3 ms·
Not sure why this straw man is getting so many up votes. He's not saying he had minimal impact. He's saying it was nothing to do with him and he never profite
by endtime 18y ago
Not sure why this straw man is getting so many up votes. He's not saying he had minimal impact. He's saying it was nothing to do with him and he never profited from it at all.
- noonespecial 18y agoWow. I kind of meant that as a "shoulder shrug" comment. Didn't think it'd start a huge debate and have its karma shoot up and down like a hot air balloon on a windy day! Cool. The point was more along the line of being an answer to the implied question "why should my huge bonus be effected when it was just my employer that was acting nutty". He got more than 700k after taxes. Would this have been possible without the other bogiosity that was going on at AIG? Should he still just be paid this even though his company has entered a type of receivership to the US taxpayer because it basically completely failed? Was the very idea of a > $1M bonus for what he did there part of the flood? I was thinking yes.