Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin
people confuse morality tales with economics. Letting aig and the banks "fail" might feel good, but would be a disaster that would still be paid by the tax payers. It would completely freeze credit markets even more,
|
Says who??? Credit markets were already frozen, that is one of the reasons AIG needed a bailout. Why would they give equity control of their company if they could have gotten "credit"? I will tell you - they couldn't. And---shareholder value was at or below zero - the people being protected were the people in management and the other firms that played along side AIG. If AIG went bankrupt the insurance companies would have been spun off or acquired by other companies because those entities had value.
Quote:
|
disrupt the economy and with all certainty push us into a great depression.
|
Says who??? Was it Paulson? Do you know he was an investment banker at Goldman before going into government? I am not into conspiracy theories, but Goldman certainly got paid after AIG got bailed out. But most likely, a guy who is an investment banker, sees the world through investment banker eyes, and naturally "his world" was in chaos and in need of a bailout - that don't mean it was the right thing to do.
And, why can't we have government officials to take some time and study an issue before committing billions? Why didn't they know about the bonuses on day one? Why didn't they make rescinding the bonus agreements as a condition of getting the money on day one? They did that for the top auto execs.
Most of the folks in Washington are simply in over their heads, and guys like Paulson may have had an agenda. We needed people to probe, study the issue, ask questions and do all the things we were told they did. Just admit that Obama's rhetoric during his campaign and as a Senator about controls and conditions was bullshit. why is that o.k. with you?