Aig Bonuses

[dairygirl4u2c]

i agree with what catherine said about them being void as per public policy, or like stealing, and void.

also, it would be merely an oversight that a contingency wasn't added to the bailout, that would be that AIG can't take the moneyunless they do not allow for the bonuses. congress w ould have made that a condition had they seen it. i can see in principle being for keeping contracts, but this is just an accident. i'm someone who can justify the means, at times, though, so that colors my response somewhat. teh bottomline is what matters, whta's effectively transpiring, not some technicality 'let's keep our promises' line of BS.
people who want to keep the promise mean well, but i say, they're misguided, most of em.

Edited March 21, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[Winchester]

[quote name='txdinghysailor' post='1812371' date='Mar 20 2009, 02:32 PM']I'm a greedy capitalist pig and I'm proud of it![/quote]
You'll need to choose between capitalism and Catholicism. They're not compatible.

[Winchester]

A certain amount of money should go to the investors and the company should be allowed to collapse. The investors could reinvest in other companies. The government does have an interest in keeping the market alive.

But this money all went somehwere--it didn't cease to exist. Someone's gotten it. If it was spent, it was spent on something and so it went somewhere. Follow the money.

[whatsup]

My problem is that these were contractual bonus. Meaning that they were in place BEFORE the government chose to bail out AIG. Meaning that the government had full well ability to say no to the bonus' before they happened. Plus, last time I checked when you got a loan you had the free will to do with it what you wanted unless the contract forbade you.

How in the world was this missed? The goverment was just handing out money and didn't even look into the company?

This reeks of fearmongering and communism.

[add]

BO loaned AGI the moo-la
AGI was too big to fail
BO loaned the money with no strings
AGI did business as usual, as BO asked for this plan

[txdinghysailor]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1814005' date='Mar 22 2009, 02:46 PM']You'll need to choose between capitalism and Catholicism. They're not compatible.[/quote]

I think they are compatible. What's wrong with trying to make a profit? I figure as long as I make money in a moral way and tithe, I can make as much as I want to.

[Winchester]

[quote name='txdinghysailor' post='1814028' date='Mar 22 2009, 02:22 PM']I think they are compatible. What's wrong with trying to make a profit? I figure as long as I make money in a moral way and tithe, I can make as much as I want to.[/quote]
The Church thinks otherwise. Perhaps you don't believe in capitalism, but in some other form of materialism that is more gentle and closer to the Church's view of the purpose of commerce. The only way you can make as much money as the more highly paid executive officers is to not give those who work for you a just wage.

I say this as someone with money in a retirement account, fully aware of my probable cooperation in this evil and certainly willing to overlook it:

The stock market is driven by belief more than reality. For a time, "streamlining" companies made stocks go up--streamlining is another word for firing. The money investors make is often at the expense of someone else's livelihood for no greater reason than increasing a profit margin (and that's not a great reason. Moving the company to increase the profit margin isn't morally acceptable, either--all options must be exhausted before you do something that hurts those in your care). If you choose to enter into corporate America and become an executive, the people who work for you are your responsibility and you owe them a just wage. Just wages aren't determined by what people are willing to work for or what other people comparable to them are paid or how well they can negotiate their contracts. If you are an executive, it will be your moral duty to be the first to suffer hardships and the last to benefit from the good times--your people come first because you have a responsibility to them. That is not capitalism, and I'm not talking out of my behind--I put my money where my mouth is as regards this matter, although I am not in corporate America but in government.

[track2004]

Taking away the bonuses by force is tantamount to taking away paychecks by force. Yes they get paid a lot. Yes they messed up. Yes we hate them for it. BUT that doesn't make it okay for the government to just take the money they are entitled to as part of their pay.

Them giving it back is nice, not necessary, but it does make me hate them less.

[CatherineM]

There are a lot of auto workers with union contracts that are being torn up by the bailout, so it isn't just the executives whose contracts are being reworked.

Coumo said today that 9 out of 10 of the biggest bonuses and 15 out of 20 have already been returned in full. Some execs had to hire private security because they were getting death threats.

[lost_in_this_world]

well from what i understand of the bonus shenanigan is that the money received could be used to help the business. although i would not have used it for bonuses, i guess they could have if they wanted to. now that they have, i dont think it would be right for us to take it back. i dont think taxing hte bonuses 90% is necessarily right either. AIG did something immoral by using the money for bonuses but it was illegal. and the government should've had more restrictions on the money.

[Nihil Obstat]

Nobody mentioned the potential for bonuses going back into the economy...

Is anyone here into recessive taxation? (Is that the correct term?)

[CatherineM]

I think it would be better for the economy for 6000 people to get 1000 each than one family to get 6,000,000.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1814040' date='Mar 22 2009, 01:40 PM']The Church thinks otherwise. Perhaps you don't believe in capitalism, but in some other form of materialism that is more gentle and closer to the Church's view of the purpose of commerce. The only way you can make as much money as the more highly paid executive officers is to not give those who work for you a just wage.

I say this as someone with money in a retirement account, fully aware of my probable cooperation in this evil and certainly willing to overlook it:

The stock market is driven by belief more than reality. For a time, "streamlining" companies made stocks go up--streamlining is another word for firing. The money investors make is often at the expense of someone else's livelihood for no greater reason than increasing a profit margin (and that's not a great reason. Moving the company to increase the profit margin isn't morally acceptable, either--all options must be exhausted before you do something that hurts those in your care). If you choose to enter into corporate America and become an executive, the people who work for you are your responsibility and you owe them a just wage. Just wages aren't determined by what people are willing to work for or what other people comparable to them are paid or how well they can negotiate their contracts. If you are an executive, it will be your moral duty to be the first to suffer hardships and the last to benefit from the good times--your people come first because you have a responsibility to them. That is not capitalism, and I'm not talking out of my behind--I put my money where my mouth is as regards this matter, although I am not in corporate America but in government.[/quote]
First, you need to define "capitalism." I guess maybe you're right if you want to define "capitalism" as "greedy, soulless profiteering, while delighting in screwing over the working classes" or something similar.
However, "capitalism" is commonly used to refer to the free market economy, which is, in fact, the fairest, most effective way of creating the most wealth and highest standard of living for the most people.
The free market economy (or "capitalism") is no more intrinsically evil than any other economic system, and works a heck of a lot better.

Laws enforcing higher wages, etc., and redistributing wealth do not result in higher living standards, but simply create rampant unemployment, which worsens the economy and living standards in general. Rather than some people working low-paying jobs, you get a lot of people with [i]no[/i] jobs.
There's no perfect world, but attempts by the government to control the economy and redistribute wealth invariably end in disaster.

And, contrary to popular liberal opinion, the free market economy is [i]not[/i] the cause of our current economic disaster, nor is more government interference in the economy (ie. socialism) the answer. The causes of this problem (as well as the original Great Depression) are in fact centralized government banking and a federal government which interferes in the economy much more than it should. Government was keeping interest rates artificially low, and backing sub-prime lending, leading to the financial crisis.

If your interested in learning more on this topic, I'd strongly suggest reading the brilliant Thomas E. Woods Jr.'s[url="http://www.amazon.com/Church-Market-Catholic-Defense-Economics/dp/0739110365/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1238293040&sr=1-7"][i] The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy[/i][/url]. I'm ordering his latest book,
[url="http://www.amazon.com/dp/1596985879/ref=pe_606_11602440_pe_ar_t2"][i]Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse[/i][/url]. I'm sure it will give me plenty more to write about.

In response to the poll question, I chose "other," because I believe that the government should never have given the AIG executives bailout money to begin with. That's simply socialistic government "corporate welfare" on the part of the rabidly socialist Obama administration. The fact that corporate fat cats were on the receiving end does not make it any less socialist. And Obama & Co. were perfectly aware of the bonuses. They pulled them back only after public outrage as a sanctimonious ploy to make them look virtuous. And the federal government retro-actively taxing citizens like that is in itself a dangerous precedent.

This disgraceful 3 trillion dollar deficit, and other socialistic spending policies will be the ruin of America. But I'm sure all the while, we'll probably still have to listen to Catholic bleeding hearts whine about "capitalism" and how the government doesn't interfere enough in the economy.

The problem in this country (and the rest of the world) is not "capitalism," but socialism.

[Winchester]

Capitalism is more than just an unregulated economy--it's a philosophy based on the Protestant work ethic but having as the end of commerce profit, not the needs and obligations of man. The cetechism has a quick but eloquent paragraph on it. The minimum wage and various laws that exist regarding wages and business practices are not actions, but reactions to capitalism, which is the economic equivalent of rule by warlords.

I don't disagree that to much government interference is bad, but not enough government intervention results in suffering and worker abuse. I know some think we've progressed beyond that, but if there's anything history (and current practice in other parts of the world) tells us, it is that man does not progress--there is no linear evolution of mankinds ethics and morals. If companies can get away with removing benefits, raiding retirement packages, sacrificing safety for profit, fire employees at economically beneficial moments, lower wages whenever...they will and a little war with the employees won't stop the truly rich in their tracks, unless it is a literal war, with violence. Early unions used violence for a reason, not simply because thugs were in control of unions. We don't do it as much now because we've changed in how we do business because of experience and government intervention. And a rampant cowardice that has convinced the populace that they may not resort to physical violence when confronted with "economic" violence--which I put in quotes because the separation is false.

The reason minimum wage doesn't work as well as it could is greed. Supply and demand is not a proper way to set prices. If everyone wants something that costs ten dollars to make (including labor), it is not proper to set the price at 30 dollars or 50 simply because one can and still sell it. The proper criterion for setting a price is justice. Luxuries would have more leeway, I think, but neccessities (or things resembling neccessities, like medicine) must be regulated by justice (which our government isn't very good at). However, due to our improperly aligned attitude, it's "whatever the market will bear." Which is researched finely, so as to wring out whatever one can. I argue that the research is unnceccesary--all the information about the right price is garnered from the manufacture of the product (sans artifical inflation resulting from profiteering, which is rampant).

Capitalism is not based in any way on justice, but on profit. Executives do not earn their millions per year--they [i]take[/i] them by high prices. They do not behave as leaders should--their needs come first. The first person to suffer in any business should be the leaders--some have, granted, but we all know about golden parachutes and "bonuses" and lay-offs or relocations to increase the profit margin when the profit margin usually isn't the problem at all, but greed is. I don't think it would all disappear overnight if we abolished capitalism, which is merely the codification of every greedy bastards' internal philosophy from way back. Nor do I think the answer lies in socialism or communism, which remove the only thing people really do anything for: pleasure. Those latter systems place distribution and property in the hands of the government to dole out--which is not the role of government. The government does not own the land within its borders--the borders define the land which is protects and ownership is really stewardship, with deeds and whatnot existing to make order, under which people thrive if such order is just. We have a distorted view of property, as well. Both left and right wing are infected with atheistic views of property, with one putting it at the total disposal of the individual and the other at the total disposal of the state.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1819156' date='Mar 28 2009, 10:38 PM']And, contrary to popular liberal opinion, the free market economy is [i]not[/i] the cause of our current economic disaster, nor is more government interference in the economy (ie. socialism) the answer. The causes of this problem (as well as the original Great Depression) are in fact centralized government banking and a federal government which interferes in the economy much more than it should. Government was keeping interest rates artificially low, and backing sub-prime lending, leading to the financial crisis.[/quote]
And this occured in a vacuum, with the government pulling the strings?

This is an engineered crisis, made by falsely high prices and panicked investors, media harping and government intervention as the big fall guy. The stock market has so little to do with reality it's ridiculous. The whole dot com croutons should have pulled back the curtain.