4 ms·

I happen to have had a Bloomberg terminal on my desk the day AIG was bailed out. Lets just say I have a pretty good idea of what AIG meant to the economy. For

• paganel 14y ago
  > For the same reason the government gave AIG $187 billion, the banks would have figured out how to craft a deal such that to the public it appeared that AIG was a viable financial entity. Around the same time US Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson was begging people on his knees for the rescue of Wall Street (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/sep/27/wallstreet.useconomy1 http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/sep/27/wallstreet.us...) and no-one generally had any idea if the Western financial system as it was right then had much to live. I say that AIG depending on (private) third parties for its rescue would have meant certain bankruptcy.
• OGinparadise 14y ago
  "For the same reason the government gave AIG $187 billion, the banks would have figured out how to craft a deal such that to the public it appeared that AIG was a viable financial entity." So why didn't they? Maybe because they were BROKE and people were wondering which bank would collapse the next morning. AIG gobbled over $100 billion in a month or so, otherwise they would have defaulted and everything would've been toast. That same week even the mighty Goldman Sachs kissed Buffet's ring and got $5 billion from him, yet you expect dozens of top banks, with different exposures and interests, getting together to put up $150+ billion in a few hours. This is recent and I remember it really well.