior asks you to blow up an airplane? Or sell your spouse into the sex trade? or any of a dozen things you would never do voluntarily and are counter to your values. This is the kind of thing that novelists use to create tension, its very effective. So AIG claims here that the Government went too far in its ask, and has crossed some line into moral turpitude. Who is the bad guy? the good guy? Doesn't really matter though, its one of those chickens they talk about that come back to roost. Never a good thing.

earbitscom 14y ago
Actually, it's more like a guy who just conned your family out of their life savings is hanging by a rope, which is breaking. You don't feel inclined to save them, but unfortunately, they're hanging over a crowd of innocent bystanders. You agree to save them, mostly so that the others are not injured. While you do, you make them agree to give back all of the money they stole under shitty terms. They do so by screwing over the guys who helped them pull the con job, who are now coming to you asking for their share of the money they stole from your family.
- ChuckMcM 14y ago
  I like it! Ideally that will come out in court (should it go to trial, although I consider that unlikely). Someone should make a Matrix spoof where the kid at the Oracle's house says, Boy: Do not try and recover the money. That's impossible. Instead only try to realize the truth. Neo: What truth? Boy: There is no money. Neo: There is no money? Boy: Then you'll see that it is not the banks that are broke, it is only yourself.
- cpeterso 14y ago
  I think you just wrote the next Cohen Brothers film. ;)
- yummyfajitas 14y ago
  I'm confused about the analogy - who did AIG shareholders con?
  - tatsuke95 14y ago
    This is standard operating procedure on the internet: everyone who wears a suit is a parasitcal criminal. Back in reality, most banks have paid back their TARP funds, as did AIG, generating a hefty return over 3 years to the Treasury. You know what bailout is still significantly in the red? The auto industry. But we hear little about that because those guys don't work on Wall Street.

baddox 14y ago

> Side note: those "thank you" commercials feel so terribly disingenuous; Not to mention misdirected. The implication is that the American people are the ones being thanked, as if they had any choice in the matter.