I have to imagine that continued articles on financial services bonuses (like this one on AIG planning bonuses of $165 million in today's New York Times) will provoke more outrage and suspicion of the financial bailouts being offered to the largest firms while individuals continue to lose their houses. I don't care if these were legally obligated, these executives were also legally obligated to perform adequately. I'm sure a good lawyer could make the case that the legal obligations were broken on both sides. For example, what would happen in a bankruptcy? It is not clear to me that they would need to be paid.
There is so much more to write here, but I'd better post this now and return later as I have to get lunch ready now (mundane but true).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Hi Professor King! I saw your post about AIG and couldn't resist commenting - the hearing was held yesterday in our building and lasted for hours. There were so many protesters around here! Watching all the members take out their constituents' rage on Mr. Liddy on national television made me cringe, although the issue is obviously a big one and the taxpayer in me resents the bonuses just a little bit.
While I suppose the hearing served a purpose as a catharsis for angry voters, I found myself wondering what good it would ultimately do to focus so much on demonizing executives and railing on what should have been or wasn't done in the past, rather than discussing the more complicated matter of restoring the company/the economy to viability again.
At the very least, I guess if I ever think I'm having a bad day, I can always consider what Liddy's must have been like yesterday.
Anyway, hope all is well! Your posts are always interesting, thanks for keeping up your blog :) Take care!
Post a Comment