dagblog - Comments for "Has it really come to this?"

Why not just admit that you

JNagarya — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 21:52:22 +0000

In reply to Has it really come to this?

Why not just admit that you lost a bundle by betting on B & O, thus are characteristically smarting?

That is their line as I read

Obey — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 13:25:32 +0000

In reply to Has it really come to this?

That is their line as I read it. And that is the line the government seems to take. The line is absurd. ERGO the government lawyers are incompetent.

That's my line. What's yours?

That's not the official AIG

eds — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 03:47:24 +0000

In reply to Has it really come to this?

That's not the official AIG line, that's a caricature of it.

If they can keep things from blowing up, they are competent even if not worth a bonus.

Again, how does this reflect on Treasury lawyers, and how is it significant (other than as a false symbol to stir up the mob into lunch mob mentality)?

The official AIG line? The

Obey — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 03:36:44 +0000

In reply to Has it really come to this?

The official AIG line? The one I've seen is that negging on the bonus deals would trigger pay outs on the CDS. Which is laughable, blatantly so. Or are you talking about some other line?

As for reasons to keep on incompetents, it has to do with the complexity of the trading positions. You fire them, and you risk the whole thing really blowing up. That was my idea.

"Also, there may be reasons

eds — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 03:29:11 +0000

In reply to Has it really come to this?

"Also, there may be reasons to keep these people on, but not because they are in any way competent."

Oh? And your basis for that is what?

Look, I just see you and the mob lashing out blindly, taking fractional evidence and jumping to conclusions. The traders on staff at AIG last year might be competent enough. If you can blow a hole in the official AIG line, it's up to you to do so. Absent a major hole, there's no basis for thinking Treasury or its lawyers were at all incompetent, much less significantly so. And given that the retention contracts are a tiny fraction of the money apparently at risk (about $2T a year ago, now less) and a small fraction of the "bailout monies" (0.01% to date), are you just fooling around here?

Also, as you noted, the executives who may have set policy at AIG in 2001-2006 when the "bad" deals were written aren't likely the nuts and bolts people, aka "traders" who were employed a year ago.

Irrational exuberance is a market phenomenon, but irrationality is what is driving most of the AIG chat these days.

Eds - don't know how to

Obey — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 02:24:46 +0000

In reply to Has it really come to this?

Eds - don't know how to search through your comments, but saw the post,which I must have missed. I see four possible theories without anything to back them up. I'll go with the obvious one - Treasury screwed up (through incompetence or capture, who knows). Also, there may be reasons to keep these people on, but not because they are in any way competent. This little section brought down the biggest insurer in the world. They're unbelievably dumb and/or criminal. And Treasury/regulator lawyers are sitting there sucking on their thumb. It's incompetence!

I'll go take a look at your

Obey — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 01:08:23 +0000

In reply to Has it really come to this?

I'll go take a look at your arguments, eds.

It's not a question of fact,

eds — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:42:05 +0000

In reply to Has it really come to this?

It's not a question of fact, but of theory.

How would you know that Treasury was incompetent in re the retention bonuses? There are feasible alternative theories. So far you appear to have bought into the lynch mob mentality, hook line and sinker.

The big ruckus this month ignores the fact that it was known in January if not sooner that AIG intended to pay these so-called "bonuses". And as I've argued at TPM (blog and many comments) that they are not only not bonuses but plausibly justifiable, I'd appreciate your fair-practice reciprocity here.

Sorry to make you do the work

Obey — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:35:17 +0000

In reply to Has it really come to this?

Sorry to make you do the work for me! I had no time but for some glib throw-away line... I'll get back to you in a bit. But what's wrong with those sources you've got there? Black's a big hero from the Keating scandal days. Pretty good authority. If I'm going to trust a source, that one comes pretty high on the list.

The fallacy of argument from

eds — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:30:44 +0000

In reply to Has it really come to this?

The fallacy of argument from authority, in addition to assuming the conclusion!

What is YOUR basis? What's your argument for 'incompetence' etc. here?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-k-black/the-two-documents-everyon_b_169813.html

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/02/william-black-there-are-no-real-stress.html

Something else? Which sections of what "authority" are you buying into uncritically, pal? Or are you just seeing if I will post links for you? :-)