3 ms·

I see your point. But assuming he had nothing to do with the derivative crisis, he is just basically cleaning up a mess made by someone else. And he has now eff

by chris11 18y ago

I see your point. But assuming he had nothing to do with the derivative crisis, he is just basically cleaning up a mess made by someone else. And he has now effectively been paid nothing for his work. Sure, he can afford it, and he was a senior vp at AIG, so I am sure there is a lot more he could have done. But he played an ancillary role in this crisis. And this is basically turning into a witch hunt. If he had been at some other bank, this wouldn't be happening to him.I would see some cases where I agree with him losing his bonuses, but not in this one. It seems to me like the government is going after AIG only because of all the public outrage. I would like to see more signs criminal investigations starting, and system wide changes, I don't want the government to focus on just one company.

Rod 18y ago
"Sure, he can afford it, and he was a senior vp at AIG, so I am sure there is a lot more he could have done." Being a vice-president at a financial institution does not mean one has much executive power. For instance, a couple of years ago Goldman Sachs had over 300 vice-presidents. I don't know if AIG has the same hierarchy as Wall Street banks have (or had, since some have gone bust), but if such is the case, then a VP is not exactly a top dog, so to say. "This is basically turning into a witch hunt" It sure is! The politicians (mainly the democrats but also the republicans) have realized that the American people's sentiment is, all of a sudden, strongly against the financial institutions, and they're positioning themselves so they can profit politically from other people's misery. Politicians have no values, only re-election dreams.
endtime 18y ago
>It seems to me like the government is going after AIG only because of all the public outrage. This is very true. Honestly, I'd go so far as to call it a lack of leadership by Obama.

by chris11 18y ago

Rod 18y ago

"Sure, he can afford it, and he was a senior vp at AIG, so I am sure there is a lot more he could have done." Being a vice-president at a financial institution does not mean one has much executive power. For instance, a couple of years ago Goldman Sachs had over 300 vice-presidents. I don't know if AIG has the same hierarchy as Wall Street banks have (or had, since some have gone bust), but if such is the case, then a VP is not exactly a top dog, so to say. "This is basically turning into a witch hunt" It sure is! The politicians (mainly the democrats but also the republicans) have realized that the American people's sentiment is, all of a sudden, strongly against the financial institutions, and they're positioning themselves so they can profit politically from other people's misery. Politicians have no values, only re-election dreams.

endtime 18y ago

>It seems to me like the government is going after AIG only because of all the public outrage. This is very true. Honestly, I'd go so far as to call it a lack of leadership by Obama.