> Some ex-Goldman Sachs people brokered a deal that made Goldman whole at the cost we-the-people and with bad terms to A.I.G. That misses the point, I think. I

> Some ex-Goldman Sachs people brokered a deal that made Goldman whole at the cost we-the-people and with bad terms to A.I.G. That misses the point, I think. It's perfectly fair for you as a taxpayer to complain that it's a sweetheart deal for Goldman and shouldn't be where your money goes. That's all fine, but it doesn't help AIG's claim that it's been mistreated. The whole purpose of bailing out an insurance company is to make sure it can pay out its policies. The public has no interest in helping AIG's shareholders per se, so of course the government going to drive a deal that screws them as much as possible in the process of getting what it wants. And it should -- like the company, if it's going to make a deal, it should make one that best serves its stakeholders. And if AIG thought the deal sucked, it should have said no and entered bankruptcy (a perfectly reasonable thing for a company to do). But it took the deal because the board, who represents the shareholders, thought that was the better of its two options. So now their stuck with a deal that they wish were better, but I don't see why anyone owes them that. In other words, maybe the public's best option was to let AIG fail, and maybe AIG's best option was to let AIG fail, but I don't see the scenario in which the government is being unfair to AIG.