PDA

View Full Version : AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....


Stray Dog[_2_]
March 16th 09, 08:29 PM
Front page, todays WSJ (Mar, 16), far right column entitled:

"AIG faces growing wrath over payouts"


It also says they are 80% owned by the US taxpayers and I was wondering if
that is true could I have my share of the money back ? Or, if I own it,
could we somehow fire those executives?

It also said "...about $450 million in bonus payments planned for
employees at a business unit that lost $40.5 billion last year."

Um...I was just wondering in what Alice-in-Wonderland universe do you get
big bucks bonuses for ****ing up. Oh, pardon me, its the universe of
overpaid, overbonused, overprotected, and overpampered CEOs and other
greedy-selfish executives


Pardon my "negative" attitude.

dearcilla
March 16th 09, 08:49 PM
On Mar 16, 4:29*pm, Stray Dog > wrote:
> Front page, todays WSJ (Mar, 16), far right column entitled:
>
> "AIG faces growing wrath over payouts"
>
> It also says they are 80% owned by the US taxpayers and I was wondering if
> that is true could I have my share of the money back ? Or, if I own it,
> could we somehow fire those executives?

What people don't seem to get about the banks, or Madoff, is that
they've lost far more money than they've spent on hookers, yachts and
blow.

So we can't get it back, regardless of what we do to the executives.

It's not as though it's sitting in a bank vault somewhere--it was lost
in the process of making stupid loans.

Rod Speed
March 16th 09, 08:59 PM
Stray Dog wrote:

> Front page, todays WSJ (Mar, 16), far right column entitled:

> "AIG faces growing wrath over payouts"

> It also says they are 80% owned by the US taxpayers and I was
> wondering if that is true could I have my share of the money back ?

Nope, not any time soon.

> Or, if I own it,

You dont, the govt does.

> could we somehow fire those executives?

Only if you set fire to yourself outside AIG HQ.

> It also said "...about $450 million in bonus payments planned for
> employees at a business unit that lost $40.5 billion last year."

> Um...I was just wondering in what Alice-in-Wonderland universe do you get big bucks bonuses for ****ing up.

Same one the shrub got big bucks in for ****ing up.

> Oh, pardon me, its the universe of overpaid, overbonused, overprotected, and overpampered CEOs and other
> greedy-selfish executives

Its also the universe with hordes of fools like you in it too.

> Pardon my "negative" attitude.

You have always been, and always will be, completely unpardonable.

And dont you forget it.

solon fox
March 16th 09, 10:10 PM
On Mar 16, 3:29*pm, Stray Dog > wrote:
> Front page, todays WSJ (Mar, 16), far right column entitled:
>
> "AIG faces growing wrath over payouts"
>
> It also says they are 80% owned by the US taxpayers and I was wondering if
> that is true could I have my share of the money back ? Or, if I own it,
> could we somehow fire those executives?
>
> It also said "...about $450 million in bonus payments planned for
> employees at a business unit that lost $40.5 billion last year."
>
> Um...I was just wondering in what Alice-in-Wonderland universe do you get
> big bucks bonuses for ****ing up. Oh, pardon me, its the universe of
> overpaid, overbonused, overprotected, and overpampered CEOs and other
> greedy-selfish executives
>
> Pardon my "negative" attitude.

I understand the general public outrage at paying out bonuses over-
pampered CEO's and other greedy, selfish executives, yet I am
concerned at some of the assumptions. I don't know anything about the
bonuses at AIG, whether they are justified or outrageous excesses.

What I do know about is where I work. My company has not received any
bailouts and I don't expect it ever will. There have been layoffs and
there have been reductions in salaries. What troubles me is the
assumption that millions of dollars in bonuses translates to CEO's and
senior executives stuffing their pockets. In my world, sales are made
by whole teams of people working together and every sales person
carries the title of sales executive. Performance bonuses are based on
sales - the lifeblood of the company. Millions of dollars of bonuses
are divided amongst hundreds of people who brought in the new
business. Some have small salaries and must depend on these
commissions, others have more reasonable salaries, but bonuses still
make up a substantial portion of their overall compensation.

I could be wrong, but I sense that all this disdain for performance
bonuses may be hurting real, working middle-class people who earned
and have ever right to their compensation.

I still don't know whether the AIG bonuses are justifiable, but I
haven't seen any details. I don't work there and I don't know their
culture. But I don't see anyone asking the right questions to
ascertain the nature of the bonuses - the clamor of condemnation is
too loud. If there are people there who made bad decisions, they
should be fired.

Just my $0.02
-solon fox

Ruud66
March 16th 09, 10:45 PM
"Stray Dog" > wrote in message
r.org...
>
>
> Front page, todays WSJ (Mar, 16), far right column entitled:
>
> "AIG faces growing wrath over payouts"
>
>
> It also says they are 80% owned by the US taxpayers and I was wondering if
> that is true could I have my share of the money back ? Or, if I own it,
> could we somehow fire those executives?
>
> It also said "...about $450 million in bonus payments planned for
> employees at a business unit that lost $40.5 billion last year."
>
> Um...I was just wondering in what Alice-in-Wonderland universe do you get
> big bucks bonuses for ****ing up. Oh, pardon me, its the universe of
> overpaid, overbonused, overprotected, and overpampered CEOs and other
> greedy-selfish executives
>

Just wait untill Obama's $250.000 income tax kicks in a lot sooner than
expected. They'll tack on a nice extra AIG percentage to compensate this.
And just how solid would AIG be after losing all of that money and carrying
this huge debt which makes it practically partially nationalized. So no more
extra's untill everyone forks back their bonus or AIG may become fully
nationalized sacking everyone so government employees can start picking up
the peaces.

R

solon fox
March 16th 09, 10:56 PM
On Mar 16, 5:45*pm, "Ruud66" > wrote:
> "Stray Dog" > wrote in message
>
> r.org...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Front page, todays WSJ (Mar, 16), far right column entitled:
>
> > "AIG faces growing wrath over payouts"
>
> > It also says they are 80% owned by the US taxpayers and I was wondering if
> > that is true could I have my share of the money back ? Or, if I own it,
> > could we somehow fire those executives?
>
> > It also said "...about $450 million in bonus payments planned for
> > employees at a business unit that lost $40.5 billion last year."
>
> > Um...I was just wondering in what Alice-in-Wonderland universe do you get
> > big bucks bonuses for ****ing up. Oh, pardon me, its the universe of
> > overpaid, overbonused, overprotected, and overpampered CEOs and other
> > greedy-selfish executives
>
> Just wait untill Obama's $250.000 income tax kicks in a lot sooner than
> expected. They'll tack on a nice extra AIG percentage to compensate this.
> And just how solid would AIG be after losing all of that money and carrying
> this huge debt which makes it practically partially nationalized. So no more
> extra's untill everyone forks back their bonus or AIG may become fully
> nationalized sacking everyone so government employees can start picking up
> the peaces.
>
> R- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Cap and trade. Income tax isn't the only tax. Taxes are paid by
consumers too.

BobR
March 16th 09, 10:59 PM
On Mar 16, 5:10*pm, solon fox > wrote:
> On Mar 16, 3:29*pm, Stray Dog > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Front page, todays WSJ (Mar, 16), far right column entitled:
>
> > "AIG faces growing wrath over payouts"
>
> > It also says they are 80% owned by the US taxpayers and I was wondering if
> > that is true could I have my share of the money back ? Or, if I own it,
> > could we somehow fire those executives?
>
> > It also said "...about $450 million in bonus payments planned for
> > employees at a business unit that lost $40.5 billion last year."
>
> > Um...I was just wondering in what Alice-in-Wonderland universe do you get
> > big bucks bonuses for ****ing up. Oh, pardon me, its the universe of
> > overpaid, overbonused, overprotected, and overpampered CEOs and other
> > greedy-selfish executives
>
> > Pardon my "negative" attitude.
>
> I understand the general public outrage at paying out bonuses over-
> pampered CEO's and other greedy, selfish executives, yet I am
> concerned at some of the assumptions. I don't know anything about the
> bonuses at AIG, whether they are justified or outrageous excesses.
>

In most corporations owned by the stockholders, those bonuses would be
between the stockholders and the executives to work out. In the case
of AIG or any other corporation that has dipped into the public funds
for their survival or even maintenance of their profitability, any
bonus paid out is outrageously excessive and can not be justified by
any argument.

> What I do know about is where I work. My company has not received any
> bailouts and I don't expect it ever will. There have been layoffs and
> there have been reductions in salaries. What troubles me is the
> assumption that millions of dollars in bonuses translates to CEO's and
> senior executives stuffing their pockets. In my world, sales are made
> by whole teams of people working together and every sales person
> carries the title of sales executive. Performance bonuses are based on
> sales - the lifeblood of the company. Millions of dollars of bonuses
> are divided amongst hundreds of people who brought in the new
> business. Some have small salaries and must depend on these
> commissions, others have more reasonable salaries, but bonuses still
> make up a substantial portion of their overall compensation.
>

Would those same employees be expecting to receive their bonus if they
had instead of bringing in new profitable business brought the company
to a point of bankruptcy where only tax dollars would keep you
working?

> I could be wrong, but I sense that all this disdain for performance
> bonuses may be hurting real, working middle-class people who earned
> and have ever right to their compensation.
>

You could be wrong or you could be right but the taxpayers who are
footing the bill for bailing out AIG have every right to be angry and
demand an end to these bonus payouts. Rather that money is coming out
of my check today or tomorrow makes no difference, it will eventually
have to be paid by every taxpayer.

> I still don't know whether the AIG bonuses are justifiable, but I
> haven't seen any details. I don't work there and I don't know their
> culture. But I don't see anyone asking the right questions to
> ascertain the nature of the bonuses - the clamor of condemnation is
> too loud. If there are people there who made bad decisions, they
> should be fired.
>

Your final statement said it all but then you seem to ignore that
thought in everything else you said. The people receiving these
bonuses are the same who got the company into this mess and now they
are rewarded. This excuse that they have to pay the bonuses to retain
the "talented" people is really sort of funny when you realize that
those "talented" people drove their company into this mess, have been
tainted by that fact and probably couldn't find another job now
anywhere. I sure as hell wouldn't consider hiring any of them.

solon fox
March 16th 09, 11:23 PM
On Mar 16, 5:59*pm, BobR > wrote:
> On Mar 16, 5:10*pm, solon fox > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 16, 3:29*pm, Stray Dog > wrote:
>
> > > Front page, todays WSJ (Mar, 16), far right column entitled:
>
> > > "AIG faces growing wrath over payouts"
>
> > > It also says they are 80% owned by the US taxpayers and I was wondering if
> > > that is true could I have my share of the money back ? Or, if I own it,
> > > could we somehow fire those executives?
>
> > > It also said "...about $450 million in bonus payments planned for
> > > employees at a business unit that lost $40.5 billion last year."
>
> > > Um...I was just wondering in what Alice-in-Wonderland universe do you get
> > > big bucks bonuses for ****ing up. Oh, pardon me, its the universe of
> > > overpaid, overbonused, overprotected, and overpampered CEOs and other
> > > greedy-selfish executives
>
> > > Pardon my "negative" attitude.
>
> > I understand the general public outrage at paying out bonuses over-
> > pampered CEO's and other greedy, selfish executives, yet I am
> > concerned at some of the assumptions. I don't know anything about the
> > bonuses at AIG, whether they are justified or outrageous excesses.
>
> In most corporations owned by the stockholders, those bonuses would be
> between the stockholders and the executives to work out. *In the case
> of AIG or any other corporation that has dipped into the public funds
> for their survival or even maintenance of their profitability, any
> bonus paid out is outrageously excessive and can not be justified by
> any argument.

Since the government is a stakeholder, then the government does have
the right to ask the questions. Stockholders, don't make bonus
decisions directly, but that's beside the point. I understand what you
meant.

Where "bonuses" are part of the normal compensation package and given
for true performance, then these are appropriate (with the exception
of the egregiously offensive bonuses paid to CEO's and boards of
failing companies).

I really have no specific argument with the government demanding
rationalization of these bonuses. I just think the politicians are
stoking moral outrage without the facts. If these facts are available,
they have yet to be reported.

>
> > What I do know about is where I work. My company has not received any
> > bailouts and I don't expect it ever will. There have been layoffs and
> > there have been reductions in salaries. What troubles me is the
> > assumption that millions of dollars in bonuses translates to CEO's and
> > senior executives stuffing their pockets. In my world, sales are made
> > by whole teams of people working together and every sales person
> > carries the title of sales executive. Performance bonuses are based on
> > sales - the lifeblood of the company. Millions of dollars of bonuses
> > are divided amongst hundreds of people who brought in the new
> > business. Some have small salaries and must depend on these
> > commissions, others have more reasonable salaries, but bonuses still
> > make up a substantial portion of their overall compensation.
>
> Would those same employees be expecting to receive their bonus if they
> had instead of bringing in new profitable business brought the company
> to a point of bankruptcy where only tax dollars would keep you
> working?
>
> > I could be wrong, but I sense that all this disdain for performance
> > bonuses may be hurting real, working middle-class people who earned
> > and have ever right to their compensation.
>
> You could be wrong or you could be right but the taxpayers who are
> footing the bill for bailing out AIG have every right to be angry and
> demand an end to these bonus payouts. *Rather that money is coming out
> of my check today or tomorrow makes no difference, it will eventually
> have to be paid by every taxpayer.
>
> > I still don't know whether the AIG bonuses are justifiable, but I
> > haven't seen any details. I don't work there and I don't know their
> > culture. But I don't see anyone asking the right questions to
> > ascertain the nature of the bonuses - the clamor of condemnation is
> > too loud. If there are people there who made bad decisions, they
> > should be fired.
>
> Your final statement said it all but then you seem to ignore that
> thought in everything else you said. *The people receiving these
> bonuses are the same who got the company into this mess and now they
> are rewarded. *This excuse that they have to pay the bonuses to retain
> the "talented" people is really sort of funny when you realize that
> those "talented" people drove their company into this mess, have been
> tainted by that fact and probably couldn't find another job now
> anywhere. *I sure as hell wouldn't consider hiring any of them.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You're probably right. The AIG bonus scenario smells bad and there are
probably excesses and people that should be fired.

My point is simply to remember that there are other real people who
aren't the evil-doers and don't deserve to be blamed.

We do know that they haven't changed the CEO and principle officers. I
think those people who are responsible should be fired.
-solon fox

Old Pif
March 16th 09, 11:30 PM
On Mar 16, 6:10*pm, solon fox > wrote:

>
> I still don't know whether the AIG bonuses are justifiable, but I
> haven't seen any details. I don't work there and I don't know their
> culture. But I don't see anyone asking the right questions to
> ascertain the nature of the bonuses - the clamor of condemnation is
> too loud. If there are people there who made bad decisions, they
> should be fired.
>

According to AIG CEO Edward Liddy, the bonuses in questions are
contractual obligations and as such could be enforced by court order.
Which in turn prompts the question how such contracts could be signed
in the first place. To issue an agreement to pay bonuses no matter
what is a sure way to disastrous performance. Which we observe.

Tim Bruening
March 16th 09, 11:34 PM
Stray Dog wrote:

> Front page, todays WSJ (Mar, 16), far right column entitled:
>
> "AIG faces growing wrath over payouts"
>
> It also says they are 80% owned by the US taxpayers and I was wondering if
> that is true could I have my share of the money back ? Or, if I own it,
> could we somehow fire those executives?
>
> It also said "...about $450 million in bonus payments planned for
> employees at a business unit that lost $40.5 billion last year."

Why didn't the U.S. government use its shares to veto the bonuses?

Rod Speed
March 16th 09, 11:38 PM
BobR wrote
> solon fox > wrote
>> Stray Dog > wrote

>>> Front page, todays WSJ (Mar, 16), far right column entitled:

>>> "AIG faces growing wrath over payouts"

>>> It also says they are 80% owned by the US taxpayers and I was
>>> wondering if that is true could I have my share of the money back ?
>>> Or, if I own it, could we somehow fire those executives?

>>> It also said "...about $450 million in bonus payments planned for
>>> employees at a business unit that lost $40.5 billion last year."

>>> Um...I was just wondering in what Alice-in-Wonderland universe do
>>> you get big bucks bonuses for ****ing up. Oh, pardon me, its the
>>> universe of overpaid, overbonused, overprotected, and overpampered
>>> CEOs and other greedy-selfish executives

>>> Pardon my "negative" attitude.

>> I understand the general public outrage at paying out bonuses over-
>> pampered CEO's and other greedy, selfish executives, yet I am
>> concerned at some of the assumptions. I don't know anything about the
>> bonuses at AIG, whether they are justified or outrageous excesses.

> In most corporations owned by the stockholders, those bonuses
> would be between the stockholders and the executives to work out.

And that is what happened with AIG too.

> In the case of AIG or any other corporation that has dipped into the
> public funds for their survival or even maintenance of their profitability,
> any bonus paid out is outrageously excessive and can not be justified
> by any argument.

That last is just plain wrong. They're currently claiming that those bonuses
are legally binding from the time before any public funds were involved.

>> What I do know about is where I work. My company has not received any
>> bailouts and I don't expect it ever will. There have been layoffs and
>> there have been reductions in salaries. What troubles me is the
>> assumption that millions of dollars in bonuses translates to CEO's
>> and senior executives stuffing their pockets. In my world, sales are
>> made by whole teams of people working together and every sales person
>> carries the title of sales executive. Performance bonuses are based
>> on sales - the lifeblood of the company. Millions of dollars of
>> bonuses are divided amongst hundreds of people who brought in the new
>> business. Some have small salaries and must depend on these
>> commissions, others have more reasonable salaries, but bonuses still
>> make up a substantial portion of their overall compensation.

> Would those same employees be expecting to receive their bonus if they
> had instead of bringing in new profitable business brought the company
> to a point of bankruptcy where only tax dollars would keep you working?

Its a tad unlikely that all those currently receiving bonuses
were personally involved in produced the bankruptcy.

>> I could be wrong, but I sense that all this disdain for performance
>> bonuses may be hurting real, working middle-class people who
>> earned and have ever right to their compensation.

> You could be wrong or you could be right but the taxpayers
> who are footing the bill for bailing out AIG have every right
> to be angry and demand an end to these bonus payouts.

Yes, but there is a problem with what is legally binding on the
company from the time before any taxpayers funds were involved.

> Rather that money is coming out of my check today or tomorrow makes
> no difference, it will eventually have to be paid by every taxpayer.

Thats wrong too if the govt does later sell its shareholding for a profit.

>> I still don't know whether the AIG bonuses are justifiable, but I
>> haven't seen any details. I don't work there and I don't know their
>> culture. But I don't see anyone asking the right questions to
>> ascertain the nature of the bonuses - the clamor of condemnation is
>> too loud. If there are people there who made bad decisions, they
>> should be fired.

> Your final statement said it all but then you seem to ignore that
> thought in everything else you said. The people receiving these
> bonuses are the same who got the company into this mess

You dont know that.

> and now they are rewarded. This excuse that they have to pay the
> bonuses to retain the "talented" people is really sort of funny when you
> realize that those "talented" people drove their company into this mess,

Yes.

> have been tainted by that fact and probably couldn't find another job
> now anywhere. I sure as hell wouldn't consider hiring any of them.

Separate matter entirely to what they are legally bound to pay.

Stray Dog[_2_]
March 17th 09, 01:34 AM
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, solon fox wrote:

> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:10:32 -0700 (PDT)
> From: solon fox >
> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
> misc.invest.stocks
> Subject: Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>
> On Mar 16, 3:29*pm, Stray Dog > wrote:
>> Front page, todays WSJ (Mar, 16), far right column entitled:
>>
>> "AIG faces growing wrath over payouts"
>>
>> It also says they are 80% owned by the US taxpayers and I was wondering if
>> that is true could I have my share of the money back ? Or, if I own it,
>> could we somehow fire those executives?
>>
>> It also said "...about $450 million in bonus payments planned for
>> employees at a business unit that lost $40.5 billion last year."
>>
>> Um...I was just wondering in what Alice-in-Wonderland universe do you get
>> big bucks bonuses for ****ing up. Oh, pardon me, its the universe of
>> overpaid, overbonused, overprotected, and overpampered CEOs and other
>> greedy-selfish executives
>>
>> Pardon my "negative" attitude.
>
> I understand the general public outrage at paying out bonuses over-
> pampered CEO's and other greedy, selfish executives, yet I am
> concerned at some of the assumptions. I don't know anything about the
> bonuses at AIG, whether they are justified or outrageous excesses.

That is a good comment, but in connection with your comment I think I
would be asking the question: is the bonus given on top of a commission
with a finite base salary?

> What I do know about is where I work. My company has not received any
> bailouts and I don't expect it ever will. There have been layoffs and
> there have been reductions in salaries.

I'm hearing more about this, too.

What troubles me is the
> assumption that millions of dollars in bonuses translates to CEO's and
> senior executives stuffing their pockets.

The problem that bothers me is when millions of dollars of bonuses are
given, or salary increases, and the company did poorer. Because then that
arrangement is "socialism" for the executives.

In my world, sales are made
> by whole teams of people working together and every sales person
> carries the title of sales executive. Performance bonuses are based on
> sales - the lifeblood of the company.

I'd be interested in YOUR answer to my question above: base salary?
commission? and separate bonus for individual (?) effort or "the company
does well, therefore spread the fruit" (?) line of thinking.


Millions of dollars of bonuses
> are divided amongst hundreds of people who brought in the new
> business. Some have small salaries and must depend on these
> commissions, others have more reasonable salaries, but bonuses still
> make up a substantial portion of their overall compensation.
>
> I could be wrong, but I sense that all this disdain for performance
> bonuses may be hurting real, working middle-class people who earned
> and have ever right to their compensation.

And, how would you deal with a company with overall declining performance
or some kind of stupidity that was connected with the decline?

> I still don't know whether the AIG bonuses are justifiable, but I
> haven't seen any details. I don't work there and I don't know their
> culture. But I don't see anyone asking the right questions to
> ascertain the nature of the bonuses - the clamor of condemnation is
> too loud. If there are people there who made bad decisions, they
> should be fired.

Good.

> Just my $0.02

Its worth more than 2 cents.

> -solon fox
>

Stray Dog[_2_]
March 17th 09, 01:37 AM
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Ruud66 wrote:

> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 23:45:08 +0100
> From: Ruud66 >
> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
> misc.invest.stocks
> Subject: Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>
>
> "Stray Dog" > wrote in message
> r.org...
>>
>>
>> Front page, todays WSJ (Mar, 16), far right column entitled:
>>
>> "AIG faces growing wrath over payouts"
>>
>>
>> It also says they are 80% owned by the US taxpayers and I was wondering if
>> that is true could I have my share of the money back ? Or, if I own it,
>> could we somehow fire those executives?
>>
>> It also said "...about $450 million in bonus payments planned for
>> employees at a business unit that lost $40.5 billion last year."
>>
>> Um...I was just wondering in what Alice-in-Wonderland universe do you get
>> big bucks bonuses for ****ing up. Oh, pardon me, its the universe of
>> overpaid, overbonused, overprotected, and overpampered CEOs and other
>> greedy-selfish executives
>>
>
> Just wait untill Obama's $250.000 income tax kicks in a lot sooner than
> expected. They'll tack on a nice extra AIG percentage to compensate this.
> And just how solid would AIG be after losing all of that money and carrying
> this huge debt which makes it practically partially nationalized. So no more
> extra's untill everyone forks back their bonus or AIG may become fully
> nationalized sacking everyone so government employees can start picking up
> the peaces.
>
> R


I appreciate your sentiments. However, I'd also be asking how much damage
to AIG clients would accrue if AIG went belly up and that caused a total
collapse of the outgoing revenue stream? If you were buying any kind of
insurance from them, and you were one of tens of millions of subscribers,
and in the end you got zip for all the premiums you were paying in, how
much collective damage would that cause?

Stray Dog[_2_]
March 17th 09, 01:47 AM
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Old Pif wrote:

> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:30:42 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Old Pif >
> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
> misc.invest.stocks
> Subject: Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>
> On Mar 16, 6:10*pm, solon fox > wrote:
>
>>
>> I still don't know whether the AIG bonuses are justifiable, but I
>> haven't seen any details. I don't work there and I don't know their
>> culture. But I don't see anyone asking the right questions to
>> ascertain the nature of the bonuses - the clamor of condemnation is
>> too loud. If there are people there who made bad decisions, they
>> should be fired.
>>
>
> According to AIG CEO Edward Liddy, the bonuses in questions are
> contractual obligations

I smell a rat. You have to spell out those contractual obligations. Were
they threshold dependent? Were they spelled out such as: "Sell more than
$10 million of X and you get $ 1 mil bonus." Or "Sell more than $ 20 mil,
and get $ 2 mil"? And, independent of how company as a whole operates.

and as such could be enforced by court order.
> Which in turn prompts the question how such contracts could be signed
> in the first place. To issue an agreement to pay bonuses no matter
> what is a sure way to disastrous performance. Which we observe.

Seems to me they set up a system that allows pillaging of the cookie jar.

IIRC, when Drexel-Burnham went belly up, they fired a lot of people, but
the upper 10% (whatever it was) got terminal bonuses totaling some
hundreds of $ millions, which was certainly unseemly to me.

But, if you read much Michael Lewis (eg. Liar's Poker), you can't help but
think a large portion of the staff at these financial institutions are
basically crooks pulling their own strings.

Stray Dog[_2_]
March 17th 09, 01:49 AM
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Tim Bruening wrote:

> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:34:55 -0800
> From: Tim Bruening >
> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
> misc.invest.stocks
> Subject: Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>
>
>
> Stray Dog wrote:
>
>> Front page, todays WSJ (Mar, 16), far right column entitled:
>>
>> "AIG faces growing wrath over payouts"
>>
>> It also says they are 80% owned by the US taxpayers and I was wondering if
>> that is true could I have my share of the money back ? Or, if I own it,
>> could we somehow fire those executives?
>>
>> It also said "...about $450 million in bonus payments planned for
>> employees at a business unit that lost $40.5 billion last year."
>
> Why didn't the U.S. government use its shares to veto the bonuses?

I don't know the whole story on the kind of "stake" they have, or what
kind of shares. Shareholders really don't have as much control as most
people seem to think.

Maybe someone else here knows more.

Rod Speed
March 17th 09, 01:50 AM
Tim Bruening wrote:
> Stray Dog wrote:
>
>> Front page, todays WSJ (Mar, 16), far right column entitled:
>>
>> "AIG faces growing wrath over payouts"
>>
>> It also says they are 80% owned by the US taxpayers and I was
>> wondering if that is true could I have my share of the money back ?
>> Or, if I own it, could we somehow fire those executives?
>>
>> It also said "...about $450 million in bonus payments planned for
>> employees at a business unit that lost $40.5 billion last year."
>
> Why didn't the U.S. government use its shares to veto the bonuses?

Because AIG was contractually obligated to pay them.

Stray Dog[_2_]
March 17th 09, 02:03 AM
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Jarl Tie wrote:

> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:22:38 -0700
> From: Jarl Tie >
> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
> misc.invest.stocks
> Subject: Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 23:45:08 +0100, in alt.politics.economics "Ruud66" > wrote:
>
>>
>> "Stray Dog" > wrote in message
>> r.org...
>>>
>>>
>>> Front page, todays WSJ (Mar, 16), far right column entitled:
>>>
>>> "AIG faces growing wrath over payouts"
>>>
>>>
>>> It also says they are 80% owned by the US taxpayers and I was wondering if
>>> that is true could I have my share of the money back ? Or, if I own it,
>>> could we somehow fire those executives?
>>>
>>> It also said "...about $450 million in bonus payments planned for
>>> employees at a business unit that lost $40.5 billion last year."
>>>
>>> Um...I was just wondering in what Alice-in-Wonderland universe do you get
>>> big bucks bonuses for ****ing up. Oh, pardon me, its the universe of
>>> overpaid, overbonused, overprotected, and overpampered CEOs and other
>>> greedy-selfish executives
>>>
>>
>> Just wait untill Obama's $250.000 income tax kicks in a lot sooner than
>> expected. They'll tack on a nice extra AIG percentage to compensate this.
>> And just how solid would AIG be after losing all of that money and carrying
>> this huge debt which makes it practically partially nationalized. So no more
>> extra's untill everyone forks back their bonus or AIG may become fully
>> nationalized sacking everyone so government employees can start picking up
>> the peaces.
>>
>> R
>>
>
>
> Banks and insurance companies are not getting nationalized, The US
> government is getting privatized.
>

I'd rather think about this response, above, from the point of view that
all of us are actually working for the government (if you get my drift),
and so, we must all be getting "privatized" too. I wonder if that means
things are supposed to get better or things are supposed to get worse.

Fish
March 17th 09, 02:11 AM
On Mar 16, 4:30 pm, Old Pif > wrote:
> On Mar 16, 6:10 pm, solon fox > wrote:
>
>
>
> > I still don't know whether the AIG bonuses are justifiable, but I
> > haven't seen any details. I don't work there and I don't know their
> > culture. But I don't see anyone asking the right questions to
> > ascertain the nature of the bonuses - the clamor of condemnation is
> > too loud. If there are people there who made bad decisions, they
> > should be fired.
>
> According to AIG CEO Edward Liddy, the bonuses in questions are
> contractual obligations and as such could be enforced by court order.
> Which in turn prompts the question how such contracts could be signed
> in the first place. To issue an agreement to pay bonuses no matter
> what is a sure way to disastrous performance. Which we observe.

the past contract can be enforced only if AIG is on its own feet,
makes a profit from their business - they fail and live on charity,
they are beggars by definition and can't be multi-millionaire beggars
at the expense of tax payers.

John Galt[_2_]
March 17th 09, 02:13 AM
Stray Dog wrote:
>
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Tim Bruening wrote:
>
>> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:34:55 -0800
>> From: Tim Bruening >
>> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
>> misc.invest.stocks
>> Subject: Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>>
>>
>>
>> Stray Dog wrote:
>>
>>> Front page, todays WSJ (Mar, 16), far right column entitled:
>>>
>>> "AIG faces growing wrath over payouts"
>>>
>>> It also says they are 80% owned by the US taxpayers and I was
>>> wondering if
>>> that is true could I have my share of the money back ? Or, if I own it,
>>> could we somehow fire those executives?
>>>
>>> It also said "...about $450 million in bonus payments planned for
>>> employees at a business unit that lost $40.5 billion last year."
>>
>> Why didn't the U.S. government use its shares to veto the bonuses?
>
> I don't know the whole story on the kind of "stake" they have, or what
> kind of shares. Shareholders really don't have as much control as most
> people seem to think.
>
> Maybe someone else here knows more.

It hasn't been stated yet what the t's and c's of the contract are, at
least not that I've read.

So, your last post is correct -- if there are written as commissions
based on a percent of sales revenue, they're owed, even if a few of them
are stupidly high. I suspect this is the case, since CNBC did report
today that some of these bonuses are as small as $1,000.

JG



>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Fish
March 17th 09, 02:17 AM
On Mar 16, 6:49 pm, Stray Dog > wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Tim Bruening wrote:
> > Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:34:55 -0800
> > From: Tim Bruening >
> > Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
> > misc.invest.stocks
> > Subject: Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>
> > Stray Dog wrote:
>
> >> Front page, todays WSJ (Mar, 16), far right column entitled:
>
> >> "AIG faces growing wrath over payouts"
>
> >> It also says they are 80% owned by the US taxpayers and I was wondering if
> >> that is true could I have my share of the money back ? Or, if I own it,
> >> could we somehow fire those executives?
>
> >> It also said "...about $450 million in bonus payments planned for
> >> employees at a business unit that lost $40.5 billion last year."
>
> > Why didn't the U.S. government use its shares to veto the bonuses?
>
> I don't know the whole story on the kind of "stake" they have, or what
> kind of shares. Shareholders really don't have as much control as most
> people seem to think.
>
> Maybe someone else here knows more.

share holders just THINKS they have a fair share of the company they
invest in, naive gamblers

Fish
March 17th 09, 02:29 AM
On Mar 16, 6:50 pm, "Rod Speed" > wrote:

> Because AIG was contractually obligated to pay them.

would be ceo can invent all BS contracts they can to profit from
others, except their performance - when they live on charity for their
meals and existences, they have little to room to wiggle - old
parasites

BobR
March 17th 09, 02:29 AM
On Mar 16, 6:23*pm, solon fox > wrote:
> On Mar 16, 5:59*pm, BobR > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 16, 5:10*pm, solon fox > wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 16, 3:29*pm, Stray Dog > wrote:
>
> > > > Front page, todays WSJ (Mar, 16), far right column entitled:
>
> > > > "AIG faces growing wrath over payouts"
>
> > > > It also says they are 80% owned by the US taxpayers and I was wondering if
> > > > that is true could I have my share of the money back ? Or, if I own it,
> > > > could we somehow fire those executives?
>
> > > > It also said "...about $450 million in bonus payments planned for
> > > > employees at a business unit that lost $40.5 billion last year."
>
> > > > Um...I was just wondering in what Alice-in-Wonderland universe do you get
> > > > big bucks bonuses for ****ing up. Oh, pardon me, its the universe of
> > > > overpaid, overbonused, overprotected, and overpampered CEOs and other
> > > > greedy-selfish executives
>
> > > > Pardon my "negative" attitude.
>
> > > I understand the general public outrage at paying out bonuses over-
> > > pampered CEO's and other greedy, selfish executives, yet I am
> > > concerned at some of the assumptions. I don't know anything about the
> > > bonuses at AIG, whether they are justified or outrageous excesses.
>
> > In most corporations owned by the stockholders, those bonuses would be
> > between the stockholders and the executives to work out. *In the case
> > of AIG or any other corporation that has dipped into the public funds
> > for their survival or even maintenance of their profitability, any
> > bonus paid out is outrageously excessive and can not be justified by
> > any argument.
>
> Since the government is a stakeholder, then the government does have
> the right to ask the questions. Stockholders, don't make bonus
> decisions directly, but that's beside the point. I understand what you
> meant.
>

Right and yes I know the stockholders do not have direct control but
they ultimately have a say.

> Where "bonuses" are part of the normal compensation package and given
> for true performance, then these are appropriate (with the exception
> of the egregiously offensive bonuses paid to CEO's and boards of
> failing companies).
>

If these so called bonuses are in fact commisions then state them as
such but that is not what they have been called. Bonus implies
compensation beyond the normal compensation generally for superior
performance.

> I really have no specific argument with the government demanding
> rationalization of these bonuses. I just think the politicians are
> stoking moral outrage without the facts. If these facts are available,
> they have yet to be reported.
>

I agree, the politicians including Obama will get all the mileage out
of their moral outrage that they can get. Despite that, they owe a
complete accounting to the public.

>
> > > What I do know about is where I work. My company has not received any
> > > bailouts and I don't expect it ever will. There have been layoffs and
> > > there have been reductions in salaries. What troubles me is the
> > > assumption that millions of dollars in bonuses translates to CEO's and
> > > senior executives stuffing their pockets. In my world, sales are made
> > > by whole teams of people working together and every sales person
> > > carries the title of sales executive. Performance bonuses are based on
> > > sales - the lifeblood of the company. Millions of dollars of bonuses
> > > are divided amongst hundreds of people who brought in the new
> > > business. Some have small salaries and must depend on these
> > > commissions, others have more reasonable salaries, but bonuses still
> > > make up a substantial portion of their overall compensation.
>
> > Would those same employees be expecting to receive their bonus if they
> > had instead of bringing in new profitable business brought the company
> > to a point of bankruptcy where only tax dollars would keep you
> > working?
>
> > > I could be wrong, but I sense that all this disdain for performance
> > > bonuses may be hurting real, working middle-class people who earned
> > > and have ever right to their compensation.
>
> > You could be wrong or you could be right but the taxpayers who are
> > footing the bill for bailing out AIG have every right to be angry and
> > demand an end to these bonus payouts. *Rather that money is coming out
> > of my check today or tomorrow makes no difference, it will eventually
> > have to be paid by every taxpayer.
>
> > > I still don't know whether the AIG bonuses are justifiable, but I
> > > haven't seen any details. I don't work there and I don't know their
> > > culture. But I don't see anyone asking the right questions to
> > > ascertain the nature of the bonuses - the clamor of condemnation is
> > > too loud. If there are people there who made bad decisions, they
> > > should be fired.
>
> > Your final statement said it all but then you seem to ignore that
> > thought in everything else you said. *The people receiving these
> > bonuses are the same who got the company into this mess and now they
> > are rewarded. *This excuse that they have to pay the bonuses to retain
> > the "talented" people is really sort of funny when you realize that
> > those "talented" people drove their company into this mess, have been
> > tainted by that fact and probably couldn't find another job now
> > anywhere. *I sure as hell wouldn't consider hiring any of them.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> You're probably right. The AIG bonus scenario smells bad and there are
> probably excesses and people that should be fired.
>
> My point is simply to remember that there are other real people who
> aren't the evil-doers and don't deserve to be blamed.
>

I had many friends at Enron when they went down and I am well aware
that many good people paid the price for the excess of the Enron
leadership. That will be the case with AIG as well but that is all
the more reason to expect AIG to be forthcoming with clear and above
board disclosure of their activities.

> We do know that they haven't changed the CEO and principle officers. I
> think those people who are responsible should be fired.

That is something that I can't understand. Why have they been
maintained? Then to consider giving them bonuses on top of that is
just above comprehension.

BobR
March 17th 09, 02:32 AM
On Mar 16, 6:30*pm, Old Pif > wrote:
> On Mar 16, 6:10*pm, solon fox > wrote:
>
>
>
> > I still don't know whether the AIG bonuses are justifiable, but I
> > haven't seen any details. I don't work there and I don't know their
> > culture. But I don't see anyone asking the right questions to
> > ascertain the nature of the bonuses - the clamor of condemnation is
> > too loud. If there are people there who made bad decisions, they
> > should be fired.
>
> According to AIG CEO Edward Liddy, the bonuses in questions are
> contractual obligations and as such could be enforced by court order.
> Which in turn prompts the question how such contracts could be signed
> in the first place. To issue an agreement to pay bonuses no matter
> what is a sure way to disastrous performance. Which we observe.

Does sound a bit suspect doesn't it? At the very least, the public
should be made aware of exactly what agreements were in place. There
is no reason to simply accept the word of anyone at AIG based on the
events of the last few months.

BobR
March 17th 09, 02:42 AM
On Mar 16, 8:49*pm, Stray Dog > wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Tim Bruening wrote:
> > Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:34:55 -0800
> > From: Tim Bruening >
> > Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
> > * * misc.invest.stocks
> > Subject: Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>
> > Stray Dog wrote:
>
> >> Front page, todays WSJ (Mar, 16), far right column entitled:
>
> >> "AIG faces growing wrath over payouts"
>
> >> It also says they are 80% owned by the US taxpayers and I was wondering if
> >> that is true could I have my share of the money back ? Or, if I own it,
> >> could we somehow fire those executives?
>
> >> It also said "...about $450 million in bonus payments planned for
> >> employees at a business unit that lost $40.5 billion last year."
>
> > Why didn't the U.S. government use its shares to veto the bonuses?
>
> I don't know the whole story on the kind of "stake" they have, or what
> kind of shares. Shareholders really don't have as much control as most
> people seem to think.
>
> Maybe someone else here knows more.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That is true and has become more so as mutual funds and various other
funds hold the majority shares. The individual stockholder has very
little say. This is especially true for large public held
corportions.

BobR
March 17th 09, 02:44 AM
On Mar 16, 8:50*pm, "Rod Speed" > wrote:
> Tim Bruening wrote:
> > Stray Dog wrote:
>
> >> Front page, todays WSJ (Mar, 16), far right column entitled:
>
> >> "AIG faces growing wrath over payouts"
>
> >> It also says they are 80% owned by the US taxpayers and I was
> >> wondering if that is true could I have my share of the money back ?
> >> Or, if I own it, could we somehow fire those executives?
>
> >> It also said "...about $450 million in bonus payments planned for
> >> employees at a business unit that lost $40.5 billion last year."
>
> > Why didn't the U.S. government use its shares to veto the bonuses?
>
> Because AIG was contractually obligated to pay them.

So they say. Time for them to produce proof of those obligations,
their word is not worth ****.

David Bernier
March 17th 09, 02:57 AM
Tim Bruening wrote:
>
> Stray Dog wrote:
>
>> Front page, todays WSJ (Mar, 16), far right column entitled:
>>
>> "AIG faces growing wrath over payouts"
>>
>> It also says they are 80% owned by the US taxpayers and I was wondering if
>> that is true could I have my share of the money back ? Or, if I own it,
>> could we somehow fire those executives?
>>
>> It also said "...about $450 million in bonus payments planned for
>> employees at a business unit that lost $40.5 billion last year."
>
> Why didn't the U.S. government use its shares to veto the bonuses?
>

Not all shares have voting rights. It depends what kind of shares the
US government has in AIG ...

David Bernier

Les Cargill
March 17th 09, 03:25 AM
Stray Dog wrote:
>
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Tim Bruening wrote:
>
<snip>
>> Why didn't the U.S. government use its shares to veto the bonuses?
>

I believe the stock received by the government organ
in the bailout is preferred, nonvoting stock.

> I don't know the whole story on the kind of "stake" they have, or what
> kind of shares. Shareholders really don't have as much control as most
> people seem to think.
>

Democracy! :)

> Maybe someone else here knows more.
>

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/the-aig-bailout-takes-shape/

"Under the agreement, A.I.G. will issue a new series of Convertible
Participating Serial Preferred Stock to a trust that will hold the
Preferred Stock for the benefit of the United States Treasury."

--
Les Cargill

Tim Bruening
March 17th 09, 03:25 AM
Rod Speed wrote:

> Tim Bruening wrote:
> > Stray Dog wrote:
> >
> >> Front page, todays WSJ (Mar, 16), far right column entitled:
> >>
> >> "AIG faces growing wrath over payouts"
> >>
> >> It also says they are 80% owned by the US taxpayers and I was
> >> wondering if that is true could I have my share of the money back ?
> >> Or, if I own it, could we somehow fire those executives?
> >>
> >> It also said "...about $450 million in bonus payments planned for
> >> employees at a business unit that lost $40.5 billion last year."
> >
> > Why didn't the U.S. government use its shares to veto the bonuses?
>
> Because AIG was contractually obligated to pay them.

Why did AIG sign contracts to pay those bonuses NO MATTER WHAT happened?
I thought that the bonuses would be based on how well AIG did, so AIG's
recent dismal performance should have canceled the bonuses!

Stray Dog[_2_]
March 17th 09, 03:31 AM
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Les Cargill wrote:

> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 22:25:42 -0500
> From: Les Cargill >
> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
> misc.invest.stocks
> Subject: Re: #Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>
> Stray Dog wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Tim Bruening wrote:
>>
> <snip>
>>> Why didn't the U.S. government use its shares to veto the bonuses?
>>
>
> I believe the stock received by the government organ
> in the bailout is preferred, nonvoting stock.
>
>> I don't know the whole story on the kind of "stake" they have, or what kind
>> of shares. Shareholders really don't have as much control as most people
>> seem to think.
>>
>
> Democracy! :)

No, dictatorship. :-|

>> Maybe someone else here knows more.
>>
>
> http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/the-aig-bailout-takes-shape/
>
> "Under the agreement, A.I.G. will issue a new series of Convertible
> Participating Serial Preferred Stock to a trust that will hold the Preferred
> Stock for the benefit of the United States Treasury."

That sounds like they are _printing_ stock shares just like the
Fed/Treasury is _printing_ dollars.

How come THEY get to do things like that and YOU and I can't do things
like that?

Its unfair.

> --
> Les Cargill
>

Rod Speed
March 17th 09, 04:27 AM
BobR wrote
> solon fox > wrote
>> BobR > wrote
>>> solon fox > wrote
>>>> Stray Dog > wrote

>>>>> Front page, todays WSJ (Mar, 16), far right column entitled:

>>>>> "AIG faces growing wrath over payouts"

>>>>> It also says they are 80% owned by the US taxpayers and I was
>>>>> wondering if that is true could I have my share of the money back
>>>>> ? Or, if I own it, could we somehow fire those executives?

>>>>> It also said "...about $450 million in bonus payments planned for
>>>>> employees at a business unit that lost $40.5 billion last year."

>>>>> Um...I was just wondering in what Alice-in-Wonderland universe
>>>>> do you get big bucks bonuses for ****ing up. Oh, pardon me,
>>>>> its the universe of overpaid, overbonused, overprotected, and
>>>>> overpampered CEOs and other greedy-selfish executives

>>>>> Pardon my "negative" attitude.

>>>> I understand the general public outrage at paying out bonuses over-
>>>> pampered CEO's and other greedy, selfish executives, yet I am
>>>> concerned at some of the assumptions. I don't know anything about
>>>> the bonuses at AIG, whether they are justified or outrageous excesses.

>>> In most corporations owned by the stockholders, those bonuses would be
>>> between the stockholders and the executives to work out. In the case
>>> of AIG or any other corporation that has dipped into the public funds
>>> for their survival or even maintenance of their profitability, any
>>> bonus paid out is outrageously excessive and can not be justified by
>>> any argument.

>> Since the government is a stakeholder, then the government does have
>> the right to ask the questions. Stockholders, don't make bonus decisions
>> directly, but that's beside the point. I understand what you meant.

> Right and yes I know the stockholders do not have direct control but they ultimately have a say.

Nice theory, pity about the real world.

All stockholders ever have any say about in practice
is whether they continue to hold the stock or not.

>> Where "bonuses" are part of the normal compensation package and given
>> for true performance, then these are appropriate (with the exception of the
>> egregiously offensive bonuses paid to CEO's and boards of failing companies).

> If these so called bonuses are in fact commisions then state
> them as such but that is not what they have been called.

Bonuses arent the same thing as commissions. We have different words for a reason.

> Bonus implies compensation beyond the normal compensation generally for superior performance.

Nope, it implys compensation that isnt just a simple commission
and particularly implys higher rewards for increased sales etc.

>> I really have no specific argument with the government
>> demanding rationalization of these bonuses. I just think
>> the politicians are stoking moral outrage without the facts.
>> If these facts are available, they have yet to be reported.

> I agree, the politicians including Obama will get all the
> mileage out of their moral outrage that they can get.

And IAG will just yawn and carry on regardless.

> Despite that, they owe a complete accounting to the public.

Nice theory. Pity about the real world, again.

>>>> What I do know about is where I work. My company has not received
>>>> any bailouts and I don't expect it ever will. There have been
>>>> layoffs and there have been reductions in salaries. What troubles
>>>> me is the assumption that millions of dollars in bonuses
>>>> translates to CEO's and senior executives stuffing their pockets.
>>>> In my world, sales are made by whole teams of people working
>>>> together and every sales person carries the title of sales
>>>> executive. Performance bonuses are based on sales - the lifeblood
>>>> of the company. Millions of dollars of bonuses are divided amongst
>>>> hundreds of people who brought in the new business. Some have
>>>> small salaries and must depend on these commissions, others have
>>>> more reasonable salaries, but bonuses still make up a substantial
>>>> portion of their overall compensation.

>>> Would those same employees be expecting to receive their bonus if they
>>> had instead of bringing in new profitable business brought the company
>>> to a point of bankruptcy where only tax dollars would keep you working?

>>>> I could be wrong, but I sense that all this disdain for performance
>>>> bonuses may be hurting real, working middle-class people who
>>>> earned and have ever right to their compensation.

>>> You could be wrong or you could be right but the taxpayers who are
>>> footing the bill for bailing out AIG have every right to be angry and
>>> demand an end to these bonus payouts. Rather that money is coming
>>> out of my check today or tomorrow makes no difference, it will
>>> eventually have to be paid by every taxpayer.

>>>> I still don't know whether the AIG bonuses are justifiable, but I
>>>> haven't seen any details. I don't work there and I don't know their
>>>> culture. But I don't see anyone asking the right questions to
>>>> ascertain the nature of the bonuses - the clamor of condemnation is
>>>> too loud. If there are people there who made bad decisions, they
>>>> should be fired.

>>> Your final statement said it all but then you seem to ignore that
>>> thought in everything else you said. The people receiving these
>>> bonuses are the same who got the company into this mess and
>>> now they are rewarded. This excuse that they have to pay the
>>> bonuses to retain the "talented" people is really sort of funny
>>> when you realize that those "talented" people drove their
>>> company into this mess, have been tainted by that fact and
>>> probably couldn't find another job now anywhere. I sure as
>>> hell wouldn't consider hiring any of them.

More fool you, particularly those involved in insurance.

>> You're probably right. The AIG bonus scenario smells bad and
>> there are probably excesses and people that should be fired.

>> My point is simply to remember that there are other real people
>> who aren't the evil-doers and don't deserve to be blamed.

> I had many friends at Enron when they went down and I am well
> aware that many good people paid the price for the excess of
> the Enron leadership. That will be the case with AIG as well

In spades with those involved in the insurance activitys of AIG.

> but that is all the more reason to expect AIG to be forthcoming
> with clear and above board disclosure of their activities.

Then there's the real world, again.

>> We do know that they haven't changed the CEO and principle
>> officers. I think those people who are responsible should be fired.

> That is something that I can't understand. Why have they been maintained?

Likely because a whole new crew when the **** is hitting the fan very
comprehensively indeed is likely to see and even bigger fiasco than otherwise.

> Then to consider giving them bonuses on top of that is just above comprehension.

Depends entirely on who got the bonuses and what the contractual obligations are on those.

Rod Speed
March 17th 09, 04:32 AM
Stray Dog wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Old Pif wrote:
>
>> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:30:42 -0700 (PDT)
>> From: Old Pif >
>> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ,
>> alt.politics.economics, misc.invest.stocks
>> Subject: Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>>
>> On Mar 16, 6:10 pm, solon fox > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I still don't know whether the AIG bonuses are justifiable, but I
>>> haven't seen any details. I don't work there and I don't know their
>>> culture. But I don't see anyone asking the right questions to
>>> ascertain the nature of the bonuses - the clamor of condemnation is
>>> too loud. If there are people there who made bad decisions, they
>>> should be fired.
>>>
>>
>> According to AIG CEO Edward Liddy, the bonuses in questions are
>> contractual obligations

> I smell a rat.

Thats just your latest steaming turd you are smelling, as always.

> You have to spell out those contractual obligations.

No he doesnt.

> Were they threshold dependent? Were they spelled out such as:
> "Sell more than $10 million of X and you get $ 1 mil bonus." Or
> "Sell more than $ 20 mil, and get $ 2 mil"? And, independent of
> how company as a whole operates.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.

>> and as such could be enforced by court order.
>> Which in turn prompts the question how such contracts could be signed
>> in the first place. To issue an agreement to pay bonuses no matter
>> what is a sure way to disastrous performance. Which we observe.

> Seems to me they set up a system that allows pillaging of the cookie jar.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.

> IIRC, when Drexel-Burnham went belly up, they fired a lot of people,
> but the upper 10% (whatever it was) got terminal bonuses totaling
> some hundreds of $ millions, which was certainly unseemly to me.

You have always been and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.

> But, if you read much Michael Lewis (eg. Liar's Poker),
> you can't help but think a large portion of the staff at these
> financial institutions are basically crooks pulling their own strings.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.

Rod Speed
March 17th 09, 04:33 AM
Fish wrote
> Old Pif > wrote
>> solon fox > wrote

>>> I still don't know whether the AIG bonuses are justifiable, but I
>>> haven't seen any details. I don't work there and I don't know their
>>> culture. But I don't see anyone asking the right questions to
>>> ascertain the nature of the bonuses - the clamor of condemnation is
>>> too loud. If there are people there who made bad decisions, they
>>> should be fired.

>> According to AIG CEO Edward Liddy, the bonuses in questions are
>> contractual obligations and as such could be enforced by court order.
>> Which in turn prompts the question how such contracts could be signed
>> in the first place. To issue an agreement to pay bonuses no matter
>> what is a sure way to disastrous performance. Which we observe.

> the past contract can be enforced only if AIG is on its own feet,
> makes a profit from their business

Wrong, as always.

> - they fail

They havent, legally.

> and live on charity, they are beggars by definition and can't
> be multi-millionaire beggars at the expense of tax payers.

Wrong, as always. They can be and are.

Rod Speed
March 17th 09, 04:35 AM
BobR wrote
> Old Pif > wrote
>> solon fox > wrote

>>> I still don't know whether the AIG bonuses are justifiable, but I
>>> haven't seen any details. I don't work there and I don't know their
>>> culture. But I don't see anyone asking the right questions to
>>> ascertain the nature of the bonuses - the clamor of condemnation is
>>> too loud. If there are people there who made bad decisions, they
>>> should be fired.

>> According to AIG CEO Edward Liddy, the bonuses in questions are
>> contractual obligations and as such could be enforced by court order.
>> Which in turn prompts the question how such contracts could be signed
>> in the first place. To issue an agreement to pay bonuses no matter
>> what is a sure way to disastrous performance. Which we observe.

> Does sound a bit suspect doesn't it? At the very least, the public
> should be made aware of exactly what agreements were in place.

The real world doesnt actually work like that.

> There is no reason to simply accept the word of anyone
> at AIG based on the events of the last few months.

They havent been caught lying.

Rod Speed
March 17th 09, 04:38 AM
Fish wrote:
> On Mar 16, 6:50 pm, "Rod Speed" > wrote:
>
>> Because AIG was contractually obligated to pay them.
>
> would be ceo can invent all BS contracts they can to profit from
> others, except their performance - when they live on charity for their
> meals and existences, they have little to room to wiggle - old parasites

Odd, could have SWORN that they did pay the bonuses, and had a ****up or two as well.

Rod Speed
March 17th 09, 04:41 AM
BobR wrote
> Rod Speed > wrote
>> Tim Bruening wrote
>>> Stray Dog wrote

>>>> Front page, todays WSJ (Mar, 16), far right column entitled:

>>>> "AIG faces growing wrath over payouts"

>>>> It also says they are 80% owned by the US taxpayers and I was
>>>> wondering if that is true could I have my share of the money back ?
>>>> Or, if I own it, could we somehow fire those executives?

>>>> It also said "...about $450 million in bonus payments planned for
>>>> employees at a business unit that lost $40.5 billion last year."

>>> Why didn't the U.S. government use its shares to veto the bonuses?

>> Because AIG was contractually obligated to pay them.

> So they say.

Tad unlikely that they'd be silly enough to lie about something as easy to check as that.

> Time for them to produce proof of those obligations,

You get no say what so ever on that or anything else at all, ever.

> their word is not worth ****.

You get no say what so ever on that or anything else at all, ever.

Rod Speed
March 17th 09, 04:44 AM
Tim Bruening wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Tim Bruening wrote
>>> Stray Dog wrote

>>>> Front page, todays WSJ (Mar, 16), far right column entitled:

>>>> "AIG faces growing wrath over payouts"

>>>> It also says they are 80% owned by the US taxpayers and I was
>>>> wondering if that is true could I have my share of the money back ?
>>>> Or, if I own it, could we somehow fire those executives?

>>>> It also said "...about $450 million in bonus payments planned for
>>>> employees at a business unit that lost $40.5 billion last year."
>
>>> Why didn't the U.S. government use its shares to veto the bonuses?

>> Because AIG was contractually obligated to pay them.

> Why did AIG sign contracts to pay those bonuses NO MATTER WHAT happened?

Tad unlikely that anyone expected at the time that the world financial system would implode spectacularly.

If they had done that, they wouldnt have written all those CDSs either.

> I thought that the bonuses would be based on how well AIG did,

Nope, because it isnt feasible to do bonuses like that.

> so AIG's recent dismal performance should have canceled the bonuses!

Then there's the real world.

You dont even know whether the bonuses are part of the insurance division when
its the finance division where the **** has hit the fan very spectacularly indeed.

alexy
March 17th 09, 05:54 AM
BobR > wrote:

>On Mar 16, 6:23*pm, solon fox > wrote:

>Bonus implies
>compensation beyond the normal compensation generally for superior
>performance.

Bob, I think the point SF is making is that bonuses can be tied to
many different measures of performance, not just to corporate profits.
For instance, if management of one of their operating companies had a
critical need and assigned a team of ten employees to work on meeting
that need, with an outside budget of $500,000, and they are told that
upon successful project completion, the team will be paid an extra
$50,000 ($5,000 each) for each month before deadline and 1/2 of any
budget savings. Now if they busted their butts to get the project done
two months early and for $400,000, should they not get the $15,000
each that they were promised?

Obviously, that is purely a hypothetical. But we don't know WHAT
performance the bonuses are for. LOTS of people get bonuses, not just
top execs.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

Tim Bruening
March 17th 09, 07:51 AM
Rod Speed wrote:

> Tim Bruening wrote
> > Rod Speed wrote
> >> Tim Bruening wrote
> >>> Stray Dog wrote
>
> >>>> Front page, todays WSJ (Mar, 16), far right column entitled:
>
> >>>> "AIG faces growing wrath over payouts"
>
> >>>> It also says they are 80% owned by the US taxpayers and I was
> >>>> wondering if that is true could I have my share of the money back ?
> >>>> Or, if I own it, could we somehow fire those executives?
>
> >>>> It also said "...about $450 million in bonus payments planned for
> >>>> employees at a business unit that lost $40.5 billion last year."
> >
> >>> Why didn't the U.S. government use its shares to veto the bonuses?
>
> >> Because AIG was contractually obligated to pay them.
>
> > Why did AIG sign contracts to pay those bonuses NO MATTER WHAT happened?
>
> Tad unlikely that anyone expected at the time that the world financial system would implode spectacularly.

> If they had done that, they wouldnt have written all those CDSs either.
>
> > I thought that the bonuses would be based on how well AIG did,
>
> Nope, because it isnt feasible to do bonuses like that.

I've heard of Christmas bonuses, paid by a company to its workers in years when the company did very well. If
the company tanked, the X-mas bonuses would be canceled to help the company pay its debts. I therefore
figured that AIG's bonuses would have quite naturally been canceled due to AIG losing an astronomical sum last
quarter and therefore needing to save money.

Rod Speed
March 17th 09, 08:24 AM
Tim Bruening wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Tim Bruening wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Tim Bruening wrote
>>>>> Stray Dog wrote

>>>>>> Front page, todays WSJ (Mar, 16), far right column entitled:

>>>>>> "AIG faces growing wrath over payouts"

>>>>>> It also says they are 80% owned by the US taxpayers and I was
>>>>>> wondering if that is true could I have my share of the money
>>>>>> back ? Or, if I own it, could we somehow fire those executives?

>>>>>> It also said "...about $450 million in bonus payments planned for
>>>>>> employees at a business unit that lost $40.5 billion last year."

>>>>> Why didn't the U.S. government use its shares to veto the bonuses?

>>>> Because AIG was contractually obligated to pay them.

>>> Why did AIG sign contracts to pay those bonuses NO MATTER WHAT happened?

>> Tad unlikely that anyone expected at the time that the
>> world financial system would implode spectacularly.

>> If they had done that, they wouldnt have written all those CDSs either.

>>> I thought that the bonuses would be based on how well AIG did,

>> Nope, because it isnt feasible to do bonuses like that.

> I've heard of Christmas bonuses, paid by a company
> to its workers in years when the company did very well.

You clearly need to get out more. There are more bonuses than that now.

> If the company tanked, the X-mas bonuses would
> be canceled to help the company pay its debts.

Yes.

> I therefore figured that AIG's bonuses would have quite naturally been canceled due
> to AIG losing an astronomical sum last quarter and therefore needing to save money.

You need to 'figure' again.

Econotron
March 17th 09, 01:23 PM
"Old Pif" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 16, 6:10 pm, solon fox > wrote:

>
> I still don't know whether the AIG bonuses are justifiable, but I
> haven't seen any details. I don't work there and I don't know their
> culture. But I don't see anyone asking the right questions to
> ascertain the nature of the bonuses - the clamor of condemnation is
> too loud. If there are people there who made bad decisions, they
> should be fired.
>

According to AIG CEO Edward Liddy, the bonuses in questions are
contractual obligations and as such could be enforced by court order.
Which in turn prompts the question how such contracts could be signed
in the first place. To issue an agreement to pay bonuses no matter
what is a sure way to disastrous performance. Which we observe.

================================================== =============================

If it is a contractual obligation, then it is not a bonus. The whole idea of
a bonus is that it is optional, even if promised. You do not get it, for
example, if you get fired.
e.

alexy
March 17th 09, 02:08 PM
"Econotron" > wrote:

>"Old Pif" > wrote in message
...

>If it is a contractual obligation, then it is not a bonus. The whole idea of
>a bonus is that it is optional, even if promised. You do not get it, for
>example, if you get fired.

You seem to think that the term "discretionary bonus" contains a
redundancy. That is flat wrong. If a company contracts with an
employee to pay a monthly amount of $5,000 plus an amount at the end
of the year equal to 10% of the increase over last year's gross
operating margin of the unit over which the employee has control, the
$5,000 per month is called base pay, and the year-end amount is called
bonus. It is not discretionary (in this case) and is contractual.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

Econotron
March 17th 09, 02:46 PM
"alexy" > wrote in message
...
> "Econotron" > wrote:
>
>>"Old Pif" > wrote in message
...
>
>>If it is a contractual obligation, then it is not a bonus. The whole idea
>>of
>>a bonus is that it is optional, even if promised. You do not get it, for
>>example, if you get fired.
>
> You seem to think that the term "discretionary bonus" contains a
> redundancy. That is flat wrong. If a company contracts with an
> employee to pay a monthly amount of $5,000 plus an amount at the end
> of the year equal to 10% of the increase over last year's gross
> operating margin of the unit over which the employee has control, the
> $5,000 per month is called base pay, and the year-end amount is called
> bonus. It is not discretionary (in this case) and is contractual.
>
Sure, but I would not call it a bonus. It is rather variable pay as opposed
to a fixed portion.
e.

Rod Speed
March 17th 09, 05:20 PM
Econotron wrote:
> "Old Pif" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Mar 16, 6:10 pm, solon fox > wrote:
>
>>
>> I still don't know whether the AIG bonuses are justifiable, but I
>> haven't seen any details. I don't work there and I don't know their
>> culture. But I don't see anyone asking the right questions to
>> ascertain the nature of the bonuses - the clamor of condemnation is
>> too loud. If there are people there who made bad decisions, they
>> should be fired.
>>
>
> According to AIG CEO Edward Liddy, the bonuses in questions are
> contractual obligations and as such could be enforced by court order.
> Which in turn prompts the question how such contracts could be signed
> in the first place. To issue an agreement to pay bonuses no matter
> what is a sure way to disastrous performance. Which we observe.
>
> ================================================== =============================
>
> If it is a contractual obligation, then it is not a bonus.

Wrong.

> The whole idea of a bonus is that it is optional, even if promised.

Wrong again.

> You do not get it, for example, if you get fired.

They werent giving it to those they had fired.

Rod Speed
March 17th 09, 05:22 PM
Econotron wrote:
> "alexy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Econotron" > wrote:
>>
>>> "Old Pif" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>
>>> If it is a contractual obligation, then it is not a bonus. The
>>> whole idea of
>>> a bonus is that it is optional, even if promised. You do not get
>>> it, for example, if you get fired.
>>
>> You seem to think that the term "discretionary bonus" contains a
>> redundancy. That is flat wrong. If a company contracts with an
>> employee to pay a monthly amount of $5,000 plus an amount at the end
>> of the year equal to 10% of the increase over last year's gross
>> operating margin of the unit over which the employee has control, the
>> $5,000 per month is called base pay, and the year-end amount is
>> called bonus. It is not discretionary (in this case) and is contractual.

> Sure, but I would not call it a bonus.

Doesnt matter what you call it, what matters is what AIG calls that.

> It is rather variable pay as opposed to a fixed portion.

Still a contractual obligation, so they cant just refuse to pay it if its been contracted.

alexy
March 17th 09, 05:40 PM
"Econotron" > wrote:

>"alexy" > wrote in message
...
>> "Econotron" > wrote:
>>
>>>"Old Pif" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>If it is a contractual obligation, then it is not a bonus. The whole idea
>>>of
>>>a bonus is that it is optional, even if promised. You do not get it, for
>>>example, if you get fired.
>>
>> You seem to think that the term "discretionary bonus" contains a
>> redundancy. That is flat wrong. If a company contracts with an
>> employee to pay a monthly amount of $5,000 plus an amount at the end
>> of the year equal to 10% of the increase over last year's gross
>> operating margin of the unit over which the employee has control, the
>> $5,000 per month is called base pay, and the year-end amount is called
>> bonus. It is not discretionary (in this case) and is contractual.
>>
>Sure, but I would not call it a bonus. It is rather variable pay as opposed
>to a fixed portion.
>e.
>

Maybe YOU wouldn't call it a bonus, but in the business world, that is
what it is called. In compensation lingo, a discretionary bonus is one
type of variable pay, but not the only variable pay.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

thunder
March 17th 09, 05:42 PM
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 04:22:24 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:


> Still a contractual obligation, so they cant just refuse to pay it if
> its been contracted.

Without getting into whether they should or shouldn't be paid,
contractual obligations are not written in stone. You'll note that the
autoworkers union just renegotiated their contracts under the gun.
Contracts *are* renegotiated all of the time.

Rod Speed
March 17th 09, 06:50 PM
thunder wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>> Still a contractual obligation, so they cant
>> just refuse to pay it if its been contracted.

> Without getting into whether they should or shouldn't
> be paid, contractual obligations are not written in stone.

They are however legally binding once the contract has been entered into.

> You'll note that the autoworkers union just renegotiated their contracts
> under the gun. Contracts *are* renegotiated all of the time.

And AIG has said that the current bonuses wont be repeated.

BobR
March 17th 09, 07:00 PM
On Mar 17, 12:54*am, alexy > wrote:
> BobR > wrote:
> >On Mar 16, 6:23*pm, solon fox > wrote:
> >Bonus implies
> >compensation beyond the normal compensation generally for superior
> >performance.
>
> Bob, I think the point SF is making is that bonuses can be tied to
> many different measures of performance, not just to corporate profits.
> For instance, if management of one of their operating companies had a
> critical need and assigned a team of ten employees to work on meeting
> that need, with an outside budget of $500,000, and they are told that
> upon successful project completion, the team will be paid an extra
> $50,000 ($5,000 each) for each month before deadline and 1/2 of any
> budget savings. Now if they busted their butts to get the project done
> two months early and for $400,000, should they not get the $15,000
> each that they were promised?
>
> Obviously, that is purely a hypothetical. But we don't know WHAT
> performance the bonuses are for. LOTS of people get bonuses, not just
> top execs.
> --
> Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

Like I said elsewhere, it is past time for AIG to disclose the full
nature of these bonuses and why they are contracted to pay them. That
is the only way they can really justify them and expect them to be
accepted by a public that has just about had enough.

alexy
March 17th 09, 08:28 PM
BobR > wrote:

>On Mar 17, 12:54*am, alexy > wrote:
>> BobR > wrote:
>> >On Mar 16, 6:23*pm, solon fox > wrote:
>> >Bonus implies
>> >compensation beyond the normal compensation generally for superior
>> >performance.
>>
>> Bob, I think the point SF is making is that bonuses can be tied to
>> many different measures of performance, not just to corporate profits.
>> For instance, if management of one of their operating companies had a
>> critical need and assigned a team of ten employees to work on meeting
>> that need, with an outside budget of $500,000, and they are told that
>> upon successful project completion, the team will be paid an extra
>> $50,000 ($5,000 each) for each month before deadline and 1/2 of any
>> budget savings. Now if they busted their butts to get the project done
>> two months early and for $400,000, should they not get the $15,000
>> each that they were promised?
>>
>> Obviously, that is purely a hypothetical. But we don't know WHAT
>> performance the bonuses are for. LOTS of people get bonuses, not just
>> top execs.
>> --
>> Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
>
>Like I said elsewhere, it is past time for AIG to disclose the full
>nature of these bonuses and why they are contracted to pay them. That
>is the only way they can really justify them and expect them to be
>accepted by a public that has just about had enough.

Yes, that is a very reasonable demand; a lot different from all the
hysteria about how "wrong" it is to pay bonuses without any knowledge
of what those bonuses are. And as someone else here pointed out, even
if there is a contract, reneging on the deal is not the only out; use
the pressure of the rescue to "encourage" renegotiation.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

Stray Dog[_2_]
March 17th 09, 09:18 PM
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, thunder wrote:

> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 12:42:10 -0500
> From: thunder >
> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
> misc.invest.stocks
> Subject: Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>
> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 04:22:24 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>
>> Still a contractual obligation, so they cant just refuse to pay it if
>> its been contracted.
>
> Without getting into whether they should or shouldn't be paid,
> contractual obligations are not written in stone. You'll note that the
> autoworkers union just renegotiated their contracts under the gun.
> Contracts *are* renegotiated all of the time.
>

This is a very good point. Yes, I've heard of this, too. And, you also
have the real situation, too, where people just walk away from a contract
and say "OK, sue me," too. And, for lots of situations, it's best to just
write off the losses.

Econotron
March 17th 09, 11:07 PM
"alexy" > wrote in message
...
> "Econotron" > wrote:
>
>>"alexy" > wrote in message
...
>>> "Econotron" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Old Pif" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>If it is a contractual obligation, then it is not a bonus. The whole
>>>>idea
>>>>of
>>>>a bonus is that it is optional, even if promised. You do not get it, for
>>>>example, if you get fired.
>>>
>>> You seem to think that the term "discretionary bonus" contains a
>>> redundancy. That is flat wrong. If a company contracts with an
>>> employee to pay a monthly amount of $5,000 plus an amount at the end
>>> of the year equal to 10% of the increase over last year's gross
>>> operating margin of the unit over which the employee has control, the
>>> $5,000 per month is called base pay, and the year-end amount is called
>>> bonus. It is not discretionary (in this case) and is contractual.
>>>
>>Sure, but I would not call it a bonus. It is rather variable pay as
>>opposed
>>to a fixed portion.
>>e.
>>
>
> Maybe YOU wouldn't call it a bonus, but in the business world, that is
> what it is called. In compensation lingo, a discretionary bonus is one
> type of variable pay, but not the only variable pay.
>
Discretionary pay is how the term "bonus" is understood by the general
public, which is the reason for current outcry. The percentage of
operational income example is in fact a commission. I personally never
encounter bonuses that were other than discretionary, and those at AIG are
most likely discretionary too. If some businesses want to call commission a
bonus, they can do it at their own risk, but I do not have to follow it :-)
e.

Rod Speed
March 17th 09, 11:39 PM
Econotron wrote:
> "alexy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Econotron" > wrote:
>>
>>> "alexy" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Econotron" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Old Pif" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> If it is a contractual obligation, then it is not a bonus. The
>>>>> whole idea
>>>>> of
>>>>> a bonus is that it is optional, even if promised. You do not get
>>>>> it, for example, if you get fired.
>>>>
>>>> You seem to think that the term "discretionary bonus" contains a
>>>> redundancy. That is flat wrong. If a company contracts with an
>>>> employee to pay a monthly amount of $5,000 plus an amount at the
>>>> end of the year equal to 10% of the increase over last year's gross
>>>> operating margin of the unit over which the employee has control,
>>>> the $5,000 per month is called base pay, and the year-end amount
>>>> is called bonus. It is not discretionary (in this case) and is
>>>> contractual.
>>> Sure, but I would not call it a bonus. It is rather variable pay as
>>> opposed
>>> to a fixed portion.
>>> e.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe YOU wouldn't call it a bonus, but in the business world, that
>> is what it is called. In compensation lingo, a discretionary bonus
>> is one type of variable pay, but not the only variable pay.

> Discretionary pay is how the term "bonus" is understood by the general public,

Nope.

> which is the reason for current outcry.

Nope, they are howling about any payout at all.

> The percentage of operational income example is in fact a commission.

Wrong again.

> I personally never encounter bonuses that were other than discretionary,

You never worked for AIG either.

> and those at AIG are most likely discretionary too.

Nope.

> If some businesses want to call commission

They arent a commission.

> a bonus, they can do it at their own risk, but I do not have to follow it :-)

You have always been and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.

Econotron
March 18th 09, 12:08 AM
"Rod Speed" > wrote in message
...
> Econotron wrote:
>> "alexy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Econotron" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "alexy" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> "Econotron" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Old Pif" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> If it is a contractual obligation, then it is not a bonus. The
>>>>>> whole idea
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> a bonus is that it is optional, even if promised. You do not get
>>>>>> it, for example, if you get fired.
>>>>>
>>>>> You seem to think that the term "discretionary bonus" contains a
>>>>> redundancy. That is flat wrong. If a company contracts with an
>>>>> employee to pay a monthly amount of $5,000 plus an amount at the
>>>>> end of the year equal to 10% of the increase over last year's gross
>>>>> operating margin of the unit over which the employee has control,
>>>>> the $5,000 per month is called base pay, and the year-end amount
>>>>> is called bonus. It is not discretionary (in this case) and is
>>>>> contractual.
>>>> Sure, but I would not call it a bonus. It is rather variable pay as
>>>> opposed
>>>> to a fixed portion.
>>>> e.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe YOU wouldn't call it a bonus, but in the business world, that
>>> is what it is called. In compensation lingo, a discretionary bonus
>>> is one type of variable pay, but not the only variable pay.
>
>> Discretionary pay is how the term "bonus" is understood by the general
>> public,
>
> Nope.
>
Yep.
>
>> which is the reason for current outcry.
>
> Nope, they are howling about any payout at all.
>
Including salary?
>
>> The percentage of operational income example is in fact a commission.
>
> Wrong again.
>
>> I personally never encounter bonuses that were other than discretionary,
>
> You never worked for AIG either.
>
Right about that.
>
>> and those at AIG are most likely discretionary too.
>
> Nope.
>
So, what are they? How are they structured?
>
>> If some businesses want to call commission
>
> They arent a commission.
>
>> a bonus, they can do it at their own risk, but I do not have to follow it
>> :-)
>
> You have always been and always will be, completely and utterly
> irrelevant.
The above is a complete impossibility :-)
e.

Rod Speed
March 18th 09, 01:17 AM
Econotron wrote
> Rod Speed > wrote
>> Econotron wrote
>>> alexy > wrote
>>>> Econotron > wrote
>>>>> alexy > wrote
>>>>>> Econotron > wrote
>>>>>>> Old Pif > wrote

>>>>>>> If it is a contractual obligation, then it is not a bonus. The whole idea of a bonus is that it is optional,
>>>>>>> even if promised. You do not get it, for example, if you get fired.

>>>>>> You seem to think that the term "discretionary bonus" contains a
>>>>>> redundancy. That is flat wrong. If a company contracts with an
>>>>>> employee to pay a monthly amount of $5,000 plus an amount at the
>>>>>> end of the year equal to 10% of the increase over last year's
>>>>>> gross operating margin of the unit over which the employee has
>>>>>> control, the $5,000 per month is called base pay, and the
>>>>>> year-end amount is called bonus. It is not discretionary (in
>>>>>> this case) and is contractual.

>>>>> Sure, but I would not call it a bonus. It is rather variable pay as opposed to a fixed portion.

>>>> Maybe YOU wouldn't call it a bonus, but in the business world, that is what it is called. In compensation lingo, a
>>>> discretionary bonus is one type of variable pay, but not the only variable pay.

>>> Discretionary pay is how the term "bonus" is understood by the general public,

>> Nope.

> Yep.

>>> which is the reason for current outcry.

>> Nope, they are howling about any payout at all.

> Including salary?

Nope.

>>> The percentage of operational income example is in fact a commission.

>> Wrong again.

>>> I personally never encounter bonuses that were other than discretionary,

>> You never worked for AIG either.

> Right about that.

>>> and those at AIG are most likely discretionary too.

>> Nope.

> So, what are they? How are they structured?

Varys with the bonus.

>>> If some businesses want to call commission

>> They arent a commission.

>>> a bonus, they can do it at their own risk, but I do not have to follow it :-)

>> You have always been and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.

> The above is a complete impossibility :-)

Nope. And this is no laughing matter, and dont you forget it.

Han de Bruijn
March 18th 09, 08:01 AM
Stray Dog wrote:
>
> On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, thunder wrote:
>
>> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 12:42:10 -0500
>> From: thunder >
>> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
>> misc.invest.stocks
>> Subject: Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>>
>> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 04:22:24 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>>> Still a contractual obligation, so they cant just refuse to pay it if
>>> its been contracted.
>>
>> Without getting into whether they should or shouldn't be paid,
>> contractual obligations are not written in stone. You'll note that the
>> autoworkers union just renegotiated their contracts under the gun.
>> Contracts *are* renegotiated all of the time.
>>
> This is a very good point. Yes, I've heard of this, too. And, you also
> have the real situation, too, where people just walk away from a
> contract and say "OK, sue me," too. And, for lots of situations, it's
> best to just write off the losses.

If all the important decisions are made by the Money we Have, and not by
the Humans we Are, then what is there to complain ? What if the world is
ruled by money, rather than by humans ? We cannot even do "what is best"
then, because _we_ are simply not in charge. Our money has overruled us.

Han de Bruijn

Tim Bruening
March 18th 09, 08:06 AM
Bonuses went to 11 people who no longer work for AIG. How can bonuses
be required to be paid to ex-employees?

Andy F.
March 18th 09, 09:41 AM
"Stray Dog" > wrote in message
.org...
>
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Les Cargill wrote:
>
>> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 22:25:42 -0500
>> From: Les Cargill >
>> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
>> misc.invest.stocks
>> Subject: Re: #Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>>
>> Stray Dog wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Tim Bruening wrote:
>>>
>> <snip>
>>>> Why didn't the U.S. government use its shares to veto the bonuses?
>>>
>>
>> I believe the stock received by the government organ
>> in the bailout is preferred, nonvoting stock.
>>
>>> I don't know the whole story on the kind of "stake" they have, or what
>>> kind of shares. Shareholders really don't have as much control as most
>>> people seem to think.
>>>
>>
>> Democracy! :)
>
> No, dictatorship. :-|
>
>>> Maybe someone else here knows more.
>>>
>>
>> http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/the-aig-bailout-takes-shape/
>>
>> "Under the agreement, A.I.G. will issue a new series of Convertible
>> Participating Serial Preferred Stock to a trust that will hold the
>> Preferred Stock for the benefit of the United States Treasury."
>
> That sounds like they are _printing_ stock shares just like the
> Fed/Treasury is _printing_ dollars.
>
> How come THEY get to do things like that and YOU and I can't do things
> like that?
>
> Its unfair.

But you can do things like that if you want.

http://forms.findlaw.com/do-it-yourself-incorporation.html

Just fill in a few forms and you can print as many shares as you like.

Stray Dog[_2_]
March 18th 09, 12:07 PM
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, Han de Bruijn wrote:

> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 09:01:35 +0100
> From: Han de Bruijn >
> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
> misc.invest.stocks
> Subject: Re: ## Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>
> Stray Dog wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, thunder wrote:
>>

>>>> Still a contractual obligation, so they cant just refuse to pay it if
>>>> its been contracted.
>>>
>>> Without getting into whether they should or shouldn't be paid,
>>> contractual obligations are not written in stone. You'll note that the
>>> autoworkers union just renegotiated their contracts under the gun.
>>> Contracts *are* renegotiated all of the time.
>>>
>> This is a very good point. Yes, I've heard of this, too. And, you also have
>> the real situation, too, where people just walk away from a contract and
>> say "OK, sue me," too. And, for lots of situations, it's best to just write
>> off the losses.
>
> If all the important decisions are made by the Money we Have, and not by
> the Humans we Are, then what is there to complain ? What if the world is
> ruled by money, rather than by humans ? We cannot even do "what is best"
> then, because _we_ are simply not in charge. Our money has overruled us.
>
> Han de Bruijn

I think I understand what you mean. Here, below, are bits and pieces I
typed up from a book I read a few years ago that I thought was
interesting, and you might get something out of some of these bits and
pieces, too. I think about this stuff all the time.

-----------------------------

A review of "Democracy for the Few" by Michael Parenti
(7th edition, 2002, Bedford/St. Martin's, ISBN 0312392508, 351 pp)

This book has long reference lists at the end of every chapter. Almost every
quote below has a refernce to at least one source.

Page 4- Adam Smith gets quoted a lot. I wonder how many people know
about this quote: "...Adam Smith, the premier exponent of early capitalism,
wrote in 1776: 'The necessity of civil government grows up with the
acquisition of valuable property.' And 'Till there be property there can be no
government, the very end of which is to secure wealth, and to defend the rich
from the poor.'"

Page 9- "A large majority of the 'self-made' Forbes 400 superrich inherited
fortunes or received crucial start-up capital from a family member." And
"The trend has been toward greater economic inequality. In the mid 1990s,
corporate profits more than doubled; income from investments has been
growing two to three times faster than income from work. Between 1980 and
1992, the five hundred largest U.S. industrial corporations more than doulbled
their assets..., while shedding over five million jobs." and "During the last
three decades, the richest 1 percent saw their average after-tax incomes soar
by 115 percent--while the incomes of the bottom fifth declined by almost 10
percent."

Page 11- "Mergers are justified as strengthening the competitive capacity of a
firm. But merged companies seldom display improved performance"... "The
mergers benefit the big shareholders, creditors, and top executives who walk
away with megaprofits for the sale--while consumers and workers pay the
costs" and "If and when the corporation merges with anotehr or is bought out,
the [pension] fund is absorbed by the takeover and the workers often never
see a penny of the money they paid into it."

Page 12- "In the last decade, U.S.-based transnational companies created
345,000 jobs abroad while cutting 783,000 jobs in the United States."

Page 13-"Five giant corporations dominate the domestic and world grain
market. Just 1 percent of all food corporations control 80 percent of the food
industrry's assets and close to 90 percent of the profits."

Page 14-"Thus, during the 1992 recession, corporate profits grew to record
levels, as companies squeezed more output from each employee while paying
less in wages and benefits."

Page 17- " Between 1973 and 1997, worker productivity (output per hour of
work) increased by over 20 percent, while real wages (adjusted for inflation)
declined by 22.6 percent."

Page 29- "A fact of real significance in any understanding of political power in
America is that almost all 'our' cultural institutions are under plutocratic
control, linked to the business system, ruled by nonelected, self-perpetuating
groups of affluent corporate representatives who are answerable to no one but
themselves. We the people have no vote, no portion of the ownership, and no
legal decision-making power within these institutions."

Page 33-"...conservatives are for or against government handouts depending
on whole hand is out. They want to cut spending on human services and aid to
lower-income groups, but vigorously suport all sorts of government subsidies
and bailouts for large corporate enterprises."

Page 42-"Early American society has been described as egalitarian, free from
the extremes of want and wealth that characterized Europe. In fact, from
colonial times onward, men of influence received vast land grants from the
crown and presided over estaes that bespoke an impressive munificence. By
1700, three-fourths of the acreage in New York belonged to fewer than a
dozen persons. In the interior of Virginia, seven individuals owned over 1.7
million acres. By 1760, fewer than five hundred men in five colonial cities
controlled most of the commerce, shipping, banking, mining, and
manufacturing on the eastern seaboard."

Page 44-"Small farmers were burdened by heavy rents, ruinous taxes, and low
incomes. To survive, they frequently had to borrow money at high interest
rates. To meet their debts, they mortgaged their future crops and went still
deeper into debt, caught in that cycle of rural indebtedness that today is still
the common fate of agrarian peoples in this and other countries.,"

Page 45-"The framers of the Constitution could agree with Madison when he
wrote also in Federalist No. 10 that 'the most common and durable source of
faction has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who
hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in
society' and that 'the first object of government' is 'the protection of different
and unequal faculties of acquiring property.'"

Page 56-"Contrary to the view that the nation was free of class conflict, class
struggle in nineteenth-century America 'were as fierce as any known in the
industrial world.' After sporadic uprisings and strikes of teh early decades
there came the railroad strikes of the 1870s, followed by the farmers' rebelions
and the great industrial strikes of the 1880s and 1890s."

Page 60-61: "'Progressivism was not the triump of small businesses over the
trusts, as has often been suggested, but the victory of big businesses in
achieving the rationalization of the economy that only the federal government
could provide'" And..."The period is called the Progressive Era because of the
much publicised but largely ineffectual legislation to control monopolies..."

Pages 62-64- Much discussion of the difficulties in the labor movement in the
USA and how the government did many things to stop or limit it.

Page 68-"The U.S. government's Agency for International Development
(AID) spent $1 billion in taxpayer money over the past decade to help
companies move U.S. jobs to cheaper labor markets abroad. AID provided
low-interest loans, tax exemptions, travel and training funds, and advertising.
AID also furnished blacklists to help companies weed out union sympathizers
from their workforces in various countries."

Page 69- "The General Accounting Office (GAO) estimates that agribusiness
enterprises that use legal loopholes to circumvent subsidy limits yearly collect
more than $2 billion in unjustified farm program payments."

Page 74-"Most of the 'tax reforms' produced by Congress are paraded as relief
for the besieged middle class when actually they mostly benefit the higher-
income brackets. Thus, for every tax dollar in tax cuts accorded the bottom 80
percent the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 gave $1,189 to the wealthiest 1
percent."

Page 85-"In recent decades, U.S. industries and banks have invested heavily in
the 'Third World' (Asia, Africa, and Latin America), attracted by the high
return that comes with underpaid labor and the near absence of taxes,
environmental regulations, and safety and consumer protections."

Page 86-"Since World War II, more than $230 billion in U.S. military aid has
been given to some eighty-five nations. The U.S. has trained and equiped over
two millino foreign troops and police, the purpose being not to defend these
countries from outside invasion but to protect capital investments and the
ruling oligarchs from their own restive populations."

Pages 88-90- Much here about how the US CIA participated in supporting or
overthrowing governments not according to the wishes of the people but
arrangements favorable to the US government (and not necessarily to the US
people).

Page98-"While free-market opponents maintain that Social Security doesn't
work, what really bothers them is that it does. It is one of the most successful
human services programs in U.S. history. In over six decades, it has never
missed a payment. Its administrative costs are only about one percent of
annual payouts. By comparison, administrative costs for private insurance are
about 13 percent."

Page 99-"Contrary to the myth that 'private enterprise can do it better,' death
rates and patient expenses are higher at for-profit hospitals than at nonprofit
facilities."

Page 104-105-Here is the story, and the reference, about how General Motors
and Standard Oil conspired, with dummy corporations as fronts, to purchase
the Los Angeles rail system and replace it with buses.

Page 118- Here is the chapter that documents how individual citizens go to
jail for small crimes but when corporations commit large crimes, nothing or
almost nothing happens. "Burglary and robbery cost the public about $4
billion a year, while corporate fraud costs at least $200 billion a year."

Page 119-"Corporate crime is not a rarity but a regularity. The Department of
Justice found that 60 percent of the 582 largest U.S. companies have been
guilty of one or more criminal actions, be it tax evasion, price-fixing, illegal
kickbacks, bribes to public officials, consumer fraud, or violations of labor
codes, workplace safety, and environmental laws. The Department of Labor
found that corporations have filched hundreds of billions of dollars from
worker pension funds."

"Many companies are repeat offenders. Over the years, General Electric has
been convicted of 282 counts of contract fraud and fined $20 million." Many
other references to specific companies follow. For anyone who cares to look
farther, most books or textbooks on criminology will have a chapter on
corporate crime or white collar crime, complete with a bibliography of
references. Public libraries and bookstores in general have whole sections on
corporate crime.

Pages 166-167-Here is a good introduction to trade associations, business
groups, and organizations designed to "spread the word" in favor of business
interests.

Page 168- "Richly funded right-wingers have been able to recruit and train
cadres of ideologically committed writers and publicists who infiltrate
government agencies, congressional and lobbying staffs, and news agencies,
issuing a steady supply of materials to advance the corporate free-trade, free-
market agenda." Two references were given as basis for this statement.

Page 172- About the WTO--"Elected by no one and drawn from the corporate
world, these panelists meet in secret and can have investment stakes in the
very issues they adjudicate, being limited by no conflict-of-interest provisions.
Their function is to allow the transnational companies to do whatever they like
without any restraints or regulations placed on them by any country. Not one
of GATT's five hundred pages of rules and restrictions are directed against
private business; all are against governments. Signatory governments must
lower tariffs, end farm subsidies, treat foreign companies the same as domestic
ones, honor all corporate claims, and obey the ruleins of a permanent elite
bureaucracy, the WTO." The rest of the page give examples of the autocracy
of the WTO.

Page 178-How our media are controled-"As of 2000, eight corporate
conglomerates controlled most of the national media--down from twenty-three
in 1989. About 80 percent of the daily newspaper circulation in the United
States belongs to a few giant chains like Gannett and Knight-Ridder, and the
trend in owner concentration continues unabated. Today, less than 2 percent
of U.S. cities have competing newspapers under separate ownership."

Page 183-"The press has helped create the 'lock-'em up' crime craze
throughout America. Between 1993 and 1996 the nationwide homicide rate
dropped by 20 percent, yet coverage of the murders on ABC, CBS, and NBC
evening news leaped 721 percent. As a result, the number of U.S. residents
who ranked crime as the prime problem jumped sixfold. Corporate crime,
however, is another story, largely an unreported one. Recent surveys show
that mainstream media rarely express critical editorial opinions on corporate
crime."

Page 186-"The CIA has owned more than 240 media operations around the
world, including newspapers, magazines, publishing houses, radio and
television stations, and wire services. Many Third World countries get more
news from the CIA and other such Western sources than from Third World
news organizations." A reference is given for this statement. The story about
CIA involvement with some of the drug trade, in the end, resulted in this: "A
subsequent report by the CIA itself largely confirmed his charges [the guy
who first broke the story]." And, a reference is given for this statement, too.

Page 225- Exposes of public and grass roots organizations that are actually
fronts for corporate interests.

Page 231-About the revolving door between business and politicians: "'The
thing that really makes me mad is the dual standard.' complained a Senate
committee staff member. 'It's perfectly acceptable to turn over information
about what's going on in committee to the auto industry or the utilities, but
not to the public.'"

Page 232-"Some of the most significant legislation is drafted clandestinely.
Without the benefit of public hearings and public debate, a coterie of high-
placed government officials and corporate executives secretly put together the
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a two-thousand-page bill
that went largely unread by the lawmakers voting on it."

Page 263-What waste in the government? - "Seldom mentioned is the fact that
administrative expenses are generally less in public bureacracies than in private
ones." A reference is given for this.

Page 264-The Conrail example, where Conrail was government-owned, then
sold back to private interests at a bargain price.

Page 267-"The story is the same in other countries. In Britain and Chile,
government pension insurance funds were privatized. Vast fortunes were
made by those who handled the accounts while the pensioners ended up with
much less than before. In Bolivia, teh oil refineries were privatized, leading to
a 15-percent hike in gas prices. In countries throughout Eastern Europe,
privatization led to poorer and vastly more expensive services, and much
plundering of public resources by private profiteers."

This set of quotes represents only a fraction of the examples, references,
topics, and problems faced by the many in the world who are not rich and/or
powerful.

alexy
March 18th 09, 12:18 PM
Tim Bruening > wrote:

>Bonuses went to 11 people who no longer work for AIG. How can bonuses
>be required to be paid to ex-employees?

By contract. Valid questions can be raised about how well-designed
such a comp system might be, particularly as it relates to the
retention objective. But the question above shows incredible naivete.
Almost all employees receive payment, after they leave a job, for
services performed while they are on the job.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

Stray Dog[_2_]
March 18th 09, 12:35 PM
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, Andy F. wrote:

> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 09:41:14 -0000
> From: Andy F. >
> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
> misc.invest.stocks
> Subject: Re: #Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>
>
> "Stray Dog" > wrote in message
> .org...
>>
>> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Les Cargill wrote:
>>
>>> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 22:25:42 -0500
>>> From: Les Cargill >
>>> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
>>> misc.invest.stocks
>>> Subject: Re: #Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>>>
>>> Stray Dog wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Tim Bruening wrote:
>>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>>> Why didn't the U.S. government use its shares to veto the bonuses?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I believe the stock received by the government organ
>>> in the bailout is preferred, nonvoting stock.
>>>
>>>> I don't know the whole story on the kind of "stake" they have, or what
>>>> kind of shares. Shareholders really don't have as much control as most
>>>> people seem to think.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Democracy! :)
>>
>> No, dictatorship. :-|
>>
>>>> Maybe someone else here knows more.
>>>>
>>>
>>> http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/the-aig-bailout-takes-shape/
>>>
>>> "Under the agreement, A.I.G. will issue a new series of Convertible
>>> Participating Serial Preferred Stock to a trust that will hold the
>>> Preferred Stock for the benefit of the United States Treasury."
>>
>> That sounds like they are _printing_ stock shares just like the
>> Fed/Treasury is _printing_ dollars.
>>
>> How come THEY get to do things like that and YOU and I can't do things
>> like that?
>>
>> Its unfair.
>
> But you can do things like that if you want.
>
> http://forms.findlaw.com/do-it-yourself-incorporation.html
>
> Just fill in a few forms and you can print as many shares as you like.

I actually incorporated a small business in 1995, then disolved it last
year. I really did not want to expand my business in that way so I never
printed any shares. However, I did do scientific consulting for two
companies that did "print" ten mill shares each, and, the two of them, and
I, all consulted with each other, three ways, then, two years later, they
got into a major squabble and sued each other, and the last I heard one
of them got a court determined award of something like $ 11 million, and I
never found out how the counter-suit came out, but something tells me that
the lawyers now own both companies.

Now, the more roundabout way to "print" money is to organize yourself into
internet scams, grab cc card info through phishing, keystroke
loggers, etc., so that you don't really "print" money, but you get,
effectively, insurance companies to create it for you because you pilfer
from victims, the victims get reimbursed with benefits from their
insurance policies, and the insurance companies pay for that from premiums
paid in and govt bailouts when the insurance companies **** up (like AIG),
and then the govt prints money to fix the ****up, and then, we taxpayers
get to pay the bill, after all, in the end.

Now, we've come full circle, right?

P.S. I forgot to mention the antique and rare art market which is "almost"
like printing money. The scam works like this: item: rare Matisse, rare
Rembrant, etc, etc. one-of-a-kind artwork. Sothebys or Christies holds
hobby meetings for rich people to come to that can bid and pay $10-100 mil
for rare art. They love it to make art prices go up every year, faster
than inflation, because anything they buy one year goes up by a factor of
ten after ten years. So, when they donate to a museum, they get ten bucks
of deductions for every buck it costs them. "print" money? The "art deal"
cycle lets them print negative numbers on those tax returns that cause
the IRS to pay back the rich taxpayer who can finagle his numbers just
right. If you don't believe me, just watch "Antiques Roadshow" on TV and
notice how the appraisers talk about how antique prices go up much faster
than inflation. Tiffany lamps (circa 1910s-20s) are going for $100,000 -
$400,000 per each these days.

Han de Bruijn
March 18th 09, 01:06 PM
Stray Dog wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, Han de Bruijn wrote:
>
>> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 09:01:35 +0100
>> From: Han de Bruijn >
>> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
>> misc.invest.stocks
>> Subject: Re: ## Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>>
>> Stray Dog wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, thunder wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Still a contractual obligation, so they cant just refuse to pay it if
>>>>> its been contracted.
>>>>
>>>> Without getting into whether they should or shouldn't be paid,
>>>> contractual obligations are not written in stone. You'll note that the
>>>> autoworkers union just renegotiated their contracts under the gun.
>>>> Contracts *are* renegotiated all of the time.
>>>>
>>> This is a very good point. Yes, I've heard of this, too. And, you
>>> also have the real situation, too, where people just walk away from a
>>> contract and say "OK, sue me," too. And, for lots of situations, it's
>>> best to just write off the losses.
>>
>> If all the important decisions are made by the Money we Have, and not by
>> the Humans we Are, then what is there to complain ? What if the world is
>> ruled by money, rather than by humans ? We cannot even do "what is best"
>> then, because _we_ are simply not in charge. Our money has overruled us.
>
> I think I understand what you mean. Here, below, are bits and pieces I
> typed up from a book I read a few years ago that I thought was
> interesting, and you might get something out of some of these bits and
> pieces, too. I think about this stuff all the time.

[ .. lengthy add-on snipped .. ]

I have a much older reference, actually.

Many people do not understand, at all, that money isn't the measure of
everything in the cosmos. They do not understand that money is created
by people. And that bowing for money is beneath our dignity as a human
being. It's already in the first few of the Ten Commandments, as can be
read in the Bible, e.g. Exodus 20:1-17.

3. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

4. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of
any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath,
or that is in the water under the earth:

5. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: [ ... ]

_Much_ emphasis is on these first few of the 10 commandments and I think
that's not by coincidence. Bowing for a creation of our own hands is not
only beneath our dignity, but it is extremely _dangerous_ as well. There
is not a chance that we can survive such a heathen, uncivilized custom.

Note that one doesn't have to be a Christian or a Jew to appreciate the
truth of "Thou shalt not bow down thyself for a thing of thy own hands"
(hope I oldified that correctly).

Han de Bruijn

March 18th 09, 01:11 PM
On Mar 17, 1:28*pm, alexy > wrote:

> And as someone else here pointed out, even
> if there is a contract, reneging on the deal is not the only out; use
> the pressure of the rescue to "encourage" renegotiation.

As I understand it these "retention bonuses" were paid
out last week and several of the people receiving the
biggest bonuses have already left the business. These
are strange "retention bonuses" where the people can
quit after recieving the money. They appear to be bonuses
for working through some date certain not for continuing
to work after that date.

Also, I think I heard that this division was headquartered
in London. If so I'm wondering if they even pay US taxes
on their pay.

I would be very suprized if massive fraud wasn't involved
in several places along the way in all of this even though
the parties involved may frame it, and believe it, as engaging
in good business producing huge revenue streams.

I am reminded of the asbestos risk distribution plan
where individuals, including one on the supreme
court, were paid a fee for sharing the risk of asbestos
suits. Heck, I was almost enticed by the magazine
ads that looked like free money.

March 18th 09, 01:19 PM
On Mar 16, 6:50*pm, "Rod Speed" > wrote:
> Tim Bruening wrote:
> > Stray Dog wrote:
>
> >> Front page, todays WSJ (Mar, 16), far right column entitled:
>
> >> "AIG faces growing wrath over payouts"
>
> >> It also says they are 80% owned by the US taxpayers and I was
> >> wondering if that is true could I have my share of the money back ?
> >> Or, if I own it, could we somehow fire those executives?
>
> >> It also said "...about $450 million in bonus payments planned for
> >> employees at a business unit that lost $40.5 billion last year."
>
> > Why didn't the U.S. government use its shares to veto the bonuses?
>
> Because AIG was contractually obligated to pay them.

As has been pointed out by the "liberal" press, the auto labor
unions were told to suck it up and accept the breaking of the
contracts by the auto makers. Contracts are broken all the time.
It's time to follow the money.

Stray Dog[_2_]
March 18th 09, 01:22 PM
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, alexy wrote:

> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 08:18:39 -0400
> From: alexy >
> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
> misc.invest.stocks, alt.humor.puns
> Subject: Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>
> Tim Bruening > wrote:
>
>> Bonuses went to 11 people who no longer work for AIG. How can bonuses
>> be required to be paid to ex-employees?
>
> By contract.

Technically, not always. Bonuses could also be handed out as a matter of
regular practice. I have seen very little detail in any of the articles
about how specific bonus payment practices "connect" the bonus to
performance. In a particularly high pressure environment, this
"connection" might be unwritten to give managers more power over underlings.

> Valid questions

Whether a question is valid or not depends on the person who asks it and
the person who does not want to answer it, so the question could be
simultaneously valid or invalid depending on who you ask.

> can be raised about how well-designed
> such a comp system might be,

As much as a lot of sin can be burried under a lot of details designed to
obscure business, the impression, which is easy to understand, is that the
foxes were hired to guard the chickens and not eat the chickens. And, the
other impression which is easy to understand is that govt bailout money is
being squandered into extra paychecks for the foxes that ate the
chickens instead of get replacement chickens for the ones the foxes ate.
And, a lot of the same foxes are still "guarding" the chickens.

Of course this is a moral/ethical question which I know you have
difficulty dealing with.

particularly as it relates to the
> retention objective.

"Retention" is a peculiar concept since, currently, layoffs are up and if
anyone quits these days, there should be more applicants to replace the
worker who quit.

I always thought that if my paychecks cleared after I deposited them into
my bank, then I would not quit (and therefore I would be "retained").

Of course, in the world of tricky-sneaky-cheaty, all kinds of mischeif
takes place (I'm being kind and polite when I use the term "mischeif")..

> But the question above shows incredible naivete.

Without going into any nitty-gritty, I thought it was a quite reasonable
sentence by a person who wanted some answers.

> Almost all employees receive payment, after they leave a job, for
> services performed while they are on the job.

This is a very sloppy sentence based on careless, incomplete, and
misleading thinking.

Casting aside the fact that normal pay practices involve a payment _after_
performance of work throughout a pay period, which must be first completed
before the paycheck is "cut," a fired or resigned employee really would
get a paycheck after leaving employment, but then calling that some kind of
compensation meant for "retention" is a stretch if not obfuscation.

I'm not sure where your "Almost all" comes from since I can think of quite
a few exceptions and surely, thus, it comes either from ignorance or an
emphasis on an attempt to promote "the optimistic" image of brutal
capitalism.

Another detail not often discussed is that a bonus can be a "signing"
bonus handed out _before_ a period of performance, and I have also not
seen specific details on this in the media, but a "retention bonus" could
be used for employees who left a firm under the understanding that they
might be recalled at a future date, too. Personal relationships and
reputation history may sometimes play more significant roles in business
environments than written contracts.

As a matter of fact, in one consulting job I did (and still have all of
the paperwork to prove it), I received _all_ of my consulting compensation
in the form of a cashier's check, handed to me in advance as I got off an
airplane (the airplane ticket was paid for and mailed to me, and my
lodgings/food were also paid in advance) and _before_ I did any _work_.





> --
> Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
>

alexy
March 18th 09, 01:24 PM
wrote:

>On Mar 17, 1:28*pm, alexy > wrote:
>
>> And as someone else here pointed out, even
>> if there is a contract, reneging on the deal is not the only out; use
>> the pressure of the rescue to "encourage" renegotiation.
>
>As I understand it these "retention bonuses" were paid
>out last week and several of the people receiving the
>biggest bonuses have already left the business.

I don't know the details. Obviously, there would be no leverage to
renegotiate in that case.

> These
>are strange "retention bonuses" where the people can
>quit after recieving the money.

Actually, quite normal. In fact, it seems like it would be pretty
dumb to design a plan that pays out a bonus before the conclusion of
the period for which retention is desired. What would you do? Pay the
bonuses, and get a promise that they would pay them back if they quit
before the end of the retention period? You might AWARD the bonuses,
restricted stock, etc., before the retention period, but not pay out
(or remove restrictions) until the end of the retention period.

> They appear to be bonuses
>for working through some date certain not for continuing
>to work after that date.

That would be normal. Again, it would be pretty irresponsible to pay
bonuses for service not yet delivered.

>
>Also, I think I heard that this division was headquartered
>in London. If so I'm wondering if they even pay US taxes
>on their pay.
>
>I would be very suprized if massive fraud wasn't involved
>in several places along the way in all of this even though
>the parties involved may frame it, and believe it, as engaging
>in good business producing huge revenue streams.

Could be. We have a court system for that. Cuomo is pursuing. Why
isn't the USAG?

>I am reminded of the asbestos risk distribution plan
>where individuals, including one on the supreme
>court, were paid a fee for sharing the risk of asbestos
>suits. Heck, I was almost enticed by the magazine
>ads that looked like free money.

--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

Stray Dog[_2_]
March 18th 09, 01:45 PM
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, Han de Bruijn wrote:

> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 14:06:08 +0100
> From: Han de Bruijn >
> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
> misc.invest.stocks
> Subject: Re: ## Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>
> Stray Dog wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, Han de Bruijn wrote:
>>
>>> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 09:01:35 +0100
>>> From: Han de Bruijn >
>>> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
>>> misc.invest.stocks
>>> Subject: Re: ## Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>>>
>>> Stray Dog wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, thunder wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Still a contractual obligation, so they cant just refuse to pay it if
>>>>>> its been contracted.
>>>>>
>>>>> Without getting into whether they should or shouldn't be paid,
>>>>> contractual obligations are not written in stone. You'll note that the
>>>>> autoworkers union just renegotiated their contracts under the gun.
>>>>> Contracts *are* renegotiated all of the time.
>>>>>
>>>> This is a very good point. Yes, I've heard of this, too. And, you also
>>>> have the real situation, too, where people just walk away from a contract
>>>> and say "OK, sue me," too. And, for lots of situations, it's best to just
>>>> write off the losses.
>>>
>>> If all the important decisions are made by the Money we Have, and not by
>>> the Humans we Are, then what is there to complain ? What if the world is
>>> ruled by money, rather than by humans ? We cannot even do "what is best"
>>> then, because _we_ are simply not in charge. Our money has overruled us.
>>
>> I think I understand what you mean. Here, below, are bits and pieces I
>> typed up from a book I read a few years ago that I thought was interesting,
>> and you might get something out of some of these bits and pieces, too. I
>> think about this stuff all the time.
>
> [ .. lengthy add-on snipped .. ]
>
> I have a much older reference, actually.
>
> Many people do not understand, at all, that money isn't the measure of
> everything in the cosmos. They do not understand that money is created
> by people. And that bowing for money is beneath our dignity as a human
> being. It's already in the first few of the Ten Commandments, as can be
> read in the Bible, e.g. Exodus 20:1-17.
>
> 3. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
>
> 4. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of
> any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath,
> or that is in the water under the earth:
>
> 5. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: [ ... ]
>
> _Much_ emphasis is on these first few of the 10 commandments and I think
> that's not by coincidence. Bowing for a creation of our own hands is not
> only beneath our dignity, but it is extremely _dangerous_ as well. There
> is not a chance that we can survive such a heathen, uncivilized custom.
>
> Note that one doesn't have to be a Christian or a Jew to appreciate the
> truth of "Thou shalt not bow down thyself for a thing of thy own hands"
> (hope I oldified that correctly).
>
> Han de Bruijn

Han, I don't go to church, but I do appreciate the "teaching" sentiment in
what you wrote, above. I also like the ones about "do not kill" "do not
lie" and "do not steal".

I have to go away now from my computer for most of the rest of the day.

alexy
March 18th 09, 01:47 PM
Stray Dog > wrote:

>
>On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, alexy wrote:
>
>> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 08:18:39 -0400
>> From: alexy >
>> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
>> misc.invest.stocks, alt.humor.puns
>> Subject: Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>>
>> Tim Bruening > wrote:
>>
>>> Bonuses went to 11 people who no longer work for AIG. How can bonuses
>>> be required to be paid to ex-employees?
>>
>> By contract.
>
>Technically, not always.
The question was how bonuses could be required to be paid to
ex-employees. The only ways I can think of are by contract or by
statute, and I know of no laws that would require them. What other
ways were you thinking of?

> Bonuses could also be handed out as a matter of
>regular practice.

But I don't think that would create a requirement to pay them to
ex-employees, or if it did, it would be under a theory of implied
contract.

> I have seen very little detail in any of the articles
>about how specific bonus payment practices "connect" the bonus to
>performance.

Nor have I. I was merely responding to the question of how they could
be required.


> particularly as it relates to the
>> retention objective.
>
>"Retention" is a peculiar concept since, currently, layoffs are up and if
>anyone quits these days, there should be more applicants to replace the
>worker who quit.

Retention bonuses are seldom paid to mere warm bodies; they are paid
to retain skills or knowledge that the current incumbent has, which
would be hard to replace. E.g., company A buys company B, which is 18
months away from roll-out of a major new product or service. Company A
may promise retention bonuses to the team developing this product if
they stay with the merged company for 24 months.

>I always thought that if my paychecks cleared after I deposited them into
>my bank, then I would not quit (and therefore I would be "retained").

But people with skills and knowledge will often move to another
opportunity. In the example above, the merger of A and B may create a
less pleasant work environment, and company C may be developing a
similar product or service, making the members of the development team
at AB very subject to leaving without the retention bonus.


>> But the question above shows incredible naivete.
>
>Without going into any nitty-gritty, I thought it was a quite reasonable
>sentence by a person who wanted some answers.
>
>> Almost all employees receive payment, after they leave a job, for
>> services performed while they are on the job.
>
>This is a very sloppy sentence based on careless, incomplete, and
>misleading thinking.
>
>Casting aside the fact that normal pay practices involve a payment _after_
>performance of work throughout a pay period, which must be first completed
>before the paycheck is "cut," a fired or resigned employee really would
>get a paycheck after leaving employment,

So you agree that almost all employees receive payment after they
leave a job.

> but then calling that some kind of
>compensation meant for "retention" is a stretch if not obfuscation.

Clearly.

>I'm not sure where your "Almost all" comes from since I can think of quite
>a few exceptions.

I can't. What are some of those exceptions? Maybe the boy who cuts
your grass, who you regularly pay before he does the final edging?


--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

BobR
March 18th 09, 02:51 PM
On Mar 18, 3:06*am, Tim Bruening > wrote:
> Bonuses went to 11 people who no longer work for AIG. *How can bonuses
> be required to be paid to ex-employees?

They were retention bonuses. Didn't you know that? <BG>

-=DirtBag©[_3_]
March 18th 09, 03:01 PM
BobR wrote:
> On Mar 18, 3:06 am, Tim Bruening > wrote:
>> Bonuses went to 11 people who no longer work for AIG. How can bonuses
>> be required to be paid to ex-employees?
>
> They were retention bonuses. Didn't you know that? <BG>

Well did they retain them or not? Seems like they are gone along with
the retention money. Put a bloodhound on them and get it back...
I am tired of being raped and bleed dry..

alexy
March 18th 09, 03:08 PM
-=DirtBag© > wrote:

>BobR wrote:
>> On Mar 18, 3:06 am, Tim Bruening > wrote:
>>> Bonuses went to 11 people who no longer work for AIG. How can bonuses
>>> be required to be paid to ex-employees?
>>
>> They were retention bonuses. Didn't you know that? <BG>
>
>Well did they retain them or not?

Presumably they retained them for the period that the retention
agreements called for. Or are you also under the impression that
retention bonuses are paid in advance in the hope that someone will be
retained for a period after the bonuses are paid?

> Seems like they are gone along with
>the retention money.

That's fairly normal n M&A activity.

> Put a bloodhound on them and get it back...
>I am tired of being raped and bleed dry..

--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

alexy
March 18th 09, 04:53 PM
"Econotron" > wrote:

>"alexy" > wrote in message
...
>> "Econotron" > wrote:
>>
>>>"alexy" > wrote in message
...
>>>> "Econotron" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Old Pif" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>>If it is a contractual obligation, then it is not a bonus. The whole
>>>>>idea
>>>>>of
>>>>>a bonus is that it is optional, even if promised. You do not get it, for
>>>>>example, if you get fired.
>>>>
>>>> You seem to think that the term "discretionary bonus" contains a
>>>> redundancy. That is flat wrong. If a company contracts with an
>>>> employee to pay a monthly amount of $5,000 plus an amount at the end
>>>> of the year equal to 10% of the increase over last year's gross
>>>> operating margin of the unit over which the employee has control, the
>>>> $5,000 per month is called base pay, and the year-end amount is called
>>>> bonus. It is not discretionary (in this case) and is contractual.
>>>>
>>>Sure, but I would not call it a bonus. It is rather variable pay as
>>>opposed
>>>to a fixed portion.
>>>e.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe YOU wouldn't call it a bonus, but in the business world, that is
>> what it is called. In compensation lingo, a discretionary bonus is one
>> type of variable pay, but not the only variable pay.
>>
>Discretionary pay is how the term "bonus" is understood by the general
>public

Maybe. I'm not qualified, nor do I have the data, to speak for the
general public. But I can say how the term is generally used in
business.

>, which is the reason for current outcry.

A reasonable speculation.

> The percentage of
>operational income example is in fact a commission.

"Commission" is used in business almost exclusively to describe a
system of sales compensation based on revenue. While commission plans
can include factors to motivate profitable sales, usually they are not
that sophisticated. And I have never heard incentive compensation for
other than sales people referred to as a commission.

> I personally never
>encounter bonuses that were other than discretionary,

My impression is that discretionary bonuses are the most common. But
they most certainly are not the only types of bonuses.

> and those at AIG are most likely discretionary too.

I have no knowledge to be able to confirm or refute that. What is the
source of your knowledge of this?

> If some businesses want to call commission a
>bonus, they can do it at their own risk,

I don't know what the risk would be in calling a commission a bonus,
unless it makes it harder to attract sales talent, since they are used
to commission plans.

> but I do not have to follow it :-)
>e.
>

--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

Rod Speed
March 18th 09, 06:47 PM
Tim Bruening wrote:

> Bonuses went to 11 people who no longer work for AIG.
> How can bonuses be required to be paid to ex-employees?

When that is what was contracted.

Rod Speed
March 18th 09, 06:48 PM
alexy wrote
> Tim Bruening > wrote:

>> Bonuses went to 11 people who no longer work for AIG.
>> How can bonuses be required to be paid to ex-employees?

> By contract. Valid questions can be raised about how well-designed such
> a comp system might be, particularly as it relates to the retention objective.

It hasnt been established that they are all retention bonuses.

> But the question above shows incredible naivete.

It does indeed.

> Almost all employees receive payment, after they leave
> a job, for services performed while they are on the job.

Particularly when they retire.

Rod Speed
March 18th 09, 08:59 PM
Han de Bruijn wrote:
> Stray Dog wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, Han de Bruijn wrote:
>>
>>> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 09:01:35 +0100
>>> From: Han de Bruijn >
>>> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ,
>>> alt.politics.economics, misc.invest.stocks
>>> Subject: Re: ## Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>>>
>>> Stray Dog wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, thunder wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Still a contractual obligation, so they cant just refuse to pay
>>>>>> it if its been contracted.
>>>>>
>>>>> Without getting into whether they should or shouldn't be paid,
>>>>> contractual obligations are not written in stone. You'll note
>>>>> that the autoworkers union just renegotiated their contracts
>>>>> under the gun. Contracts *are* renegotiated all of the time.
>>>>>
>>>> This is a very good point. Yes, I've heard of this, too. And, you
>>>> also have the real situation, too, where people just walk away
>>>> from a contract and say "OK, sue me," too. And, for lots of
>>>> situations, it's best to just write off the losses.
>>>
>>> If all the important decisions are made by the Money we Have, and
>>> not by the Humans we Are, then what is there to complain ? What if
>>> the world is ruled by money, rather than by humans ? We cannot even
>>> do "what is best" then, because _we_ are simply not in charge. Our
>>> money has overruled us.
>>
>> I think I understand what you mean. Here, below, are bits and pieces
>> I typed up from a book I read a few years ago that I thought was
>> interesting, and you might get something out of some of these bits
>> and pieces, too. I think about this stuff all the time.
>
> [ .. lengthy add-on snipped .. ]
>
> I have a much older reference, actually.
>
> Many people do not understand, at all, that money isn't the measure of
> everything in the cosmos. They do not understand that money is created
> by people. And that bowing for money is beneath our dignity as a human
> being. It's already in the first few of the Ten Commandments, as can
> be read in the Bible, e.g. Exodus 20:1-17.
>
> 3. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
>
> 4. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of
> any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath,
> or that is in the water under the earth:
>
> 5. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: [ ... ]
>
> _Much_ emphasis is on these first few of the 10 commandments and I
> think that's not by coincidence. Bowing for a creation of our own
> hands is not only beneath our dignity, but it is extremely
> _dangerous_ as well. There is not a chance that we can survive such a
> heathen, uncivilized custom.

Odd that so many heathens did for millennia and hordes of them still do.

> Note that one doesn't have to be a Christian or a Jew to appreciate the truth of "Thou shalt not bow down thyself for
> a thing of thy own hands" (hope I oldified that correctly).

There is no such word as oldified in english.
http://onelook.com/?w=oldified
http://onelook.com/?w=oldify

Stray Dog[_2_]
March 18th 09, 10:44 PM
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, alexy wrote:

> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 09:47:41 -0400
> From: alexy >
> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
> misc.invest.stocks, alt.humor.puns
> Subject: Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>
> Stray Dog > wrote:
>
>>
>> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, alexy wrote:
>>
>>>> Bonuses went to 11 people who no longer work for AIG. How can bonuses
>>>> be required to be paid to ex-employees?
>>>
>>> By contract.
>>
>> Technically, not always.
> The question was how bonuses could be required to be paid to
> ex-employees. The only ways I can think of are by contract or by
> statute, and I know of no laws that would require them. What other
> ways were you thinking of?

My three word sentence, above, was and still is true.

>> Bonuses could also be handed out as a matter of
>> regular practice.
>
> But I don't think that would create a requirement to pay them to
> ex-employees, or if it did, it would be under a theory of implied
> contract.

I am aware of several instances in employment environments (very large in
fact) where the "practices in reality" had nothing to do with the "practices
according to written procedure." You will have to think about that by
yourself because I'm not going to spend any more time explaining it.
Alternatively I am aware of other quid pro quo "arrangements" by which
event A and event B took place without any contract, but one item was
money transfer and the other was favor transfer. A smart guy like you
should be able to figure that out.

>> I have seen very little detail in any of the articles
>> about how specific bonus payment practices "connect" the bonus to
>> performance.
>
> Nor have I. I was merely responding to the question of how they could
> be required.

Fine. I was explaining how, too, and not via your explanations.

>> particularly as it relates to the
>>> retention objective.
>>
>> "Retention" is a peculiar concept since, currently, layoffs are up and if
>> anyone quits these days, there should be more applicants to replace the
>> worker who quit.
>
> Retention bonuses are seldom paid to mere warm bodies; they are paid
> to retain skills or knowledge that the current incumbent has, which
> would be hard to replace. E.g., company A buys company B, which is 18
> months away from roll-out of a major new product or service. Company A
> may promise retention bonuses to the team developing this product if
> they stay with the merged company for 24 months.

I would call them bribes.

>> I always thought that if my paychecks cleared after I deposited them into
>> my bank, then I would not quit (and therefore I would be "retained").
>
> But people with skills and knowledge will often move to another
> opportunity. In the example above, the merger of A and B may create a
> less pleasant work environment, and company C may be developing a
> similar product or service, making the members of the development team
> at AB very subject to leaving without the retention bonus.
>
>
>>> But the question above shows incredible naivete.
>>
>> Without going into any nitty-gritty, I thought it was a quite reasonable
>> sentence by a person who wanted some answers.
>>
>>> Almost all employees receive payment, after they leave a job, for
>>> services performed while they are on the job.
>>
>> This is a very sloppy sentence based on careless, incomplete, and
>> misleading thinking.
>>
>> Casting aside the fact that normal pay practices involve a payment _after_
>> performance of work throughout a pay period, which must be first completed
>> before the paycheck is "cut," a fired or resigned employee really would
>> get a paycheck after leaving employment,
>
> So you agree that almost all employees receive payment after they
> leave a job.

No, I talked about "normal pay practices" and then, below, made a remark
about YOUR "almost all" conditions.

>> but then calling that some kind of
>> compensation meant for "retention" is a stretch if not obfuscation.
>
> Clearly.
>
>> I'm not sure where your "Almost all" comes from since I can think of quite
>> a few exceptions.
>
> I can't. What are some of those exceptions? Maybe the boy who cuts
> your grass, who you regularly pay before he does the final edging?

I'm really surprised you can't. Here are a few, real-life situations:

1. Employees cheated by employers out of their final pay (not uncommon).
2. Employees paid on their last day, or maybe even before their last day.
3. Employees docked of pay for cause.
4. Employees on 100% commission-based compensation and no sales for some
period before leaving.
5. Employees who got advances on pay before earning pay and basically are
in debt to their employer even though they put in time and effort.
6. Employees with garnesheed wages.
7. A variation on #1: Employees cheated out of their compensation by 3rd
party payors/administrators instead of actual employers.
8. Employees who receive a final paycheck that bounces.
9. Consultants (several cases) where, after the work was done, were never
paid or received a check for substantially less than the agreed upon
figure.

There are more.

I know of at least one example of each of the above, including one for me,
one for my wife, and the rest from persons I knew or otherwise had no
reason to doubt or from certain media sources (including several posts
over years on a.c.c where some guy did some programming work and said
"what can I do, they didn't pay me," and also on misc.legal.moderated,
which is also a valuable source of real-life ****, including failure to
pay for work, that happens).



>
> --
> Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
>

alexy
March 19th 09, 01:37 AM
Stray Dog > wrote:

>
>On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, alexy wrote:
>
>> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 09:47:41 -0400
>> From: alexy >
>> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
>> misc.invest.stocks, alt.humor.puns
>> Subject: Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>>
>> Stray Dog > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, alexy wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Bonuses went to 11 people who no longer work for AIG. How can bonuses
>>>>> be required to be paid to ex-employees?
>>>>
>>>> By contract.
>>>
>>> Technically, not always.
>> The question was how bonuses could be required to be paid to
>> ex-employees. The only ways I can think of are by contract or by
>> statute, and I know of no laws that would require them. What other
>> ways were you thinking of?
>
>My three word sentence, above, was and still is true.
>
>>> Bonuses could also be handed out as a matter of
>>> regular practice.
>>
>> But I don't think that would create a requirement to pay them to
>> ex-employees, or if it did, it would be under a theory of implied
>> contract.
>
>I am aware of several instances in employment environments (very large in
>fact) where the "practices in reality" had nothing to do with the "practices
>according to written procedure."

Yes. But the question was "How can bonuses be required to be paid to
ex-employees?" How would the existence of practices different from
written policy create such a requirement?


>> Nor have I. I was merely responding to the question of how they could
>> be required.
>
>Fine. I was explaining how, too, and not via your explanations.

No, you have described your view of reality, but you haven't explained
how that creates a requirement to pay.

>>> particularly as it relates to the
>>>> retention objective.
>>>
>>> "Retention" is a peculiar concept since, currently, layoffs are up and if
>>> anyone quits these days, there should be more applicants to replace the
>>> worker who quit.
>>
>> Retention bonuses are seldom paid to mere warm bodies; they are paid
>> to retain skills or knowledge that the current incumbent has, which
>> would be hard to replace. E.g., company A buys company B, which is 18
>> months away from roll-out of a major new product or service. Company A
>> may promise retention bonuses to the team developing this product if
>> they stay with the merged company for 24 months.
>
>I would call them bribes.
Accurate, in the sense of "2. anything given or serving to persuade
or induce", but not in the sense of "1. money or any other
valuable consideration given or promised with a view to corrupting the
behavior of a person, esp. in that person's performance as an athlete,
public official, etc."
>
>>> I always thought that if my paychecks cleared after I deposited them into
>>> my bank, then I would not quit (and therefore I would be "retained").
>>
>> But people with skills and knowledge will often move to another
>> opportunity. In the example above, the merger of A and B may create a
>> less pleasant work environment, and company C may be developing a
>> similar product or service, making the members of the development team
>> at AB very subject to leaving without the retention bonus.
>>
>>
>>>> But the question above shows incredible naivete.
>>>
>>> Without going into any nitty-gritty, I thought it was a quite reasonable
>>> sentence by a person who wanted some answers.
>>>
>>>> Almost all employees receive payment, after they leave a job, for
>>>> services performed while they are on the job.
>>>
>>> This is a very sloppy sentence based on careless, incomplete, and
>>> misleading thinking.
>>>
>>> Casting aside the fact that normal pay practices involve a payment _after_
>>> performance of work throughout a pay period, which must be first completed
>>> before the paycheck is "cut," a fired or resigned employee really would
>>> get a paycheck after leaving employment,
>>
>> So you agree that almost all employees receive payment after they
>> leave a job.
>
>No, I talked about "normal pay practices" and then, below, made a remark
>about YOUR "almost all" conditions.

Okay. How about "It is normal to make payments to employees after
their period of employment ends."
>
>>> but then calling that some kind of
>>> compensation meant for "retention" is a stretch if not obfuscation.
>>
>> Clearly.
>>
>>> I'm not sure where your "Almost all" comes from since I can think of quite
>>> a few exceptions.
>>
>> I can't. What are some of those exceptions? Maybe the boy who cuts
>> your grass, who you regularly pay before he does the final edging?
>
>I'm really surprised you can't. Here are a few, real-life situations:
>
>1. Employees cheated by employers out of their final pay (not uncommon).
>2. Employees paid on their last day, or maybe even before their last day.
>3. Employees docked of pay for cause.
>4. Employees on 100% commission-based compensation and no sales for some
> period before leaving.
>5. Employees who got advances on pay before earning pay and basically are
> in debt to their employer even though they put in time and effort.
>6. Employees with garnesheed wages.
>7. A variation on #1: Employees cheated out of their compensation by 3rd
> party payors/administrators instead of actual employers.
>8. Employees who receive a final paycheck that bounces.
>9. Consultants (several cases) where, after the work was done, were never
> paid or received a check for substantially less than the agreed upon
> figure.

And I would claim that almost all employees are not affected by any of
those. Of course "almost all" is a loose term.


--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

alexy
March 19th 09, 03:34 PM
Stray Dog > wrote:

>
>On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, alexy wrote:
>
>>>> ex-employees. The only ways I can think of are by contract or by
>>>> statute, and I know of no laws that would require them. What other
>>>> ways were you thinking of?
>>>
>>> My three word sentence, above, was and still is true.
>>>
>>>>> Bonuses could also be handed out as a matter of
>>>>> regular practice.
>>>>
>>>> But I don't think that would create a requirement to pay them to
>>>> ex-employees, or if it did, it would be under a theory of implied
>>>> contract.
>>>
>>> I am aware of several instances in employment environments (very large in
>>> fact) where the "practices in reality" had nothing to do with the "practices
>>> according to written procedure."
>>
>> Yes. But the question was "How can bonuses be required to be paid to
>> ex-employees?" How would the existence of practices different from
>> written policy create such a requirement?
>
>"Practices in reality" that are _traditions_.

So you are (here) saying that "practices in reality" create a
_requirement_ that the bonuses be paid?

>
>>>> Nor have I. I was merely responding to the question of how they could
>>>> be required.
>>>
>>> Fine. I was explaining how, too, and not via your explanations.
>>
>> No, you have described your view of reality, but you haven't explained
>> how that creates a requirement to pay.

And you still haven't.
>
>And, you think YOUR idea is that if you have trouble, with YOUR view of
>reality, understanding other realities with predictable and reliable
>outcomes, then, for you, those realities can't be there because you have
>trouble understanding them.

I absolutely understand and agree that those realities exist. But I
fail to see how they create a REQIREMENT that the bonuses be paid. And
so far, you have done nothing to explain how that requirement arises;
you have just asserted it.

>
>For hundreds of years, and by tradition, large fractions of universities
>appointed faculty on "tenure tracks" that required, by tradition, an
>evaluation that ended in tenure being granted or denied (Only in the last
>few decades have administrators discovered that this tradition can be
>circumvented by adminstrative action so that a scholar spending his life
>on a specialization can now be flushed, at any moment, down the toilet by
>a department chair).

Okay, so here you are giving an example of where a tradition was
proven NOT to crete a requirement. What is different about the bonus
tradition that you asserts creates a requirement and this tenure
tradition that you have said administrators have discovered not to be
a requirement?



>>>>>
>>>>> Casting aside the fact that normal pay practices involve a payment _after_
>>>>> performance of work throughout a pay period, which must be first completed
>>>>> before the paycheck is "cut," a fired or resigned employee really would
>>>>> get a paycheck after leaving employment,
>>>>
>>>> So you agree that almost all employees receive payment after they
>>>> leave a job.
>>>
>>> No, I talked about "normal pay practices" and then, below, made a remark
>>> about YOUR "almost all" conditions.
>>
>> Okay. How about "It is normal to make payments to employees after
>> their period of employment ends."
>
>Normal? As if that is what usually happens?

I don't know. You are the one who introduced the term "normal pay
practices". What did you mean?

>Why not limit the description to "For those where the process is
>applicable, the final paycheck is cut and issued at some point after
>termination"
Because that understates the prevalence.

>You have this quaint idea that since "educated" people, working in
>offices, or "modern" places of employment with "modern" HR departments and
>administrative heirarchies and tables of organization and large complex
>operations, that there is some invisible corporate police force that puts
>a gun to the head of some manager and says "you are _required_ to make
>sure that final paycheck goes out."

It's called the DOL.


--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

alexy
March 19th 09, 04:14 PM
Sir F. A. Rien > wrote:

>alexy > found these unused words:
>
>>Stray Dog > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, alexy wrote:
>>>
>>>> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 09:47:41 -0400
>>>> From: alexy >
>>>> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
>>>> misc.invest.stocks, alt.humor.puns
>>>> Subject: Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>>>>
>>>> Stray Dog > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, alexy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bonuses went to 11 people who no longer work for AIG. How can bonuses
>>>>>>> be required to be paid to ex-employees?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By contract.
>>>>>
>>>>> Technically, not always.
>>>> The question was how bonuses could be required to be paid to
>>>> ex-employees. The only ways I can think of are by contract or by
>>>> statute, and I know of no laws that would require them. What other
>>>> ways were you thinking of?
>>>
>>>My three word sentence, above, was and still is true.
>>>
>>>>> Bonuses could also be handed out as a matter of
>>>>> regular practice.
>>>>
>>>> But I don't think that would create a requirement to pay them to
>>>> ex-employees, or if it did, it would be under a theory of implied
>>>> contract.
>>>
>>>I am aware of several instances in employment environments (very large in
>>>fact) where the "practices in reality" had nothing to do with the "practices
>>>according to written procedure."
>>
>>Yes. But the question was "How can bonuses be required to be paid to
>>ex-employees?" How would the existence of practices different from
>>written policy create such a requirement?
>
>Called a private payoff or 'side letter'.
That's a contract. Back to my original explanation about how these
could be required. Straydog seems to think there is another way.

> Guess you haven't studied much
>about politics. The GOBs take care of their friends.

--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

Stray Dog[_2_]
March 19th 09, 04:22 PM
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, alexy wrote:

> Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 11:34:59 -0400
> From: alexy >
> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
> misc.invest.stocks, alt.humor.puns
> Subject: Re: #Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>
> Stray Dog > wrote:
>
>>>> fact) where the "practices in reality" had nothing to do with the "practices
>>>> according to written procedure."
>>>
>>> Yes. But the question was "How can bonuses be required to be paid to
>>> ex-employees?" How would the existence of practices different from
>>> written policy create such a requirement?
>>
>> "Practices in reality" that are _traditions_.
>
> So you are (here) saying that "practices in reality" create a
> _requirement_ that the bonuses be paid?

See below...

>>
>>>>> Nor have I. I was merely responding to the question of how they could
>>>>> be required.
>>>>
>>>> Fine. I was explaining how, too, and not via your explanations.
>>>
>>> No, you have described your view of reality, but you haven't explained
>>> how that creates a requirement to pay.
>
> And you still haven't.
>>
>> And, you think YOUR idea is that if you have trouble, with YOUR view of
>> reality, understanding other realities with predictable and reliable
>> outcomes, then, for you, those realities can't be there because you have
>> trouble understanding them.
>
> I absolutely understand and agree that those realities exist. But I
> fail to see how they create a REQIREMENT that the bonuses be paid.

You are creating a strawman here despite your "understanding" and
"agreement" in the prior sentence that "those realities exist."

What you wrote above and also below (I read it all) is typical of what I
have found from you in discussions here over the last ten years: a
wandering all over the map into unnecessary tangents, self-contradictions
(between above and below), picayune anthill nitpicking, and inability to
resolve situations into conclusions other than when they come from you.

Good bye.
/////////////////////////////////////////////
And
> so far, you have done nothing to explain how that requirement arises;
> you have just asserted it.
>
>>
>> For hundreds of years, and by tradition, large fractions of universities
>> appointed faculty on "tenure tracks" that required, by tradition, an
>> evaluation that ended in tenure being granted or denied (Only in the last
>> few decades have administrators discovered that this tradition can be
>> circumvented by adminstrative action so that a scholar spending his life
>> on a specialization can now be flushed, at any moment, down the toilet by
>> a department chair).
>
> Okay, so here you are giving an example of where a tradition was
> proven NOT to crete a requirement. What is different about the bonus
> tradition that you asserts creates a requirement and this tenure
> tradition that you have said administrators have discovered not to be
> a requirement?
>
>
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Casting aside the fact that normal pay practices involve a payment _after_
>>>>>> performance of work throughout a pay period, which must be first completed
>>>>>> before the paycheck is "cut," a fired or resigned employee really would
>>>>>> get a paycheck after leaving employment,
>>>>>
>>>>> So you agree that almost all employees receive payment after they
>>>>> leave a job.
>>>>
>>>> No, I talked about "normal pay practices" and then, below, made a remark
>>>> about YOUR "almost all" conditions.
>>>
>>> Okay. How about "It is normal to make payments to employees after
>>> their period of employment ends."
>>
>> Normal? As if that is what usually happens?
>
> I don't know. You are the one who introduced the term "normal pay
> practices". What did you mean?
>
>> Why not limit the description to "For those where the process is
>> applicable, the final paycheck is cut and issued at some point after
>> termination"
> Because that understates the prevalence.
>
>> You have this quaint idea that since "educated" people, working in
>> offices, or "modern" places of employment with "modern" HR departments and
>> administrative heirarchies and tables of organization and large complex
>> operations, that there is some invisible corporate police force that puts
>> a gun to the head of some manager and says "you are _required_ to make
>> sure that final paycheck goes out."
>
> It's called the DOL.
>
>
> --
> Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
>

alexy
March 19th 09, 09:17 PM
Stray Dog > wrote:

>
>On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, alexy wrote:
>
>> Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 11:34:59 -0400
>> From: alexy >
>> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
>> misc.invest.stocks, alt.humor.puns
>> Subject: Re: #Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>>
>> Stray Dog > wrote:
>>
>>>>> fact) where the "practices in reality" had nothing to do with the "practices
>>>>> according to written procedure."
>>>>
>>>> Yes. But the question was "How can bonuses be required to be paid to
>>>> ex-employees?" How would the existence of practices different from
>>>> written policy create such a requirement?
>>>
>>> "Practices in reality" that are _traditions_.
>>
>> So you are (here) saying that "practices in reality" create a
>> _requirement_ that the bonuses be paid?
>
>See below...

Why? Are you unwilling to say. Are you or are you not presenting this
as an example of a case other than contract, where a bonus would have
to be paid out after an employee left? Try to concentrate on the
discussion at hand.
>
>>>
>>>>>> Nor have I. I was merely responding to the question of how they could
>>>>>> be required.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fine. I was explaining how, too, and not via your explanations.
>>>>
>>>> No, you have described your view of reality, but you haven't explained
>>>> how that creates a requirement to pay.
>>
>> And you still haven't.
>>>
>>> And, you think YOUR idea is that if you have trouble, with YOUR view of
>>> reality, understanding other realities with predictable and reliable
>>> outcomes, then, for you, those realities can't be there because you have
>>> trouble understanding them.
>>
>> I absolutely understand and agree that those realities exist. But I
>> fail to see how they create a REQIREMENT that the bonuses be paid.
>
>You are creating a strawman here despite your "understanding" and
>"agreement" in the prior sentence that "those realities exist."

No, you are the one who created this strawman, and I merely brought it
back to the issue at hand and asked how that would create a
REQUIREMENT that the bonuses be paid out. But of course, you dodge
once again.

>What you wrote above and also below (I read it all) is typical of what I
>have found from you in discussions here over the last ten years: a
>wandering all over the map into unnecessary tangents, self-contradictions
>(between above and below), picayune anthill nitpicking, and inability to
>resolve situations into conclusions other than when they come from you.

Yes, I see what you mean.

A poster replied that he didn't see how a bonus payment could be
required after termination of employment.

I wandered all over the place with a direct response of "contract".

You responded with what you refer to as a three word sentence,
"Technically, not always.", and went on to talk about bonuses paid by
tradition, with no reference to how this might related to bonuses
being required to be paid after termination.

I wandered all over the place to ask you how that created a
requirement to pay bonuses.

You once again refused to reply, but picked on the wording of some of
my sentences and pointed out that faculty tenure was a tradition that
was found NOT to create a requirement.

I wandered all over the place to ask you how that related to your
claim about bonus traditions creating a requirement that they be paid.

I see why my constant changing of the topic must be frustrating to a
well-trained, well-focused mind like yours.

>
>Good bye.

TTFN
>/////////////////////////////////////////////
> And
>> so far, you have done nothing to explain how that requirement arises;
>> you have just asserted it.
>>
>>>
>>> For hundreds of years, and by tradition, large fractions of universities
>>> appointed faculty on "tenure tracks" that required, by tradition, an
>>> evaluation that ended in tenure being granted or denied (Only in the last
>>> few decades have administrators discovered that this tradition can be
>>> circumvented by adminstrative action so that a scholar spending his life
>>> on a specialization can now be flushed, at any moment, down the toilet by
>>> a department chair).
>>
>> Okay, so here you are giving an example of where a tradition was
>> proven NOT to crete a requirement. What is different about the bonus
>> tradition that you asserts creates a requirement and this tenure
>> tradition that you have said administrators have discovered not to be
>> a requirement?
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Casting aside the fact that normal pay practices involve a payment _after_
>>>>>>> performance of work throughout a pay period, which must be first completed
>>>>>>> before the paycheck is "cut," a fired or resigned employee really would
>>>>>>> get a paycheck after leaving employment,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you agree that almost all employees receive payment after they
>>>>>> leave a job.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I talked about "normal pay practices" and then, below, made a remark
>>>>> about YOUR "almost all" conditions.
>>>>
>>>> Okay. How about "It is normal to make payments to employees after
>>>> their period of employment ends."
>>>
>>> Normal? As if that is what usually happens?
>>
>> I don't know. You are the one who introduced the term "normal pay
>> practices". What did you mean?
>>
>>> Why not limit the description to "For those where the process is
>>> applicable, the final paycheck is cut and issued at some point after
>>> termination"
>> Because that understates the prevalence.
>>
>>> You have this quaint idea that since "educated" people, working in
>>> offices, or "modern" places of employment with "modern" HR departments and
>>> administrative heirarchies and tables of organization and large complex
>>> operations, that there is some invisible corporate police force that puts
>>> a gun to the head of some manager and says "you are _required_ to make
>>> sure that final paycheck goes out."
>>
>> It's called the DOL.

--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

Econotron
March 19th 09, 11:19 PM
"alexy" > wrote in message
...
> "Econotron" > wrote:
>
>>"alexy" > wrote in message
...
>>> "Econotron" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>"alexy" > wrote in message
...
>>>>> "Econotron" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Old Pif" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>>If it is a contractual obligation, then it is not a bonus. The whole
>>>>>>idea
>>>>>>of
>>>>>>a bonus is that it is optional, even if promised. You do not get it,
>>>>>>for
>>>>>>example, if you get fired.
>>>>>
>>>>> You seem to think that the term "discretionary bonus" contains a
>>>>> redundancy. That is flat wrong. If a company contracts with an
>>>>> employee to pay a monthly amount of $5,000 plus an amount at the end
>>>>> of the year equal to 10% of the increase over last year's gross
>>>>> operating margin of the unit over which the employee has control, the
>>>>> $5,000 per month is called base pay, and the year-end amount is called
>>>>> bonus. It is not discretionary (in this case) and is contractual.
>>>>>
>>>>Sure, but I would not call it a bonus. It is rather variable pay as
>>>>opposed
>>>>to a fixed portion.
>>>>e.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe YOU wouldn't call it a bonus, but in the business world, that is
>>> what it is called. In compensation lingo, a discretionary bonus is one
>>> type of variable pay, but not the only variable pay.
>>>
>>Discretionary pay is how the term "bonus" is understood by the general
>>public
>
> Maybe. I'm not qualified, nor do I have the data, to speak for the
> general public. But I can say how the term is generally used in
> business.
>
>>, which is the reason for current outcry.
>
> A reasonable speculation.
>
>> The percentage of
>>operational income example is in fact a commission.
>
> "Commission" is used in business almost exclusively to describe a
> system of sales compensation based on revenue. While commission plans
> can include factors to motivate profitable sales, usually they are not
> that sophisticated. And I have never heard incentive compensation for
> other than sales people referred to as a commission.
>
I meant revenue. Basing it on income is self-contradictory :-)
>
>> I personally never
>>encounter bonuses that were other than discretionary,
>
> My impression is that discretionary bonuses are the most common. But
> they most certainly are not the only types of bonuses.
>
>> and those at AIG are most likely discretionary too.
>
> I have no knowledge to be able to confirm or refute that. What is the
> source of your knowledge of this?
>
Statistics.
>
>> If some businesses want to call commission a
>>bonus, they can do it at their own risk,
>
> I don't know what the risk would be in calling a commission a bonus,
> unless it makes it harder to attract sales talent, since they are used
> to commission plans.
>
Risk under the current circumstances.
e.

Stray Dog[_2_]
March 19th 09, 11:50 PM
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, alexy wrote:

> Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:17:14 -0400
> From: alexy >
> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
> misc.invest.stocks, alt.humor.puns
> Subject: Re: #Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>
> Stray Dog > wrote:
>
>>
>> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, alexy wrote:
>>

>>>>> Yes. But the question was "How can bonuses be required to be paid to
>>>>> ex-employees?" How would the existence of practices different from
>>>>> written policy create such a requirement?
>>>>
>>>> "Practices in reality" that are _traditions_.
>>>
>>> So you are (here) saying that "practices in reality" create a
>>> _requirement_ that the bonuses be paid?
>>
>> See below...
>
> Why? Are you unwilling to say. Are you or are you not presenting this
> as an example of a case other than contract, where a bonus would have
> to be paid out after an employee left? Try to concentrate on the
> discussion at hand.

Your brain is totally unwilling to understand that some things in life get
done according to a process best or better described by the word
_tradition_ and least or more poorly described by the word _requirement_.

It really is YOUR hangup, not mine, that you can't get past this problem.

I'll try one more old saying: "There is more than one way to skin a cat."

You really have very serious problems with _ruts_ in the road. And, as far
as your reference to "wandering all over" (at the end of this post) to
find something, it was always right in front of your nose and you just
couldn't see it.

You're welcome (for nothing).
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>>>>
>>>>>>> Nor have I. I was merely responding to the question of how they could
>>>>>>> be required.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fine. I was explaining how, too, and not via your explanations.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you have described your view of reality, but you haven't explained
>>>>> how that creates a requirement to pay.
>>>
>>> And you still haven't.
>>>>
>>>> And, you think YOUR idea is that if you have trouble, with YOUR view of
>>>> reality, understanding other realities with predictable and reliable
>>>> outcomes, then, for you, those realities can't be there because you have
>>>> trouble understanding them.
>>>
>>> I absolutely understand and agree that those realities exist. But I
>>> fail to see how they create a REQIREMENT that the bonuses be paid.
>>
>> You are creating a strawman here despite your "understanding" and
>> "agreement" in the prior sentence that "those realities exist."
>
> No, you are the one who created this strawman, and I merely brought it
> back to the issue at hand and asked how that would create a
> REQUIREMENT that the bonuses be paid out. But of course, you dodge
> once again.
>
>> What you wrote above and also below (I read it all) is typical of what I
>> have found from you in discussions here over the last ten years: a
>> wandering all over the map into unnecessary tangents, self-contradictions
>> (between above and below), picayune anthill nitpicking, and inability to
>> resolve situations into conclusions other than when they come from you.
>
> Yes, I see what you mean.
>
> A poster replied that he didn't see how a bonus payment could be
> required after termination of employment.
>
> I wandered all over the place with a direct response of "contract".
>
> You responded with what you refer to as a three word sentence,
> "Technically, not always.", and went on to talk about bonuses paid by
> tradition, with no reference to how this might related to bonuses
> being required to be paid after termination.
>
> I wandered all over the place to ask you how that created a
> requirement to pay bonuses.
>
> You once again refused to reply, but picked on the wording of some of
> my sentences and pointed out that faculty tenure was a tradition that
> was found NOT to create a requirement.
>
> I wandered all over the place to ask you how that related to your
> claim about bonus traditions creating a requirement that they be paid.
>
> I see why my constant changing of the topic must be frustrating to a
> well-trained, well-focused mind like yours.
>
>>
>> Good bye.
>
> TTFN
>> /////////////////////////////////////////////
>> And
>>> so far, you have done nothing to explain how that requirement arises;
>>> you have just asserted it.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> For hundreds of years, and by tradition, large fractions of universities
>>>> appointed faculty on "tenure tracks" that required, by tradition, an
>>>> evaluation that ended in tenure being granted or denied (Only in the last
>>>> few decades have administrators discovered that this tradition can be
>>>> circumvented by adminstrative action so that a scholar spending his life
>>>> on a specialization can now be flushed, at any moment, down the toilet by
>>>> a department chair).
>>>
>>> Okay, so here you are giving an example of where a tradition was
>>> proven NOT to crete a requirement. What is different about the bonus
>>> tradition that you asserts creates a requirement and this tenure
>>> tradition that you have said administrators have discovered not to be
>>> a requirement?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Casting aside the fact that normal pay practices involve a payment _after_
>>>>>>>> performance of work throughout a pay period, which must be first completed
>>>>>>>> before the paycheck is "cut," a fired or resigned employee really would
>>>>>>>> get a paycheck after leaving employment,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you agree that almost all employees receive payment after they
>>>>>>> leave a job.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, I talked about "normal pay practices" and then, below, made a remark
>>>>>> about YOUR "almost all" conditions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Okay. How about "It is normal to make payments to employees after
>>>>> their period of employment ends."
>>>>
>>>> Normal? As if that is what usually happens?
>>>
>>> I don't know. You are the one who introduced the term "normal pay
>>> practices". What did you mean?
>>>
>>>> Why not limit the description to "For those where the process is
>>>> applicable, the final paycheck is cut and issued at some point after
>>>> termination"
>>> Because that understates the prevalence.
>>>
>>>> You have this quaint idea that since "educated" people, working in
>>>> offices, or "modern" places of employment with "modern" HR departments and
>>>> administrative heirarchies and tables of organization and large complex
>>>> operations, that there is some invisible corporate police force that puts
>>>> a gun to the head of some manager and says "you are _required_ to make
>>>> sure that final paycheck goes out."
>>>
>>> It's called the DOL.
>
> --
> Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
>

alexy
March 20th 09, 04:16 AM
Stray Dog > wrote:

>
>On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, alexy wrote:

>
>>>>>> Yes. But the question was "How can bonuses be required to be paid to
>>>>>> ex-employees?" How would the existence of practices different from
>>>>>> written policy create such a requirement?
>>>>>
>>>>> "Practices in reality" that are _traditions_.
>>>>
>>>> So you are (here) saying that "practices in reality" create a
>>>> _requirement_ that the bonuses be paid?
>>>
>>> See below...
>>
>> Why? Are you unwilling to say. Are you or are you not presenting this
>> as an example of a case other than contract, where a bonus would have
>> to be paid out after an employee left? Try to concentrate on the
>> discussion at hand.
>
>Your brain is totally unwilling to understand that some things in life get
>done according to a process best or better described by the word
>_tradition_ and least or more poorly described by the word _requirement_.

Are you really that thick? Certainly informal plans, and just
traditional practices are out there. But the question I was responding
to was about required payments. How can you possibly think that
responding to that question denies the existence of programs that are
not required.

But I am STILL waiting for your explanation of what your so-called
sentence "Technically, not always." means. Reminder: The question was
how post-employment bonus payments could be required, and I said "by
contract"

Maybe if you could make that three-word phrase into a sentence that
bears on the question at hand and my response, you could clear this
all up.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

Stray Dog[_2_]
March 20th 09, 01:05 PM
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, alexy wrote:

> Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 00:16:10 -0400
> From: alexy >
> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
> misc.invest.stocks, alt.humor.puns
> Subject: Re: #Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>
> Stray Dog > wrote:
>
>>
>> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, alexy wrote:
>
>>
>>>>>>> Yes. But the question was "How can bonuses be required to be paid to
>>>>>>> ex-employees?" How would the existence of practices different from
>>>>>>> written policy create such a requirement?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Practices in reality" that are _traditions_.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you are (here) saying that "practices in reality" create a
>>>>> _requirement_ that the bonuses be paid?
>>>>
>>>> See below...
>>>
>>> Why? Are you unwilling to say. Are you or are you not presenting this
>>> as an example of a case other than contract, where a bonus would have
>>> to be paid out after an employee left? Try to concentrate on the
>>> discussion at hand.
>>
>> Your brain is totally unwilling to understand that some things in life get
>> done according to a process best or better described by the word
>> _tradition_ and least or more poorly described by the word _requirement_.
>
> Are you really that thick? Certainly informal plans, and just
> traditional practices are out there. But the question I was responding
> to was about required payments. How can you possibly think that
> responding to that question denies the existence of programs that are
> not required.
>
> But I am STILL waiting for your explanation of what your so-called
> sentence "Technically, not always." means. Reminder: The question was
> how post-employment bonus payments could be required, and I said "by
> contract"
>
> Maybe if you could make that three-word phrase into a sentence that
> bears on the question at hand and my response, you could clear this
> all up.

I can tell that you and I are not communicating. It is the same as every
time we ever discussed anything over the last ten years.

_Tradition_ (I could even call it a _habit_) can _require_ that
"something" needs to be done, and there is no "contract" anywhere. And, it
goes right over your head.

It is very easy for me to see you sitting in front of a radio which has
two knobs: i) a tuning knob, and ii) an off-on, volume knob, and you are
getting all excited because: "I'm adjusting the tuning knob all over,
slowly and quickly, and leaving it alone, and I can't hear anything" and
I'm here, watching you go through this agony, for ten years now, and you
can't see, can't feel, can't figure out that you need to turn the
off-on,volume knob and turn it up so you can _hear_ something come out of
the speaker before you adjust the tuning knob.

Its so funny I can understand Video61, too, and you can't.

alexy
March 20th 09, 01:10 PM
Stray Dog > wrote:


>Its so funny I can understand Video61, too, and you can't.

Yes, that is funny. And easy to see why.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

Stray Dog[_2_]
March 20th 09, 01:37 PM
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, alexy wrote:

> Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 09:10:11 -0400
> From: alexy >
> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
> misc.invest.stocks, alt.humor.puns
> Subject: Re: #Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>
> Stray Dog > wrote:
>
>
>> Its so funny I can understand Video61, too, and you can't.
>
> Yes, that is funny. And easy to see why.

Yeah, I know, you think we are both wrong and you are right.

But, on a vote, its two against one; therefore you lose.

> --
> Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
>

Andy F.
March 20th 09, 01:39 PM
"Stray Dog" > wrote in message
r.org...
>
> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, Andy F. wrote:
>
>> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 09:41:14 -0000
>> From: Andy F. >
>> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
>> misc.invest.stocks
>> Subject: Re: #Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>>
>> "Stray Dog" > wrote in message
>> .org...
>>>
>>> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Les Cargill wrote:
>>>
>>>> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 22:25:42 -0500
>>>> From: Les Cargill >
>>>> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
>>>> misc.invest.stocks
>>>> Subject: Re: #Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>>>>
>>>> Stray Dog wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Tim Bruening wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>>> Why didn't the U.S. government use its shares to veto the bonuses?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I believe the stock received by the government organ
>>>> in the bailout is preferred, nonvoting stock.
>>>>
>>>>> I don't know the whole story on the kind of "stake" they have, or what
>>>>> kind of shares. Shareholders really don't have as much control as most
>>>>> people seem to think.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Democracy! :)
>>>
>>> No, dictatorship. :-|
>>>
>>>>> Maybe someone else here knows more.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/the-aig-bailout-takes-shape/
>>>>
>>>> "Under the agreement, A.I.G. will issue a new series of Convertible
>>>> Participating Serial Preferred Stock to a trust that will hold the
>>>> Preferred Stock for the benefit of the United States Treasury."
>>>
>>> That sounds like they are _printing_ stock shares just like the
>>> Fed/Treasury is _printing_ dollars.
>>>
>>> How come THEY get to do things like that and YOU and I can't do things
>>> like that?
>>>
>>> Its unfair.
>>
>> But you can do things like that if you want.
>>
>> http://forms.findlaw.com/do-it-yourself-incorporation.html
>>
>> Just fill in a few forms and you can print as many shares as you like.
>
> I actually incorporated a small business in 1995, then disolved it last
> year. I really did not want to expand my business in that way so I never
> printed any shares. However, I did do scientific consulting for two
> companies that did "print" ten mill shares each, and, the two of them, and
> I, all consulted with each other, three ways, then, two years later, they
> got into a major squabble and sued each other, and the last I heard one
> of them got a court determined award of something like $ 11 million, and I
> never found out how the counter-suit came out, but something tells me that
> the lawyers now own both companies

Right. So you COULD have printed some shares if you wanted to.

So when you said "YOU and I can't do things like that .......Its unfair",
you must have mis-spoke.

>
> Now, the more roundabout way to "print" money is to organize yourself into
> internet scams, grab cc card info through phishing, keystroke loggers,
> etc., so that you don't really "print" money, but you get, effectively,
> insurance companies to create it for you because you pilfer from victims,
> the victims get reimbursed with benefits from their insurance policies,
> and the insurance companies pay for that from premiums paid in and govt
> bailouts when the insurance companies **** up (like AIG), and then the
> govt prints money to fix the ****up, and then, we taxpayers get to pay the
> bill, after all, in the end.
>
> Now, we've come full circle, right?

No, you just changed the subject.

>
> P.S. I forgot to mention the antique and rare art market which is "almost"
> like printing money. The scam works like this: item: rare Matisse, rare
> Rembrant, etc, etc. one-of-a-kind artwork. Sothebys or Christies holds
> hobby meetings for rich people to come to that can bid and pay $10-100 mil
> for rare art. They love it to make art prices go up every year, faster
> than inflation, because anything they buy one year goes up by a factor of
> ten after ten years. So, when they donate to a museum, they get ten bucks
> of deductions for every buck it costs them. "print" money? The "art deal"
> cycle lets them print negative numbers on those tax returns that cause
> the IRS to pay back the rich taxpayer who can finagle his numbers just
> right. If you don't believe me, just watch "Antiques Roadshow" on TV and
> notice how the appraisers talk about how antique prices go up much faster
> than inflation. Tiffany lamps (circa 1910s-20s) are going for $100,000 -
> $400,000 per each these days.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

David Bernier
March 20th 09, 06:18 PM
Stray Dog wrote:
>
> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, alexy wrote:
>
>> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 09:47:41 -0400
>> From: alexy >
>> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
>> misc.invest.stocks, alt.humor.puns
>> Subject: Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>>
>> Stray Dog > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, alexy wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Bonuses went to 11 people who no longer work for AIG. How can bonuses
>>>>> be required to be paid to ex-employees?
>>>>
>>>> By contract.
>>>
>>> Technically, not always.
>> The question was how bonuses could be required to be paid to
>> ex-employees. The only ways I can think of are by contract or by
>> statute, and I know of no laws that would require them. What other
>> ways were you thinking of?
>
> My three word sentence, above, was and still is true.
>
>>> Bonuses could also be handed out as a matter of
>>> regular practice.
>>
>> But I don't think that would create a requirement to pay them to
>> ex-employees, or if it did, it would be under a theory of implied
>> contract.
>
> I am aware of several instances in employment environments (very large
> in fact) where the "practices in reality" had nothing to do with the
> "practices
> according to written procedure." You will have to think about that by
> yourself because I'm not going to spend any more time explaining it.
> Alternatively I am aware of other quid pro quo "arrangements" by which
> event A and event B took place without any contract, but one item was
> money transfer and the other was favor transfer. A smart guy like you
> should be able to figure that out.
>
>>> I have seen very little detail in any of the articles
>>> about how specific bonus payment practices "connect" the bonus to
>>> performance.
>>
>> Nor have I. I was merely responding to the question of how they could
>> be required.
>
> Fine. I was explaining how, too, and not via your explanations.
>
>>> particularly as it relates to the
>>>> retention objective.
>>>
>>> "Retention" is a peculiar concept since, currently, layoffs are up
>>> and if
>>> anyone quits these days, there should be more applicants to replace the
>>> worker who quit.
>>
>> Retention bonuses are seldom paid to mere warm bodies; they are paid
>> to retain skills or knowledge that the current incumbent has, which
>> would be hard to replace. E.g., company A buys company B, which is 18
>> months away from roll-out of a major new product or service. Company A
>> may promise retention bonuses to the team developing this product if
>> they stay with the merged company for 24 months.
>
> I would call them bribes.
>
>>> I always thought that if my paychecks cleared after I deposited them
>>> into
>>> my bank, then I would not quit (and therefore I would be "retained").
>>
>> But people with skills and knowledge will often move to another
>> opportunity. In the example above, the merger of A and B may create a
>> less pleasant work environment, and company C may be developing a
>> similar product or service, making the members of the development team
>> at AB very subject to leaving without the retention bonus.
>>
>>
>>>> But the question above shows incredible naivete.
>>>
>>> Without going into any nitty-gritty, I thought it was a quite reasonable
>>> sentence by a person who wanted some answers.
>>>
>>>> Almost all employees receive payment, after they leave a job, for
>>>> services performed while they are on the job.
>>>
>>> This is a very sloppy sentence based on careless, incomplete, and
>>> misleading thinking.
>>>
>>> Casting aside the fact that normal pay practices involve a payment
>>> _after_
>>> performance of work throughout a pay period, which must be first
>>> completed
>>> before the paycheck is "cut," a fired or resigned employee really would
>>> get a paycheck after leaving employment,
>>
>> So you agree that almost all employees receive payment after they
>> leave a job.
>
> No, I talked about "normal pay practices" and then, below, made a remark
> about YOUR "almost all" conditions.
>
>>> but then calling that some kind of
>>> compensation meant for "retention" is a stretch if not obfuscation.
>>
>> Clearly.
>>
>>> I'm not sure where your "Almost all" comes from since I can think of
>>> quite
>>> a few exceptions.
>>
>> I can't. What are some of those exceptions? Maybe the boy who cuts
>> your grass, who you regularly pay before he does the final edging?
>
> I'm really surprised you can't. Here are a few, real-life situations:
>
> 1. Employees cheated by employers out of their final pay (not uncommon).
> 2. Employees paid on their last day, or maybe even before their last day.
> 3. Employees docked of pay for cause. 4. Employees on 100%
> commission-based compensation and no sales for some
> period before leaving.
> 5. Employees who got advances on pay before earning pay and basically are
> in debt to their employer even though they put in time and effort.
> 6. Employees with garnesheed wages.
> 7. A variation on #1: Employees cheated out of their compensation by 3rd
> party payors/administrators instead of actual employers.
> 8. Employees who receive a final paycheck that bounces. 9. Consultants
> (several cases) where, after the work was done, were never
> paid or received a check for substantially less than the agreed upon
> figure.
>
> There are more.
>
> I know of at least one example of each of the above, including one for
> me, one for my wife, and the rest from persons I knew or otherwise had
> no reason to doubt or from certain media sources (including several
> posts over years on a.c.c where some guy did some programming work and
> said "what can I do, they didn't pay me," and also on
> misc.legal.moderated, which is also a valuable source of real-life ****,
> including failure to pay for work, that happens).
[...]

Yes, I can believe things don't always go according to the
contract.

There's a cost to litigation. If one party has much deeper pockets,
the other party may decide not to proceed.

But with the McDonald's hot coffee incident, the attorneys could get
a cut of the award of damages, so then they'll take a case
where damages can be large (or maybe also malpractice).

This doesn't resemble disputes over contract payments of a few
thousand dollars or less.

David Bernier

Stray Dog[_2_]
March 20th 09, 06:18 PM
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Andy F. wrote:

> Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:39:30 -0000
> From: Andy F. >
> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
> misc.invest.stocks
> Subject: Re: #Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>
>
>>>> That sounds like they are _printing_ stock shares just like the
>>>> Fed/Treasury is _printing_ dollars.
>>>>
>>>> How come THEY get to do things like that and YOU and I can't do things
>>>> like that?
>>>>
>>>> Its unfair.
>>>
>>> But you can do things like that if you want.
>>>
>>> http://forms.findlaw.com/do-it-yourself-incorporation.html
>>>
>>> Just fill in a few forms and you can print as many shares as you like.
>>
>> I actually incorporated a small business in 1995, then disolved it last
>> year. I really did not want to expand my business in that way so I never
>> printed any shares. However, I did do scientific consulting for two
>> companies that did "print" ten mill shares each, and, the two of them, and
>> I, all consulted with each other, three ways, then, two years later, they
>> got into a major squabble and sued each other, and the last I heard one
>> of them got a court determined award of something like $ 11 million, and I
>> never found out how the counter-suit came out, but something tells me that
>> the lawyers now own both companies
>
> Right. So you COULD have printed some shares if you wanted to.

It is only practical if you plan to expand greatly.

> So when you said "YOU and I can't do things like that .......Its unfair",
> you must have mis-spoke.

Years ago I read the book "IPO" which was all about how MIPS went public
back more than a decade ago. There is more to it than just running paper
through your color inkject printer unless you have "friends" who you can
do a private placement with. I also watched a $20 million-level company go
through a setup to do an IPO and they spent $11 million in fees and at the
last minute they got cold feet. I also was a consultant for a $1
million-level company that sold some stock, privately, and illegally, and
in their next prospectus they had to disclose that they sold some stock
illegally and say so. The company later, about two years, went belly up.

Its not for the faint-of-heart, or the poor, small business.

>>
>> Now, the more roundabout way to "print" money is to organize yourself into
>> internet scams, grab cc card info through phishing, keystroke loggers,
>> etc., so that you don't really "print" money, but you get, effectively,
>> insurance companies to create it for you because you pilfer from victims,
>> the victims get reimbursed with benefits from their insurance policies,
>> and the insurance companies pay for that from premiums paid in and govt
>> bailouts when the insurance companies **** up (like AIG), and then the
>> govt prints money to fix the ****up, and then, we taxpayers get to pay the
>> bill, after all, in the end.
>>
>> Now, we've come full circle, right?
>
> No, you just changed the subject.

No, its all still about the subject of raising money for a business (or
oneself), just like actually happens out there.

>>
>> P.S. I forgot to mention the antique and rare art market which is "almost"
>> like printing money. The scam works like this: item: rare Matisse, rare
>> Rembrant, etc, etc. one-of-a-kind artwork. Sothebys or Christies holds
>> hobby meetings for rich people to come to that can bid and pay $10-100 mil
>> for rare art. They love it to make art prices go up every year, faster
>> than inflation, because anything they buy one year goes up by a factor of
>> ten after ten years. So, when they donate to a museum, they get ten bucks
>> of deductions for every buck it costs them. "print" money? The "art deal"
>> cycle lets them print negative numbers on those tax returns that cause
>> the IRS to pay back the rich taxpayer who can finagle his numbers just
>> right. If you don't believe me, just watch "Antiques Roadshow" on TV and
>> notice how the appraisers talk about how antique prices go up much faster
>> than inflation. Tiffany lamps (circa 1910s-20s) are going for $100,000 -
>> $400,000 per each these days.

Stray Dog[_2_]
March 20th 09, 06:29 PM
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

> Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 09:08:05 -0700
> From: Sir F. A. Rien >
> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
> misc.invest.stocks
> Subject: Re: #Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>
> Stray Dog > found these unused words:
>
>>
>> On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, alexy wrote:
>>
>>> Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 09:10:11 -0400
>>> From: alexy >
>>> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
>>> misc.invest.stocks, alt.humor.puns
>>> Subject: Re: #Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>>>
>>> Stray Dog > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Its so funny I can understand Video61, too, and you can't.
>>>
>>> Yes, that is funny. And easy to see why.
>>
>> Yeah, I know, you think we are both wrong and you are right.
>>
>> But, on a vote, its two against one; therefore you lose.
>>
>>> --
>>> Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
>>>

> Sorry, it's not a dumbocracy

Our _political_ environment is based on officials installed into term
limited positiions by voters.

Our _economic_ environment is based on plutocracy.

> ... "he who has the gold, makes the rules"

Unless there is a revolution.

> Roy Clark, Authoritarian.

The blank lines are for a technical reason.

Stray Dog[_2_]
March 20th 09, 06:49 PM
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, David Bernier wrote:

> Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:18:34 -0400
> From: David Bernier >
> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
> misc.invest.stocks, alt.humor.puns
> Subject: Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>
> Stray Dog wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, alexy wrote:
>>

>>> your grass, who you regularly pay before he does the final edging?
>>
>> I'm really surprised you can't. Here are a few, real-life situations:
>>
>> 1. Employees cheated by employers out of their final pay (not uncommon). 2.
>> Employees paid on their last day, or maybe even before their last day.
>> 3. Employees docked of pay for cause. 4. Employees on 100% commission-based
>> compensation and no sales for some
>> period before leaving.
>> 5. Employees who got advances on pay before earning pay and basically are
>> in debt to their employer even though they put in time and effort.
>> 6. Employees with garnesheed wages.
>> 7. A variation on #1: Employees cheated out of their compensation by 3rd
>> party payors/administrators instead of actual employers.
>> 8. Employees who receive a final paycheck that bounces. 9. Consultants
>> (several cases) where, after the work was done, were never
>> paid or received a check for substantially less than the agreed upon
>> figure.
>>
>> There are more.
>>
>> I know of at least one example of each of the above, including one for me,
>> one for my wife, and the rest from persons I knew or otherwise had no
>> reason to doubt or from certain media sources (including several posts over
>> years on a.c.c where some guy did some programming work and said "what can
>> I do, they didn't pay me," and also on misc.legal.moderated, which is also
>> a valuable source of real-life ****, including failure to pay for work,
>> that happens).
> [...]
>
> Yes, I can believe things don't always go according to the
> contract.
>
> There's a cost to litigation. If one party has much deeper pockets,
> the other party may decide not to proceed.

It's all about which side in a dispute is stronger.

> But with the McDonald's hot coffee incident, the attorneys could get
> a cut of the award of damages, so then they'll take a case
> where damages can be large (or maybe also malpractice).

I read, recently, in the WSJ that there are actually hedge funds that
invest in litigation with an aim to have net profits on investing in
research and legal action.

My brother got involved in one of these (just a law office, not a hedge
fund) where they wanted to litigate against a ground water pollutor (big
corporation) and my brother's well was contaminated. After 1-2 years, the
law firm called him in and told him they spent $1 mil of their own money
doing the background research and they decided that because they could not
_prove_ the big corporation did the contamination, they were going to stop
pursuing the case.

Of course, things like ambulance chasers (and other frivolous lawsuits) do
keep going on.

> This doesn't resemble disputes over contract payments of a few
> thousand dollars or less.

Agreed. However, this reminds me of one job where I was overpaid and they
discovered their mistake months later and they wanted their money back. To
cut a long story short, I had a serious counter-claim against them and
filed a formal greivance (but was prepared to use a lawyer). In the end,
they decided to let me keep the overpayment (it was about $5,000) and I
still have a signed letter which waives recovery of that overpayment.

> David Bernier
>

alexy
March 20th 09, 09:43 PM
Stray Dog > wrote:


>I can tell that you and I are not communicating.

You think?

>_Tradition_ (I could even call it a _habit_) can _require_ that
>"something" needs to be done, and there is no "contract" anywhere.

Okay. I would argue that the only way tradition rises to the level of
a requirement is if, as I said back at the very beginning of this
exchange, it creates an implied contract. But I tend to think that
mere tradition does not create a requirement. In fact, I agree with
the fellow who described those as "a process best or better described
by the word _tradition_ and least or more poorly described by the word
_requirement_", and who supported that view with the story of how
another tradition, namely job security in faculty tenure, was proven
NOT to be a requirement. You should talk to that guy; I think he had
it right.


--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

solon fox
March 20th 09, 10:03 PM
On Mar 16, 9:29*pm, BobR > wrote:
> On Mar 16, 6:23*pm, solon fox > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 16, 5:59*pm, BobR > wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 16, 5:10*pm, solon fox > wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 16, 3:29*pm, Stray Dog > wrote:
>
> > > > > Front page, todays WSJ (Mar, 16), far right column entitled:
>
> > > > > "AIG faces growing wrath over payouts"
>
> > > > > It also says they are 80% owned by the US taxpayers and I was wondering if
> > > > > that is true could I have my share of the money back ? Or, if I own it,
> > > > > could we somehow fire those executives?
>
> > > > > It also said "...about $450 million in bonus payments planned for
> > > > > employees at a business unit that lost $40.5 billion last year."
>
> > > > > Um...I was just wondering in what Alice-in-Wonderland universe do you get
> > > > > big bucks bonuses for ****ing up. Oh, pardon me, its the universe of
> > > > > overpaid, overbonused, overprotected, and overpampered CEOs and other
> > > > > greedy-selfish executives
>
> > > > > Pardon my "negative" attitude.
>
> > > > I understand the general public outrage at paying out bonuses over-
> > > > pampered CEO's and other greedy, selfish executives, yet I am
> > > > concerned at some of the assumptions. I don't know anything about the
> > > > bonuses at AIG, whether they are justified or outrageous excesses.
>
> > > In most corporations owned by the stockholders, those bonuses would be
> > > between the stockholders and the executives to work out. *In the case
> > > of AIG or any other corporation that has dipped into the public funds
> > > for their survival or even maintenance of their profitability, any
> > > bonus paid out is outrageously excessive and can not be justified by
> > > any argument.
>
> > Since the government is a stakeholder, then the government does have
> > the right to ask the questions. Stockholders, don't make bonus
> > decisions directly, but that's beside the point. I understand what you
> > meant.
>
> Right and yes I know the stockholders do not have direct control but
> they ultimately have a say.
>
> > Where "bonuses" are part of the normal compensation package and given
> > for true performance, then these are appropriate (with the exception
> > of the egregiously offensive bonuses paid to CEO's and boards of
> > failing companies).
>
> If these so called bonuses are in fact commisions then state them as
> such but that is not what they have been called. *Bonus implies
> compensation beyond the normal compensation generally for superior
> performance.
>
> > I really have no specific argument with the government demanding
> > rationalization of these bonuses. I just think the politicians are
> > stoking moral outrage without the facts. If these facts are available,
> > they have yet to be reported.
>
> I agree, the politicians including Obama will get all the mileage out
> of their moral outrage that they can get. *Despite that, they owe a
> complete accounting to the public.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > What I do know about is where I work. My company has not received any
> > > > bailouts and I don't expect it ever will. There have been layoffs and
> > > > there have been reductions in salaries. What troubles me is the
> > > > assumption that millions of dollars in bonuses translates to CEO's and
> > > > senior executives stuffing their pockets. In my world, sales are made
> > > > by whole teams of people working together and every sales person
> > > > carries the title of sales executive. Performance bonuses are based on
> > > > sales - the lifeblood of the company. Millions of dollars of bonuses
> > > > are divided amongst hundreds of people who brought in the new
> > > > business. Some have small salaries and must depend on these
> > > > commissions, others have more reasonable salaries, but bonuses still
> > > > make up a substantial portion of their overall compensation.
>
> > > Would those same employees be expecting to receive their bonus if they
> > > had instead of bringing in new profitable business brought the company
> > > to a point of bankruptcy where only tax dollars would keep you
> > > working?
>
> > > > I could be wrong, but I sense that all this disdain for performance
> > > > bonuses may be hurting real, working middle-class people who earned
> > > > and have ever right to their compensation.
>
> > > You could be wrong or you could be right but the taxpayers who are
> > > footing the bill for bailing out AIG have every right to be angry and
> > > demand an end to these bonus payouts. *Rather that money is coming out
> > > of my check today or tomorrow makes no difference, it will eventually
> > > have to be paid by every taxpayer.
>
> > > > I still don't know whether the AIG bonuses are justifiable, but I
> > > > haven't seen any details. I don't work there and I don't know their
> > > > culture. But I don't see anyone asking the right questions to
> > > > ascertain the nature of the bonuses - the clamor of condemnation is
> > > > too loud. If there are people there who made bad decisions, they
> > > > should be fired.
>
> > > Your final statement said it all but then you seem to ignore that
> > > thought in everything else you said. *The people receiving these
> > > bonuses are the same who got the company into this mess and now they
> > > are rewarded. *This excuse that they have to pay the bonuses to retain
> > > the "talented" people is really sort of funny when you realize that
> > > those "talented" people drove their company into this mess, have been
> > > tainted by that fact and probably couldn't find another job now
> > > anywhere. *I sure as hell wouldn't consider hiring any of them.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > You're probably right. The AIG bonus scenario smells bad and there are
> > probably excesses and people that should be fired.
>
> > My point is simply to remember that there are other real people who
> > aren't the evil-doers and don't deserve to be blamed.
>
> I had many friends at Enron when they went down and I am well aware
> that many good people paid the price for the excess of the Enron
> leadership. *That will be the case with AIG as well but that is all
> the more reason to expect AIG to be forthcoming with clear and above
> board disclosure of their activities.
>
> > We do know that they haven't changed the CEO and principle officers. I
> > think those people who are responsible should be fired.
>
> That is something that I can't understand. *Why have they been
> maintained? *Then to consider giving them bonuses on top of that is
> just above comprehension.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well, some days have passed and we have all learned a bit more about
the $165M in AIG bonuses.

Although it is an unpopular position, the more that comes out, the
more that I begin to think my suspicions are correct. The AIG
employees are being used as scapegoats and their bonuses are probably
well-deserved.

The CEO, Edward Libby is a replacement CEO and brought on board
specifically to clean up the mess. While we wish there were no mess,
and no credit default swap line of business at all, the fact is that a
magic wand can't make it all disappear. Those employees that are left
in that business unit are needed to help in the clean up. While the
business unit is to be blamed, those particular employees are part of
the solution. It wasn't their idea to create the mess in the first
place.

Yes, someone should be held accountable. We have the right to demand
accountability, but it is wrong to punish every employee without
examination.

Some of these bonuses are keyed on performance, and we do want them to
perform, now more than ever. Some of these bonuses are related to
incentives in order to retain the personnel necessary to clean it up.

I will admit that it is possible that some of the $6.5M bonuses may be
paid to individuals that need to be held accountable, but we can't
condemn them without a fair hearing. I am sure that some of those
people receiving the $1,000 performance pay bonuses are completely
free of culpability in this mess. The point is that we don't just
willy nilly set about condemnations without fair hearings on the
matter.

The Treasury department convinced Libby to come on board to clean up
AIG and part of that means that he is responsible for the company and
the investigation as to what went wrong and who is accountable. He
needs those people to do that.

You bring up Enron. We know there were employees at Enron that were
unfairly tossed aside and lost everything. Do we have to repeat those
mistakes with AIG? Can't we be a little more methodical and use a fair
process to recoup money from those who actually are responsible?

I see a mob mentality and our US Congress is leading the lynching
party.
-solon fox

Stray Dog[_2_]
March 20th 09, 10:06 PM
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, alexy wrote:

> Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 17:43:49 -0400
> From: alexy >
> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
> misc.invest.stocks, alt.humor.puns
> Subject: Re: #Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>
> Stray Dog > wrote:
>
>
>> I can tell that you and I are not communicating.
>
> You think?
>
>> _Tradition_ (I could even call it a _habit_) can _require_ that
>> "something" needs to be done, and there is no "contract" anywhere.
>
> Okay. I would argue that the only way tradition rises to the level of
> a requirement is if, as I said back at the very beginning of this
> exchange, it creates an implied contract. But I tend to think that
> mere tradition does not create a requirement. In fact, I agree with
> the fellow who described those as "a process best or better described
> by the word _tradition_ and least or more poorly described by the word
> _requirement_", and who supported that view with the story of how
> another tradition, namely job security in faculty tenure, was proven
> NOT to be a requirement. You should talk to that guy; I think he had
> it right.

You know, if you want to get lost in Alice-in-Wonderland semantics and
philosophy stuff, go ahead. In my life, in lots of situations, I also have
heard the phrase "Well, this is the way we do things around here and you
won't find it in a book or policy manual or anything like that" and that
one sentence is good enough for me, explains all I need to know, and I'm
not going to take any more time to give you more examples or spoonfeed
you.

And, regarding Machiavellian academic department politics involving
faculty/chairs/deans, I have a truckload of experience with this and I
know that you don't.




> --
> Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
>

alexy
March 21st 09, 12:28 PM
Stray Dog > wrote:

>
>On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, alexy wrote:

>> Okay. I would argue that the only way tradition rises to the level of
>> a requirement is if, as I said back at the very beginning of this
>> exchange, it creates an implied contract. But I tend to think that
>> mere tradition does not create a requirement. In fact, I agree with
>> the fellow who described those as "a process best or better described
>> by the word _tradition_ and least or more poorly described by the word
>> _requirement_", and who supported that view with the story of how
>> another tradition, namely job security in faculty tenure, was proven
>> NOT to be a requirement. You should talk to that guy; I think he had
>> it right.

>
>And, regarding Machiavellian academic department politics involving
>faculty/chairs/deans, I have a truckload of experience with this and I
>know that you don't.

I don't know how you "know" that, but you are right. However, the guy
who posted that example showing how tradition does NOT create a
requirement has every bit as much experience in that area as you; I
was just acknowledging that he made a good point.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

Stray Dog[_2_]
March 21st 09, 01:37 PM
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009, alexy wrote:

> Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 08:28:24 -0400
> From: alexy >
> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
> misc.invest.stocks
> Subject: Re: #Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>
> Stray Dog > wrote:
>
>>
>> On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, alexy wrote:
>
>>> Okay. I would argue that the only way tradition rises to the level of
>>> a requirement is if, as I said back at the very beginning of this
>>> exchange, it creates an implied contract. But I tend to think that
>>> mere tradition does not create a requirement. In fact, I agree with
>>> the fellow who described those as "a process best or better described
>>> by the word _tradition_ and least or more poorly described by the word
>>> _requirement_", and who supported that view with the story of how
>>> another tradition, namely job security in faculty tenure, was proven
>>> NOT to be a requirement. You should talk to that guy; I think he had
>>> it right.
>
>>
>> And, regarding Machiavellian academic department politics involving
>> faculty/chairs/deans, I have a truckload of experience with this and I
>> know that you don't.
>
> I don't know how you "know" that, but you are right. However, the guy
> who posted that example showing how tradition does NOT create a
> requirement has every bit as much experience in that area as you; I
> was just acknowledging that he made a good point.

I suggest that people concentrate on what does happen and why it might
happen (if they are interested in why it might happen) instead of
convoluted denials that something that does happen should not happen
because the "happening" does not fit in with some pre-conceived notion
that "tradition does not create a requirement." That is _his_
interpretation of semantics and meaning, but a lot of people will
otherwise read and understand Franz Kafka's semantics and meaning.

Someone can have a "good point" and be in a war zone and have the false
sense that he has some kind of rights and get shot dead and thus be shown
that his "good point" in his head was really worthless in reality.


> --
> Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
>

March 21st 09, 03:40 PM
On Mar 18, 8:19*am, wrote:
> On Mar 16, 6:50*pm, "Rod Speed" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Tim Bruening wrote:
> > > Stray Dog wrote:
>
> > >> Front page, todays WSJ (Mar, 16), far right column entitled:
>
> > >> "AIG faces growing wrath over payouts"
>
> > >> It also says they are 80% owned by the US taxpayers and I was
> > >> wondering if that is true could I have my share of the money back ?
> > >> Or, if I own it, could we somehow fire those executives?
>
> > >> It also said "...about $450 million in bonus payments planned for
> > >> employees at a business unit that lost $40.5 billion last year."
>
> > > Why didn't the U.S. government use its shares to veto the bonuses?
>
> > Because AIG was contractually obligated to pay them.
>
> As has been pointed out by the "liberal" press, the auto labor
> unions were told to suck it up and accept the breaking of the
> contracts by the auto makers. *Contracts are broken all the time.
> It's time to follow the money.

i am so very glad you brought that up. workers are ****ed over this,
because since 1981, they are the ones who have had their contracts
repeatedly broken.
the free market culture is really about me, the few, the elite. the
we are the "creators of jobs", what bull crap, they destroy jobs and
walk away with the loot. its starting to wear thin finally, and there
maybe a huge backlash coming.

March 21st 09, 04:06 PM
Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

>

Snipped


The payments are bribes to keep their mouth shut about what was going on.

Stray Dog[_2_]
March 21st 09, 07:03 PM
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009, Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

> Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 09:03:27 -0700
> From: Sir F. A. Rien >
> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
> misc.invest.stocks
> Subject: Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>
> David Bernier > found these unused words:
>
>> Stray Dog wrote:
>>>

>>> no reason to doubt or from certain media sources (including several
>>> posts over years on a.c.c where some guy did some programming work and
>>> said "what can I do, they didn't pay me," and also on
>>> misc.legal.moderated, which is also a valuable source of real-life ****,
>>> including failure to pay for work, that happens).
>> [...]
>>
>> Yes, I can believe things don't always go according to the
>> contract.
>>
>> There's a cost to litigation. If one party has much deeper pockets,
>> the other party may decide not to proceed.
>>
>> But with the McDonald's hot coffee incident, the attorneys could get
>> a cut of the award of damages, so then they'll take a case
>> where damages can be large (or maybe also malpractice).
>>
>> This doesn't resemble disputes over contract payments of a few
>> thousand dollars or less.
>>
> Small Claims Court - fast and inexpensve.
>
> But then, unlike you [and some others] it would take intelligence and
> observance.
>

Nolo press (also on the internet) has nice, simple books on how this
works and you can save a bundle on lawyer fees.

It is absolutely imperitive, however, that you do your homework on how
this works in your local area. In my area, they (the local govt) handed
out a free videotape on how the process works, but they did not guarantee
that the process would be just like in the videotape and it wasn't.

I know of a case where the outcome was not the way it should have been but
the planning and excution of the plaintiff was flawed and might have
killed the case.

Local public libraries often have good books, written for the layperson,
on how this **** works and people who are wise will check out, before ****
happens, how things work.

I have one book on "How to use a lawyer and what to do if things go
wrong". Excellent, and was written by a lawyer. Also, be aware that
lawyers really are primarily interested in making money and secondarily
helping you.

Stray Dog[_2_]
March 21st 09, 07:06 PM
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009, Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

> Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 09:06:53 -0700
> From: Sir F. A. Rien >
> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
> misc.invest.stocks
> Subject: Re: #Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>
> alexy > found these unused words:
>
>> Stray Dog > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I can tell that you and I are not communicating.
>>
>> You think?
>
> No crossposter thinks ...

Then, those who respond in crossposts also doesn't think, either.

>>> _Tradition_ (I could even call it a _habit_) can _require_ that
>>> "something" needs to be done, and there is no "contract" anywhere.
>>
>> Okay. I would argue that the only way tradition rises to the level of
>> a requirement is if, as I said back at the very beginning of this
>> exchange, it creates an implied contract. But I tend to think that
>> mere tradition does not create a requirement. In fact, I agree with
>> the fellow who described those as "a process best or better described
>> by the word _tradition_ and least or more poorly described by the word
>> _requirement_", and who supported that view with the story of how
>> another tradition, namely job security in faculty tenure, was proven
>> NOT to be a requirement. You should talk to that guy; I think he had
>> it right.
>
> Butt, can you fire them?
>
>

David Bernier
March 21st 09, 07:07 PM
Les Cargill wrote:
> wrote:
>> On Mar 18, 8:19 am, wrote:
>>> On Mar 16, 6:50 pm, "Rod Speed" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
> <snip>
>>
>> i am so very glad you brought that up. workers are ****ed over this,
>> because since 1981, they are the ones who have had their contracts
>> repeatedly broken.
>
> If we take it to cases, this has generally worked out. And "contracts"
> is a rather vile word to use here - as an industry matures, there's
> downward sloping demand for labor.
>
> For lack of a better idea, making a good or service cheaper
> means that there are fewer people who have to go without
> it because of price. Since each of us has many more relationships
> with producers than with consumers, this *seems* to be in the
> general interest.
>
> The problem is that reassigning everybody to new jobs that
> were in "destroyed" companies is a ragged process. SO it's
> hard to assess the actual cost.
>
>> the free market culture is really about me, the few, the elite. the
>> we are the "creators of jobs", what bull crap, they destroy jobs and
>> walk away with the loot. its starting to wear thin finally, and there
>> maybe a huge backlash coming.
>
>
> Yes, but why do "they destroy jobs"? Generally because an industry,
> product or service is going through a cost reduction or excess capacity
> cycle. It's Schumpeterian creative destruction. I've been through it
> a half dozen times.
>
> Bonus rage is too easy. For one thing, it's disproportionate.
> http://xkcd.com/558/
> For another, it looks a lot like people are attaching
> free floating anxiety to a number because it's easy to
> understand. The story "they're greedy b*stards" is easier
> than thinking about just how messy the world is.
>
> My own personal heresy is that there has been real, basic
> demand destruction. That there is consumer fatigue, and that
> consumers may not bounce back.
>
> I don't buy that AIG (or the others ) were "creators of jobs". They were
> one element of a system that pumped up the housing bubble. I've

There's one piece of the housing bubble puzzle that
I'm curious about. As a general rule, who hired the
contractors who built the houses that were part of
the bubble?

David Bernier


> worked for people who were creators of jobs, and they didn't
> live that high of a life. The creators are more akin to oil
> wildcatters. If anything, the AIG story in toto is about
> creating demand through news stories and other perceptual
> mechanisms to encourage the consumer at large to spend more,
> which keeps the current game going. After a while, the
> willing suspension of disbelief breaks down.
>
> So just how much of all this is a media artifact? It's
> "lifestyles of the rich and famous" one day, and the
> perp walk the next.
>
> But none of this has anything to do with real people
> making real things for other real people to use. That
> still happens, but it takes fewer and fewer people,
> day by day.
>
> --
> Les Cargill

Les Cargill
March 21st 09, 07:10 PM
wrote:
> On Mar 18, 8:19 am, wrote:
>> On Mar 16, 6:50 pm, "Rod Speed" > wrote:
>>
>>
<snip>
>
> i am so very glad you brought that up. workers are ****ed over this,
> because since 1981, they are the ones who have had their contracts
> repeatedly broken.

If we take it to cases, this has generally worked out. And "contracts"
is a rather vile word to use here - as an industry matures, there's
downward sloping demand for labor.

For lack of a better idea, making a good or service cheaper
means that there are fewer people who have to go without
it because of price. Since each of us has many more relationships
with producers than with consumers, this *seems* to be in the
general interest.

The problem is that reassigning everybody to new jobs that
were in "destroyed" companies is a ragged process. SO it's
hard to assess the actual cost.

> the free market culture is really about me, the few, the elite. the
> we are the "creators of jobs", what bull crap, they destroy jobs and
> walk away with the loot. its starting to wear thin finally, and there
> maybe a huge backlash coming.


Yes, but why do "they destroy jobs"? Generally because an industry,
product or service is going through a cost reduction or excess capacity
cycle. It's Schumpeterian creative destruction. I've been through it
a half dozen times.

Bonus rage is too easy. For one thing, it's disproportionate.
http://xkcd.com/558/
For another, it looks a lot like people are attaching
free floating anxiety to a number because it's easy to
understand. The story "they're greedy b*stards" is easier
than thinking about just how messy the world is.

My own personal heresy is that there has been real, basic
demand destruction. That there is consumer fatigue, and that
consumers may not bounce back.

I don't buy that AIG (or the others ) were "creators of jobs". They were
one element of a system that pumped up the housing bubble. I've
worked for people who were creators of jobs, and they didn't
live that high of a life. The creators are more akin to oil
wildcatters. If anything, the AIG story in toto is about
creating demand through news stories and other perceptual
mechanisms to encourage the consumer at large to spend more,
which keeps the current game going. After a while, the
willing suspension of disbelief breaks down.

So just how much of all this is a media artifact? It's
"lifestyles of the rich and famous" one day, and the
perp walk the next.

But none of this has anything to do with real people
making real things for other real people to use. That
still happens, but it takes fewer and fewer people,
day by day.

--
Les Cargill

Stray Dog[_2_]
March 21st 09, 07:17 PM
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009, wrote:

> Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 09:13:27 -0700 (PDT)
> From:
> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
> misc.invest.stocks, alt.humor.puns
> Subject: Re: #Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>
> On Mar 19, 7:44*am, Stray Dog > wrote:
>
>>> --
>>> Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
>
> don't even bother with alexy straydog, we should know better. he is
> the master of the back flip. and we have proven him so wrong so many
> times, that today, he will not allow the truth, nor reality, to get in
> his way of making us look like chumps, its the way a little person
> gets revenge.

I'll defer on that.

> back before this latest free market blowout started, before the
> summer of 07, he was constantly belittling me for sounding the
> warning, that free markets would collapse again. in the summer of 07,
> when the inevitable happened, and the free market imploded, he called
> me and others, nilly willys.

He is hooked on the "religion". I still have to do part II on the Chang
book "Bad Samaritans--the myth of the free market...."

And, I'm reading one more which has parts that overlap with the Chang book
and I should type up some quotes from that, too.

> in the fall of 07 i pointed out that so many banks may fail, that the
> f.d.i.c. fund maybe over whelmed, again he said i was ignorant, and i
> did not know what i was talking about, or how the fund was funded.
> i pointed out to him that the f.d.i.c.'s back up plan, in case they
> were over whelmed, was to turn to the tax payer(the treasury), as i
> suggested they may do if they were over whelmed. i think it was what
> set him off, i said we the tax payer may have to bail out the private
> sector.

Money evaporated into thin air with Bear Stearns, Lehman, AIG, etc., and
the only way to replace it is through something they seem to already be
doing. Yes, if the FDIC can't get more money, then a ton of people can go
to the bank and find the front door locked, and guess what that will do to
the economy.

> anyways, we see today that congress has vastly increased what is to
> be available to the f.d.i.c. thru the treasury because, they to expect
> the fund to be over whelmed, and even more than the 40 billion dollar
> line of credit that the f.d.i.c. had with treasury, as their back up
> funding.
> well, today we see that the f.d.i.c. has almost exhausted their fund,
> and what few banks that are left, that have not tarnished their
> business following the free market model, have revolted against paying
> higher fee's, and the fund is almost depleted. i am not saying its
> written in stone, but it does not look to good for the fund.
> now this was not to hard a scenario to see, if a person was not
> blinded by free market ideology.

Put all of that to the side for the moment and what is next is the
question of whether we will have (net) inflation or (net) deflation next.

I think the Fed and Treasury will arrange anything they need to keep the
banks open.

Next: changes in trade relation processes, get credit money to flow again,
and hope the siege mentality retreats so people start spending money
again, and unemployed become employed again, and the system gets back to
"normal."



>
> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a.ZsPab..qrI&refer=home
>
>
> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a.ZsPab..qrI&refer=home
>
> Credit Unions With $57 Billion in Assets Seized; 3 Banks Fail
>
>
>
> By Margaret Chadbourn and Ari Levy
> March 21 (Bloomberg) -- Two corporate credit unions, with combined
> assets of $57 billion, were seized by the National Credit Union
> Administration yesterday to stabilize a system used by 90 million
> customers amid a worldwide financial crisis. Three U.S. banks failed,
> bringing this year’s total to 20.
> U.S. Central Corporate Federal Credit Union, in Lenexa, Kansas, and
> Western Corporate Federal Credit Union in San Dimas, California, were
> put into conservatorship, the regulator said in a statement. The
> credit unions failed so-called stress tests that found an
> “unacceptably high concentration of risk” from mortgage-backed
> securities, the agency said.
> “Most of the bad assets that we’ve seen in the corporate world reside
> at these two institutions,” NCUA spokesman John McKechnie said in a
> telephone interview. “We will be able to resolve them in a more
> efficient way.”
> The U.S. has 28 corporate credit unions, which make loans and provide
> other services for the retail credit unions that cater to the public.
> This is the first time a corporate credit union was seized since 1995,
> when NCUA took control of Capital Corporate, based in Landover,
> Maryland.
> U.S. Central has about $34 billion in assets and serves 26 retail
> credit unions. Earlier this year, it was granted a $1 billion federal
> injection in an effort to shore up public confidence.
> Western Corporate has $23 billion in assets and about 1,100 retail
> credit union members, the NCUA said. Yesterday’s two seizures may cost
> the agency’s insurance fund about $1.2 billion, McKechnie said.
> Emergency Borrowing
> The regulator is seeking $30 billion in emergency borrowing authority
> from the Treasury Department to combat mounting losses. The U.S. House
> of Representatives has already approved expanding credit to $6 billion
> from $100 million.
> “Service continues uninterrupted at both U.S. Central Corporate
> Federal Credit Union and WesCorp,” the NCUA said in its statement.
> “Members are free to make deposits and access funds.”
> Also yesterday, banks in Kansas, Colorado and Georgia were seized as
> foreclosures surged amid a recession and the highest unemployment in a
> quarter century. The banks with $1.1 billion in total assets and $853
> million in deposits were shut by regulators, and the Federal Deposit
> Insurance Corp. was named receiver, according to e-mailed statements
> from the FDIC.
> The deposits of TeamBank in Paola, Kansas, will be passed to Great
> Southern Bank in Springfield, Missouri. Herring Bank in Amarillo,
> Texas, is assuming the deposits of Colorado National Bank in Colorado
> Springs. Regulators were unable to find a bidder for FirstCity Bank of
> Stockbridge, Georgia, and the FDIC will send payments to insured
> depositors beginning on May 23.
> Unemployment
> The U.S. economy has shed 4.4 million jobs since the recession began
> in December 2007. Unemployment jumped to 8.1 percent in February, the
> highest in more than 25 years. A $787 billion government stimulus
> package is aimed at creating or saving 3.5 million jobs and easing
> credit.
> FDIC-insured banks lost $32.1 billion from October through December,
> the first quarterly loss since 1990. The agency’s deposit insurance
> fund, used to reimburse customers of closed banks, tumbled 45 percent
> to $18.9 billion in the quarter from $34.6 billion in the preceding
> period, reflecting the closing of 25 lenders last year.
> “There is no question that this is one of the most difficult periods
> we’ve had to deal with since the FDIC was created 75 years ago,”
> Chairman Sheila Bair said yesterday at the Independent Community
> Bankers of America conference in Phoenix.
> Banks Acquire Assets
> Herring Bank will take Colorado National’s four branches and buy
> $117.3 million of Colorado National’s assets at a discount of $4.2
> million, the FDIC said. TeamBank’s 17 offices will open tomorrow as
> branches of Great Southern. The acquiring bank will purchase $656.5
> million in assets at a discount of $100 million. The FDIC said the
> three failures will cost its deposit insurance fund, supported by fees
> on insured banks, about $207 million.
> The FDIC classified 252 banks as “problem” in the fourth quarter, a 47
> percent jump from the previous period and the highest total since June
> 1995. The Washington-based agency doesn’t name the “problem” banks.
> The FDIC projects bank failures will cost its insurance fund $65
> billion through 2013.
> To contact the reporters on this story: Margaret Chadbourn in
> Washington at ; Ari Levy in San Francisco at
> .
> Last Updated: March 21, 2009 00:00 EDT
>
>

Stray Dog[_2_]
March 21st 09, 07:22 PM
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009, David Bernier wrote:

> Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 13:00:28 -0400
> From: David Bernier >
> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
> misc.invest.stocks
> Subject: Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>
>>>> pay for work, that happens).
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Yes, I can believe things don't always go according to the
>>> contract.
>>>
>>> There's a cost to litigation. If one party has much deeper pockets,
>>> the other party may decide not to proceed.
>>>
>>> But with the McDonald's hot coffee incident, the attorneys could get
>>> a cut of the award of damages, so then they'll take a case
>>> where damages can be large (or maybe also malpractice).
>>>
>>> This doesn't resemble disputes over contract payments of a few
>>> thousand dollars or less.
>>>
>> Small Claims Court - fast and inexpensve.
>>
>> But then, unlike you [and some others] it would take intelligence and
>> observance.
>>
>
> I read this:
> http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp/smallclaims/scbasics.htm#kindcases
>
> If I file and win, the other side can appeal. What happens next: I'm
> not sure.

If you don't show up in the appealate court, you forfeit the case.

If you _do_ show up, then you go over the case again but in a different
enviroment. Some statistics say that 40-60% of lower court rulings are
overturned on appeal.

Local law will tell you what is possible or if appeals are even possible.


> David Bernier
>
>

Rod Speed
March 21st 09, 07:35 PM
David Bernier wrote:
> Les Cargill wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> On Mar 18, 8:19 am, wrote:
>>>> On Mar 16, 6:50 pm, "Rod Speed" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>> <snip>
>>>
>>> i am so very glad you brought that up. workers are ****ed over
>>> this, because since 1981, they are the ones who have had their
>>> contracts repeatedly broken.
>>
>> If we take it to cases, this has generally worked out. And
>> "contracts" is a rather vile word to use here - as an industry
>> matures, there's downward sloping demand for labor.
>>
>> For lack of a better idea, making a good or service cheaper
>> means that there are fewer people who have to go without
>> it because of price. Since each of us has many more relationships
>> with producers than with consumers, this *seems* to be in the
>> general interest.
>>
>> The problem is that reassigning everybody to new jobs that
>> were in "destroyed" companies is a ragged process. SO it's
>> hard to assess the actual cost.
>>
>>> the free market culture is really about me, the few, the elite. the
>>> we are the "creators of jobs", what bull crap, they destroy jobs and
>>> walk away with the loot. its starting to wear thin finally, and
>>> there maybe a huge backlash coming.
>>
>>
>> Yes, but why do "they destroy jobs"? Generally because an industry,
>> product or service is going through a cost reduction or excess
>> capacity cycle. It's Schumpeterian creative destruction. I've been
>> through it a half dozen times.
>>
>> Bonus rage is too easy. For one thing, it's disproportionate.
>> http://xkcd.com/558/
>> For another, it looks a lot like people are attaching
>> free floating anxiety to a number because it's easy to
>> understand. The story "they're greedy b*stards" is easier
>> than thinking about just how messy the world is.
>>
>> My own personal heresy is that there has been real, basic
>> demand destruction. That there is consumer fatigue, and that
>> consumers may not bounce back.
>>
>> I don't buy that AIG (or the others ) were "creators of jobs". They
>> were one element of a system that pumped up the housing bubble. I've

> There's one piece of the housing bubble puzzle that I'm curious about.

Dont forget what that did to the cat.

> As a general rule, who hired the contractors who built the houses that were part of the bubble?

Mostly the developers.

>> worked for people who were creators of jobs, and they didn't
>> live that high of a life. The creators are more akin to oil
>> wildcatters. If anything, the AIG story in toto is about
>> creating demand through news stories and other perceptual
>> mechanisms to encourage the consumer at large to spend more,
>> which keeps the current game going. After a while, the
>> willing suspension of disbelief breaks down.
>>
>> So just how much of all this is a media artifact? It's
>> "lifestyles of the rich and famous" one day, and the
>> perp walk the next.
>>
>> But none of this has anything to do with real people
>> making real things for other real people to use. That
>> still happens, but it takes fewer and fewer people,
>> day by day.
>>
>> --
>> Les Cargill

Les Cargill
March 21st 09, 08:30 PM
David Bernier wrote:
> Les Cargill wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> On Mar 18, 8:19 am, wrote:
>>>> On Mar 16, 6:50 pm, "Rod Speed" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>> <snip>
>>>
>>> i am so very glad you brought that up. workers are ****ed over this,
>>> because since 1981, they are the ones who have had their contracts
>>> repeatedly broken.
>>
>> If we take it to cases, this has generally worked out. And "contracts"
>> is a rather vile word to use here - as an industry matures, there's
>> downward sloping demand for labor.
>>
>> For lack of a better idea, making a good or service cheaper
>> means that there are fewer people who have to go without
>> it because of price. Since each of us has many more relationships
>> with producers than with consumers, this *seems* to be in the
>> general interest.
>>
>> The problem is that reassigning everybody to new jobs that
>> were in "destroyed" companies is a ragged process. SO it's
>> hard to assess the actual cost.
>>
>>> the free market culture is really about me, the few, the elite. the
>>> we are the "creators of jobs", what bull crap, they destroy jobs and
>>> walk away with the loot. its starting to wear thin finally, and there
>>> maybe a huge backlash coming.
>>
>>
>> Yes, but why do "they destroy jobs"? Generally because an industry,
>> product or service is going through a cost reduction or excess capacity
>> cycle. It's Schumpeterian creative destruction. I've been through it
>> a half dozen times.
>>
>> Bonus rage is too easy. For one thing, it's disproportionate.
>> http://xkcd.com/558/
>> For another, it looks a lot like people are attaching
>> free floating anxiety to a number because it's easy to
>> understand. The story "they're greedy b*stards" is easier
>> than thinking about just how messy the world is.
>>
>> My own personal heresy is that there has been real, basic
>> demand destruction. That there is consumer fatigue, and that
>> consumers may not bounce back.
>>
>> I don't buy that AIG (or the others ) were "creators of jobs". They were
>> one element of a system that pumped up the housing bubble. I've
>
> There's one piece of the housing bubble puzzle that
> I'm curious about. As a general rule, who hired the
> contractors who built the houses that were part of
> the bubble?
>
> David Bernier
>
>

For lack of a more precise term, real estate developers. but
there were also flippers, people who kited refi to live over
their head, and others who didn't really add
capacity. I talked to developers in 2005 who were not
adding any property, just building on land they
already owned. Good sign that *they* knew it was a
bubble.

http://www.clipsandcomment.com/documents/Housestarts.jpg

That graph should be very confusing :) It should also
draw into question just how much government policy
*initiated* a bubble. Policy more likely
found a parade already in progress and joined in,
since it starts about 1992.

<snip>

--
Les Cargill

Stray Dog[_2_]
March 21st 09, 10:21 PM
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009, David Bernier wrote:

> Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 15:07:24 -0400
> From: David Bernier >
> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
> misc.invest.stocks
> Subject: Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>
> Les Cargill wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> On Mar 18, 8:19 am, wrote:
>>>> On Mar 16, 6:50 pm, "Rod Speed" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>> <snip>

>> Yes, but why do "they destroy jobs"? Generally because an industry,
>> product or service is going through a cost reduction or excess capacity
>> cycle. It's Schumpeterian creative destruction. I've been through it
>> a half dozen times.
>>
>> Bonus rage is too easy. For one thing, it's disproportionate.
>> http://xkcd.com/558/
>> For another, it looks a lot like people are attaching
>> free floating anxiety to a number because it's easy to
>> understand. The story "they're greedy b*stards" is easier
>> than thinking about just how messy the world is.
>>
>> My own personal heresy is that there has been real, basic
>> demand destruction. That there is consumer fatigue, and that
>> consumers may not bounce back.
>>
>> I don't buy that AIG (or the others ) were "creators of jobs". They were
>> one element of a system that pumped up the housing bubble. I've
>
> There's one piece of the housing bubble puzzle that
> I'm curious about. As a general rule, who hired the
> contractors who built the houses that were part of
> the bubble?
>
> David Bernier
>

You should probably be asking, instead, who paid their paychecks?

Usually, a _builder_ gets an $X or $XX, or more, million loan, from a bank
(etc) to buy a large tract of land AND build Z units (i.e. each unit either
an appt or detached house, etc) and starts building. Individuals then pick
out what they want to buy and then get financing to buy one of the Z
units, and that comes from a bank or mortgage company (etc).

The "feeding frenzy" was that (according to one article), some 1/3 of all
purchases of housing were not to get housing but spec buying (to "flip"
the house some months to, say, a year later and get 10-15% ROI on this).
And, "money brokers" added to that frenzy because they were writing all
the paperwork _AND_ collecting their commissions up front. And, it all
snowballed on itself. Of course, the CDO/CMO feeding frenzy fed off that
because the banks (etc) didn't want a loan on their books but wanted to
dump the loan and get _all_ their money back real quick instead of over
20-30 years so they could loan it out _again_, so they "securitized" the
loans and sold them anywhere they could so the buyers of those CDO/CMOs
got the interest payments (+/-) over all those 20-30 years (maybe, what,
1-2% higher than if it were in the bank as a CD), and it was a big shark
party. Of course, there were other players, too, (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac,
Sallie Mae, etc., etc, I don't follow them that much), and they were
playing games, too. And, of course, insurance companies (AIG-de ja vu)
make investments for ROI to help their own profits, and what did they do?
Fancy-schmantzy (risky) derivatives and what happened? They blew up in
their faces (and the **** hit the fan).

You're welcome to contribute "fills" to my layperson explanation above.

I don't know, I'll expect by the end of the year at least one book on
this. Maybe some already out.

BobR
March 22nd 09, 02:18 AM
On Mar 20, 5:03*pm, solon fox > wrote:
> On Mar 16, 9:29*pm, BobR > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 16, 6:23*pm, solon fox > wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 16, 5:59*pm, BobR > wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 16, 5:10*pm, solon fox > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 16, 3:29*pm, Stray Dog > wrote:
>
> > > > > > Front page, todays WSJ (Mar, 16), far right column entitled:
>
> > > > > > "AIG faces growing wrath over payouts"
>
> > > > > > It also says they are 80% owned by the US taxpayers and I was wondering if
> > > > > > that is true could I have my share of the money back ? Or, if I own it,
> > > > > > could we somehow fire those executives?
>
> > > > > > It also said "...about $450 million in bonus payments planned for
> > > > > > employees at a business unit that lost $40.5 billion last year."
>
> > > > > > Um...I was just wondering in what Alice-in-Wonderland universe do you get
> > > > > > big bucks bonuses for ****ing up. Oh, pardon me, its the universe of
> > > > > > overpaid, overbonused, overprotected, and overpampered CEOs and other
> > > > > > greedy-selfish executives
>
> > > > > > Pardon my "negative" attitude.
>
> > > > > I understand the general public outrage at paying out bonuses over-
> > > > > pampered CEO's and other greedy, selfish executives, yet I am
> > > > > concerned at some of the assumptions. I don't know anything about the
> > > > > bonuses at AIG, whether they are justified or outrageous excesses..
>
> > > > In most corporations owned by the stockholders, those bonuses would be
> > > > between the stockholders and the executives to work out. *In the case
> > > > of AIG or any other corporation that has dipped into the public funds
> > > > for their survival or even maintenance of their profitability, any
> > > > bonus paid out is outrageously excessive and can not be justified by
> > > > any argument.
>
> > > Since the government is a stakeholder, then the government does have
> > > the right to ask the questions. Stockholders, don't make bonus
> > > decisions directly, but that's beside the point. I understand what you
> > > meant.
>
> > Right and yes I know the stockholders do not have direct control but
> > they ultimately have a say.
>
> > > Where "bonuses" are part of the normal compensation package and given
> > > for true performance, then these are appropriate (with the exception
> > > of the egregiously offensive bonuses paid to CEO's and boards of
> > > failing companies).
>
> > If these so called bonuses are in fact commisions then state them as
> > such but that is not what they have been called. *Bonus implies
> > compensation beyond the normal compensation generally for superior
> > performance.
>
> > > I really have no specific argument with the government demanding
> > > rationalization of these bonuses. I just think the politicians are
> > > stoking moral outrage without the facts. If these facts are available,
> > > they have yet to be reported.
>
> > I agree, the politicians including Obama will get all the mileage out
> > of their moral outrage that they can get. *Despite that, they owe a
> > complete accounting to the public.
>
> > > > > What I do know about is where I work. My company has not received any
> > > > > bailouts and I don't expect it ever will. There have been layoffs and
> > > > > there have been reductions in salaries. What troubles me is the
> > > > > assumption that millions of dollars in bonuses translates to CEO's and
> > > > > senior executives stuffing their pockets. In my world, sales are made
> > > > > by whole teams of people working together and every sales person
> > > > > carries the title of sales executive. Performance bonuses are based on
> > > > > sales - the lifeblood of the company. Millions of dollars of bonuses
> > > > > are divided amongst hundreds of people who brought in the new
> > > > > business. Some have small salaries and must depend on these
> > > > > commissions, others have more reasonable salaries, but bonuses still
> > > > > make up a substantial portion of their overall compensation.
>
> > > > Would those same employees be expecting to receive their bonus if they
> > > > had instead of bringing in new profitable business brought the company
> > > > to a point of bankruptcy where only tax dollars would keep you
> > > > working?
>
> > > > > I could be wrong, but I sense that all this disdain for performance
> > > > > bonuses may be hurting real, working middle-class people who earned
> > > > > and have ever right to their compensation.
>
> > > > You could be wrong or you could be right but the taxpayers who are
> > > > footing the bill for bailing out AIG have every right to be angry and
> > > > demand an end to these bonus payouts. *Rather that money is coming out
> > > > of my check today or tomorrow makes no difference, it will eventually
> > > > have to be paid by every taxpayer.
>
> > > > > I still don't know whether the AIG bonuses are justifiable, but I
> > > > > haven't seen any details. I don't work there and I don't know their
> > > > > culture. But I don't see anyone asking the right questions to
> > > > > ascertain the nature of the bonuses - the clamor of condemnation is
> > > > > too loud. If there are people there who made bad decisions, they
> > > > > should be fired.
>
> > > > Your final statement said it all but then you seem to ignore that
> > > > thought in everything else you said. *The people receiving these
> > > > bonuses are the same who got the company into this mess and now they
> > > > are rewarded. *This excuse that they have to pay the bonuses to retain
> > > > the "talented" people is really sort of funny when you realize that
> > > > those "talented" people drove their company into this mess, have been
> > > > tainted by that fact and probably couldn't find another job now
> > > > anywhere. *I sure as hell wouldn't consider hiring any of them.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > You're probably right. The AIG bonus scenario smells bad and there are
> > > probably excesses and people that should be fired.
>
> > > My point is simply to remember that there are other real people who
> > > aren't the evil-doers and don't deserve to be blamed.
>
> > I had many friends at Enron when they went down and I am well aware
> > that many good people paid the price for the excess of the Enron
> > leadership. *That will be the case with AIG as well but that is all
> > the more reason to expect AIG to be forthcoming with clear and above
> > board disclosure of their activities.
>
> > > We do know that they haven't changed the CEO and principle officers. I
> > > think those people who are responsible should be fired.
>
> > That is something that I can't understand. *Why have they been
> > maintained? *Then to consider giving them bonuses on top of that is
> > just above comprehension.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Well, some days have passed and we have all learned a bit more about
> the $165M in AIG bonuses.
>
> Although it is an unpopular position, the more that comes out, the
> more that I begin to think my suspicions are correct. The AIG
> employees are being used as scapegoats and their bonuses are probably
> well-deserved.
>
> The CEO, Edward Libby is a replacement CEO and brought on board
> specifically to clean up the mess. While we wish there were no mess,
> and no credit default swap line of business at all, the fact is that a
> magic wand can't make it all disappear. Those employees that are left
> in that business unit are needed to help in the clean up. While the
> business unit is to be blamed, those particular employees are part of
> the solution. It wasn't their idea to create the mess in the first
> place.
>
> Yes, someone should be held accountable. We have the right to demand
> accountability, but it is wrong to punish every employee without
> examination.
>
> Some of these bonuses are keyed on performance, and we do want them to
> perform, now more than ever. Some of these bonuses are related to
> incentives in order to retain the personnel necessary to clean it up.
>
> I will admit that it is possible that some of the $6.5M bonuses may be
> paid to individuals that need to be held accountable, but we can't
> condemn them without a fair hearing. I am sure that some of those
> people receiving the $1,000 performance pay bonuses are completely
> free of culpability in this mess. The point is that we don't just
> willy nilly set about condemnations without fair hearings on the
> matter.
>
> The Treasury department convinced Libby to come on board to clean up
> AIG and part of that means that he is responsible for the company and
> the investigation as to what went wrong and who is accountable. He
> needs those people to do that.
>
> You bring up Enron. We know there were employees at Enron that were
> unfairly tossed aside and lost everything. Do we have to repeat those
> mistakes with AIG? Can't we be a little more methodical and use a fair
> process to recoup money from those who actually are responsible?
>
> I see a mob mentality and our US Congress is leading the lynching
> party.
> -solon fox- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I just have to wonder what is being swept under the rug while everyone
is preoccupied with these bonuses?

Rod Speed
March 22nd 09, 02:45 AM
BobR wrote:
> On Mar 20, 5:03 pm, solon fox > wrote:
>> On Mar 16, 9:29 pm, BobR > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 16, 6:23 pm, solon fox > wrote:
>>
>>>> On Mar 16, 5:59 pm, BobR > wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Mar 16, 5:10 pm, solon fox > wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On Mar 16, 3:29 pm, Stray Dog > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Front page, todays WSJ (Mar, 16), far right column entitled:
>>
>>>>>>> "AIG faces growing wrath over payouts"
>>
>>>>>>> It also says they are 80% owned by the US taxpayers and I was
>>>>>>> wondering if that is true could I have my share of the money
>>>>>>> back ? Or, if I own it, could we somehow fire those executives?
>>
>>>>>>> It also said "...about $450 million in bonus payments planned
>>>>>>> for employees at a business unit that lost $40.5 billion last
>>>>>>> year."
>>
>>>>>>> Um...I was just wondering in what Alice-in-Wonderland universe
>>>>>>> do you get big bucks bonuses for ****ing up. Oh, pardon me, its
>>>>>>> the universe of overpaid, overbonused, overprotected, and
>>>>>>> overpampered CEOs and other greedy-selfish executives
>>
>>>>>>> Pardon my "negative" attitude.
>>
>>>>>> I understand the general public outrage at paying out bonuses
>>>>>> over- pampered CEO's and other greedy, selfish executives, yet I
>>>>>> am concerned at some of the assumptions. I don't know anything
>>>>>> about the bonuses at AIG, whether they are justified or
>>>>>> outrageous excesses.
>>
>>>>> In most corporations owned by the stockholders, those bonuses
>>>>> would be
>>>>> between the stockholders and the executives to work out. In the
>>>>> case
>>>>> of AIG or any other corporation that has dipped into the public
>>>>> funds
>>>>> for their survival or even maintenance of their profitability, any
>>>>> bonus paid out is outrageously excessive and can not be justified
>>>>> by
>>>>> any argument.
>>
>>>> Since the government is a stakeholder, then the government does
>>>> have the right to ask the questions. Stockholders, don't make bonus
>>>> decisions directly, but that's beside the point. I understand what
>>>> you meant.
>>
>>> Right and yes I know the stockholders do not have direct control but
>>> they ultimately have a say.
>>
>>>> Where "bonuses" are part of the normal compensation package and
>>>> given for true performance, then these are appropriate (with the
>>>> exception of the egregiously offensive bonuses paid to CEO's and
>>>> boards of failing companies).
>>
>>> If these so called bonuses are in fact commisions then state them as
>>> such but that is not what they have been called. Bonus implies
>>> compensation beyond the normal compensation generally for superior
>>> performance.
>>
>>>> I really have no specific argument with the government demanding
>>>> rationalization of these bonuses. I just think the politicians are
>>>> stoking moral outrage without the facts. If these facts are
>>>> available, they have yet to be reported.
>>
>>> I agree, the politicians including Obama will get all the mileage
>>> out of their moral outrage that they can get. Despite that, they
>>> owe a complete accounting to the public.
>>
>>>>>> What I do know about is where I work. My company has not
>>>>>> received any bailouts and I don't expect it ever will. There
>>>>>> have been layoffs and there have been reductions in salaries.
>>>>>> What troubles me is the assumption that millions of dollars in
>>>>>> bonuses translates to CEO's and senior executives stuffing their
>>>>>> pockets. In my world, sales are made by whole teams of people
>>>>>> working together and every sales person carries the title of
>>>>>> sales executive. Performance bonuses are based on sales - the
>>>>>> lifeblood of the company. Millions of dollars of bonuses are
>>>>>> divided amongst hundreds of people who brought in the new
>>>>>> business. Some have small salaries and must depend on these
>>>>>> commissions, others have more reasonable salaries, but bonuses
>>>>>> still make up a substantial portion of their overall
>>>>>> compensation.
>>
>>>>> Would those same employees be expecting to receive their bonus if
>>>>> they
>>>>> had instead of bringing in new profitable business brought the
>>>>> company
>>>>> to a point of bankruptcy where only tax dollars would keep you
>>>>> working?
>>
>>>>>> I could be wrong, but I sense that all this disdain for
>>>>>> performance bonuses may be hurting real, working middle-class
>>>>>> people who earned and have ever right to their compensation.
>>
>>>>> You could be wrong or you could be right but the taxpayers who are
>>>>> footing the bill for bailing out AIG have every right to be angry
>>>>> and
>>>>> demand an end to these bonus payouts. Rather that money is coming
>>>>> out
>>>>> of my check today or tomorrow makes no difference, it will
>>>>> eventually
>>>>> have to be paid by every taxpayer.
>>
>>>>>> I still don't know whether the AIG bonuses are justifiable, but I
>>>>>> haven't seen any details. I don't work there and I don't know
>>>>>> their culture. But I don't see anyone asking the right questions
>>>>>> to ascertain the nature of the bonuses - the clamor of
>>>>>> condemnation is too loud. If there are people there who made bad
>>>>>> decisions, they should be fired.
>>
>>>>> Your final statement said it all but then you seem to ignore that
>>>>> thought in everything else you said. The people receiving these
>>>>> bonuses are the same who got the company into this mess and now
>>>>> they
>>>>> are rewarded. This excuse that they have to pay the bonuses to
>>>>> retain
>>>>> the "talented" people is really sort of funny when you realize
>>>>> that
>>>>> those "talented" people drove their company into this mess, have
>>>>> been
>>>>> tainted by that fact and probably couldn't find another job now
>>>>> anywhere. I sure as hell wouldn't consider hiring any of them.-
>>>>> Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>>> You're probably right. The AIG bonus scenario smells bad and there
>>>> are probably excesses and people that should be fired.
>>
>>>> My point is simply to remember that there are other real people who
>>>> aren't the evil-doers and don't deserve to be blamed.
>>
>>> I had many friends at Enron when they went down and I am well aware
>>> that many good people paid the price for the excess of the Enron
>>> leadership. That will be the case with AIG as well but that is all
>>> the more reason to expect AIG to be forthcoming with clear and above
>>> board disclosure of their activities.
>>
>>>> We do know that they haven't changed the CEO and principle
>>>> officers. I think those people who are responsible should be fired.
>>
>>> That is something that I can't understand. Why have they been
>>> maintained? Then to consider giving them bonuses on top of that is
>>> just above comprehension.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Well, some days have passed and we have all learned a bit more about
>> the $165M in AIG bonuses.
>>
>> Although it is an unpopular position, the more that comes out, the
>> more that I begin to think my suspicions are correct. The AIG
>> employees are being used as scapegoats and their bonuses are probably
>> well-deserved.
>>
>> The CEO, Edward Libby is a replacement CEO and brought on board
>> specifically to clean up the mess. While we wish there were no mess,
>> and no credit default swap line of business at all, the fact is that
>> a magic wand can't make it all disappear. Those employees that are
>> left in that business unit are needed to help in the clean up. While
>> the business unit is to be blamed, those particular employees are
>> part of the solution. It wasn't their idea to create the mess in the
>> first place.
>>
>> Yes, someone should be held accountable. We have the right to demand
>> accountability, but it is wrong to punish every employee without
>> examination.
>>
>> Some of these bonuses are keyed on performance, and we do want them
>> to perform, now more than ever. Some of these bonuses are related to
>> incentives in order to retain the personnel necessary to clean it up.
>>
>> I will admit that it is possible that some of the $6.5M bonuses may
>> be paid to individuals that need to be held accountable, but we can't
>> condemn them without a fair hearing. I am sure that some of those
>> people receiving the $1,000 performance pay bonuses are completely
>> free of culpability in this mess. The point is that we don't just
>> willy nilly set about condemnations without fair hearings on the
>> matter.
>>
>> The Treasury department convinced Libby to come on board to clean up
>> AIG and part of that means that he is responsible for the company and
>> the investigation as to what went wrong and who is accountable. He
>> needs those people to do that.
>>
>> You bring up Enron. We know there were employees at Enron that were
>> unfairly tossed aside and lost everything. Do we have to repeat those
>> mistakes with AIG? Can't we be a little more methodical and use a
>> fair process to recoup money from those who actually are responsible?
>>
>> I see a mob mentality and our US Congress is leading the lynching
>> party.

> I just have to wonder what is being swept under the
> rug while everyone is preoccupied with these bonuses?

More fool you.

David Bernier
March 22nd 09, 10:37 AM
Rod Speed wrote:
> BobR wrote:
>> On Mar 20, 5:03 pm, solon fox > wrote:
>>> On Mar 16, 9:29 pm, BobR > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Mar 16, 6:23 pm, solon fox > wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 16, 5:59 pm, BobR > wrote:
>>>>>> On Mar 16, 5:10 pm, solon fox > wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mar 16, 3:29 pm, Stray Dog > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Front page, todays WSJ (Mar, 16), far right column entitled:
>>>>>>>> "AIG faces growing wrath over payouts"
>>>>>>>> It also says they are 80% owned by the US taxpayers and I was
>>>>>>>> wondering if that is true could I have my share of the money
>>>>>>>> back ? Or, if I own it, could we somehow fire those executives?
>>>>>>>> It also said "...about $450 million in bonus payments planned
>>>>>>>> for employees at a business unit that lost $40.5 billion last
>>>>>>>> year."
>>>>>>>> Um...I was just wondering in what Alice-in-Wonderland universe
>>>>>>>> do you get big bucks bonuses for ****ing up. Oh, pardon me, its
>>>>>>>> the universe of overpaid, overbonused, overprotected, and
>>>>>>>> overpampered CEOs and other greedy-selfish executives
>>>>>>>> Pardon my "negative" attitude.
>>>>>>> I understand the general public outrage at paying out bonuses
>>>>>>> over- pampered CEO's and other greedy, selfish executives, yet I
>>>>>>> am concerned at some of the assumptions. I don't know anything
>>>>>>> about the bonuses at AIG, whether they are justified or
>>>>>>> outrageous excesses.
>>>>>> In most corporations owned by the stockholders, those bonuses
>>>>>> would be
>>>>>> between the stockholders and the executives to work out. In the
>>>>>> case
>>>>>> of AIG or any other corporation that has dipped into the public
>>>>>> funds
>>>>>> for their survival or even maintenance of their profitability, any
>>>>>> bonus paid out is outrageously excessive and can not be justified
>>>>>> by
>>>>>> any argument.
>>>>> Since the government is a stakeholder, then the government does
>>>>> have the right to ask the questions. Stockholders, don't make bonus
>>>>> decisions directly, but that's beside the point. I understand what
>>>>> you meant.
>>>> Right and yes I know the stockholders do not have direct control but
>>>> they ultimately have a say.
>>>>> Where "bonuses" are part of the normal compensation package and
>>>>> given for true performance, then these are appropriate (with the
>>>>> exception of the egregiously offensive bonuses paid to CEO's and
>>>>> boards of failing companies).
>>>> If these so called bonuses are in fact commisions then state them as
>>>> such but that is not what they have been called. Bonus implies
>>>> compensation beyond the normal compensation generally for superior
>>>> performance.
>>>>> I really have no specific argument with the government demanding
>>>>> rationalization of these bonuses. I just think the politicians are
>>>>> stoking moral outrage without the facts. If these facts are
>>>>> available, they have yet to be reported.
>>>> I agree, the politicians including Obama will get all the mileage
>>>> out of their moral outrage that they can get. Despite that, they
>>>> owe a complete accounting to the public.
>>>>>>> What I do know about is where I work. My company has not
>>>>>>> received any bailouts and I don't expect it ever will. There
>>>>>>> have been layoffs and there have been reductions in salaries.
>>>>>>> What troubles me is the assumption that millions of dollars in
>>>>>>> bonuses translates to CEO's and senior executives stuffing their
>>>>>>> pockets. In my world, sales are made by whole teams of people
>>>>>>> working together and every sales person carries the title of
>>>>>>> sales executive. Performance bonuses are based on sales - the
>>>>>>> lifeblood of the company. Millions of dollars of bonuses are
>>>>>>> divided amongst hundreds of people who brought in the new
>>>>>>> business. Some have small salaries and must depend on these
>>>>>>> commissions, others have more reasonable salaries, but bonuses
>>>>>>> still make up a substantial portion of their overall
>>>>>>> compensation.
>>>>>> Would those same employees be expecting to receive their bonus if
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> had instead of bringing in new profitable business brought the
>>>>>> company
>>>>>> to a point of bankruptcy where only tax dollars would keep you
>>>>>> working?
>>>>>>> I could be wrong, but I sense that all this disdain for
>>>>>>> performance bonuses may be hurting real, working middle-class
>>>>>>> people who earned and have ever right to their compensation.
>>>>>> You could be wrong or you could be right but the taxpayers who are
>>>>>> footing the bill for bailing out AIG have every right to be angry
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> demand an end to these bonus payouts. Rather that money is coming
>>>>>> out
>>>>>> of my check today or tomorrow makes no difference, it will
>>>>>> eventually
>>>>>> have to be paid by every taxpayer.
>>>>>>> I still don't know whether the AIG bonuses are justifiable, but I
>>>>>>> haven't seen any details. I don't work there and I don't know
>>>>>>> their culture. But I don't see anyone asking the right questions
>>>>>>> to ascertain the nature of the bonuses - the clamor of
>>>>>>> condemnation is too loud. If there are people there who made bad
>>>>>>> decisions, they should be fired.
>>>>>> Your final statement said it all but then you seem to ignore that
>>>>>> thought in everything else you said. The people receiving these
>>>>>> bonuses are the same who got the company into this mess and now
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> are rewarded. This excuse that they have to pay the bonuses to
>>>>>> retain
>>>>>> the "talented" people is really sort of funny when you realize
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> those "talented" people drove their company into this mess, have
>>>>>> been
>>>>>> tainted by that fact and probably couldn't find another job now
>>>>>> anywhere. I sure as hell wouldn't consider hiring any of them.-
>>>>>> Hide quoted text -
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>> You're probably right. The AIG bonus scenario smells bad and there
>>>>> are probably excesses and people that should be fired.
>>>>> My point is simply to remember that there are other real people who
>>>>> aren't the evil-doers and don't deserve to be blamed.
>>>> I had many friends at Enron when they went down and I am well aware
>>>> that many good people paid the price for the excess of the Enron
>>>> leadership. That will be the case with AIG as well but that is all
>>>> the more reason to expect AIG to be forthcoming with clear and above
>>>> board disclosure of their activities.
>>>>> We do know that they haven't changed the CEO and principle
>>>>> officers. I think those people who are responsible should be fired.
>>>> That is something that I can't understand. Why have they been
>>>> maintained? Then to consider giving them bonuses on top of that is
>>>> just above comprehension.- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> Well, some days have passed and we have all learned a bit more about
>>> the $165M in AIG bonuses.
>>>
>>> Although it is an unpopular position, the more that comes out, the
>>> more that I begin to think my suspicions are correct. The AIG
>>> employees are being used as scapegoats and their bonuses are probably
>>> well-deserved.
>>>
>>> The CEO, Edward Libby is a replacement CEO and brought on board
>>> specifically to clean up the mess. While we wish there were no mess,
>>> and no credit default swap line of business at all, the fact is that
>>> a magic wand can't make it all disappear. Those employees that are
>>> left in that business unit are needed to help in the clean up. While
>>> the business unit is to be blamed, those particular employees are
>>> part of the solution. It wasn't their idea to create the mess in the
>>> first place.
>>>
>>> Yes, someone should be held accountable. We have the right to demand
>>> accountability, but it is wrong to punish every employee without
>>> examination.
>>>
>>> Some of these bonuses are keyed on performance, and we do want them
>>> to perform, now more than ever. Some of these bonuses are related to
>>> incentives in order to retain the personnel necessary to clean it up.
>>>
>>> I will admit that it is possible that some of the $6.5M bonuses may
>>> be paid to individuals that need to be held accountable, but we can't
>>> condemn them without a fair hearing. I am sure that some of those
>>> people receiving the $1,000 performance pay bonuses are completely
>>> free of culpability in this mess. The point is that we don't just
>>> willy nilly set about condemnations without fair hearings on the
>>> matter.
>>>
>>> The Treasury department convinced Libby to come on board to clean up
>>> AIG and part of that means that he is responsible for the company and
>>> the investigation as to what went wrong and who is accountable. He
>>> needs those people to do that.
>>>
>>> You bring up Enron. We know there were employees at Enron that were
>>> unfairly tossed aside and lost everything. Do we have to repeat those
>>> mistakes with AIG? Can't we be a little more methodical and use a
>>> fair process to recoup money from those who actually are responsible?
>>>
>>> I see a mob mentality and our US Congress is leading the lynching
>>> party.
>
>> I just have to wonder what is being swept under the
>> rug while everyone is preoccupied with these bonuses?
>
> More fool you.

Wonderful! You have learned this statement quite well.
I think you can move on to more complex formulations.

David Bernier

Stray Dog[_2_]
March 22nd 09, 05:05 PM
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009, David Bernier wrote:

> Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 06:37:45 -0400
> From: David Bernier >
> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
> misc.invest.stocks
> Subject: Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>

>>>>
>>>> I see a mob mentality and our US Congress is leading the lynching
>>>> party.
>>
>>> I just have to wonder what is being swept under the
>>> rug while everyone is preoccupied with these bonuses?
>>
>> More fool you.
>
> Wonderful! You have learned this statement quite well.
> I think you can move on to more complex formulations.
>
> David Bernier

1. Rod Speed is actually mentally ill.
2. I did not write the "Rod Speed FAQ" (below) but it describes him well.
3. When Rod Speed's brain backfires or misfires, what you get are tiny
little dinky brain-farts such as "More fool you" which he repeats many
times because he has no imagination, originality, or creativity.
4. Brain-fart responses to relatively long, well-thought-out explanations,
critically analyzed situations, and insightful reflection and
introspcection.... are truly disappointing and a waste of the
reader's time.
5. I know that human beings often talk to their pets and the pets might
answer with barks, meows, or tweets & chirps, but we do need to
step back and ask whether we are doing something for fun or for
seriousness. However, it has come to my hypothetical attention
that in talking to Rod Speed, we might be, rather, talking to a
pet.

------

The "Rod Speed FAQ" read it below or at the URL for yourself.....
- - - - - - - - -
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Alt/alt.internet.wireless/2006-07/ms
g00462.html
- - - - - - - - - -

After its recent emergence in the thread "How to calculate increase
of home wireless router range?", readers of this group may find
this useful. [based on a post in comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage]


Who or What is Rod Speed?

Rod Speed is an entirely modern phenomenon. Essentially, Rod
Speed is an insecure and worthless individual who has discovered
he can enhance his own self-esteem in his own eyes by playing "the
big, hard man" on the InterNet.

Rod is believed to be from Australia.


Rod certainly posts a lot. Why is that?

It relates back to the point about boosting his own self esteem by
what amounts to effectively having a wank in public. Rod's
personality, as exemplified by his posts, means he is practically
unemployable which means he sits around at home all day festering
away and getting worse and worse. This means he posts more and
more try and boost the old failing self esteem. Being unemployed
also means he as a lot of time on his hands to post in he first
place.


But maybe Rod really is a very clever and knowledgable person?

Clever? His posts wouldn't support that theory. As far as being
knowledgable, well, Rod has posted to various aus newsgroups
including invest, comms, and politics. He has posted to all as a
self professed "expert" and flames any and all who disagree with
him. Logically, here's no way any single individual could be
more than a jack of all trades across such a wide spread of
subject matter.


But maybe Rod really is an expert in some areas?

Possibly. However, his "bedside manner" prevents him from being
taken seriously by most normal people. Also, he has damaged his
credibility in areas where he might know what he's on about by
shooting his self in the foot in areas where he does not. For
example, in the case of subject matter such as politics, even a
view held by Albert Einstein cannot be little more than an
opinion and to vociferously denigrate an opposing opinion is
simply small mindedness and bigotry, the kind of which Einstein
himself fought against his whole life.


What is Rod Speed's main modus operandi?

Simple! He shoots off a half brained opinion in response to any
other post and touts that opinion as fact. When challenged, he
responds with vociferous and rabid denigration. He has an
instantly recognisable set of schoolboy put downs limited pretty
much to the following: "Pathetic, Puerile, Little Boy, try
harder, trivial, more lies, gutless wonder, ******, etc etc".
The fact that Rod has been unable to come up with any new insults
says a lot about his outlook and intelligence.


But why do so many people respond to Rod in turn?

It has to do with effrontery and a lack of logic. Most people
who post have some basis of reason for what they write and when
Rod retorts with his usual denigration and derision they respond
emotionally rather than logically. It's like a teacher in a
class room who has a misbehaving pupil. The teacher challenges
the pupil to explain himself and the student responds with "***
off, Big Nose!" Even thought the teacher has a fairly normal
proboscis, he gets a dent in his self-esteem and might resort to
an emotional repsonse like "yeah? well your *** wouldn't fill a
pop rivet, punk", which merely invites some oneupmanship from the
naughty pupil. Of course, the teacher should not have justified
the initial comment with a response, especially in front of the
class. The correct response was "please report to the
headmaster's office right NOW!"


What is a "RodBot"?

Some respondents in aus.invest built a "virtual Rod" which was
indiscernable from the "real" Rod. Net users could enter an
opinion or even a fact and the RoDBot would tell them they were
pathetic lying schoolboys who should be able to do better or some
equally pithy Rod Speedism.


Are you saying that Rod Speed is a Troll?

You got it!


What is the best way to handle Rod Speed?

KillFile!

..

Rod Speed
March 22nd 09, 05:53 PM
Some gutless ****wit psychopath with pathetic psychotic
delusions about being a dog, desperately cowering behind
Stray Dog desperately attempted to bull**** and lie its way out
of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.

No surprise that it got the bums rush, right out the door, onto its lard arse.

No surprise that its so pathetically bitter and twisted about it.

Day Brown[_4_]
March 22nd 09, 08:18 PM
Stray Dog wrote:
>
> On Sat, 21 Mar 2009, Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
>
>> Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 09:03:27 -0700
>> From: Sir F. A. Rien >
>> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
>> misc.invest.stocks
>> Subject: Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>>
>> David Bernier > found these unused words:
>>
>>> Stray Dog wrote:
>>>>
>
>>>> no reason to doubt or from certain media sources (including several
>>>> posts over years on a.c.c where some guy did some programming work and
>>>> said "what can I do, they didn't pay me," and also on
>>>> misc.legal.moderated, which is also a valuable source of real-life
>>>> ****, including failure to pay for work, that happens).
I'll havta look these up.
> Nolo press (also on the internet) has nice, simple books on how this
> works and you can save a bundle on lawyer fees.
>
> It is absolutely imperitive, however, that you do your homework on how
> this works in your local area. In my area, they (the local govt) handed
> out a free videotape on how the process works, but they did not
> guarantee that the process would be just like in the videotape and it
> wasn't.
>
> I know of a case where the outcome was not the way it should have been
> but the planning and excution of the plaintiff was flawed and might have
> killed the case.
>
> Local public libraries often have good books, written for the layperson,
> on how this **** works and people who are wise will check out, before
> **** happens, how things work.
>
> I have one book on "How to use a lawyer and what to do if things go
> wrong". Excellent, and was written by a lawyer. Also, be aware that
> lawyers really are primarily interested in making money and secondarily
> helping you.
I will appear at a pretrial hearing on 3/26, pro se because what I am
really trying to do is a class action lawsuit against criminal defense
lawers. Who are not trying to win the war on drugs, but as I've posted
many times on the net in recent years, trying to milk it.

I've been looking for some online source to check the proper way to
present documents in Arkansas criminal court. I've been reporting about
this at http://daybrown.org and if that reporting stops, you'll know I
am in jail.

Either way, the lawyers or the CEOs, it looks like the usual power
elites trying to get as much as they can from the system while the
getting is good cause they know it is going down. In a similar way, we
have Machiavelli saying that when a republic is on the skids, honorable
men no longer seek high office.

Day Brown[_4_]
March 22nd 09, 09:24 PM
Stray Dog wrote:
> I don't know, I'll expect by the end of the year at least one book on
> this. Maybe some already out.
Machiavelli wrote it some time back.
1- Aristocracies always corrupt republics.
a- fund the campaigns of demagogues who promise what we now call
'entitlements', who then make hidden deals to reduce taxes on the rich.
2- The tax burden gets shifted to the middle and lower classes, who are
soon broke (hence the housing bubble burst).
3- When the other classes no longer feel they have any investment left
in the system to protect, a demagogue arises from among the masses who
is given all power to seize the assets of the rich to rebalance the books.

After all, it only makes sense to tax the people who actually have the
money, the rich. Machiavelli noted that since the government cant get
blood from stones, and cant tax the rich, it borrows the money from them
to fulfill entitlements. Which works until some creditor sees that the
tax base will no longer service the debt, much less pay it off, so he
refuses to lend more.

Which means the security forces dont get paid, so they look for new
management willing to seize the money from whoever has it to pay them;
ie, the rich. So- your call. have the rich pay now, thru the nose to
stabilize the economy and government, or pay later- when they get
dragged out to be shot and all their assets get taken to gratify the
instinct for revenge on the part of the masses.

I really dont pretend to know, but I can see that the seizure of the
bonuses paid to management that does not perform profitably would go a
long ways twards making the masses more patient.

Stray Dog[_2_]
March 22nd 09, 11:28 PM
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009, Day Brown wrote:

> Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 15:18:06 -0500
> From: Day Brown >
> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
> misc.invest.stocks, alt.community
> Subject: Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>
> Stray Dog wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 21 Mar 2009, Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
>>
>>> Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 09:03:27 -0700
>>> From: Sir F. A. Rien >
>>> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
>>> misc.invest.stocks
>>> Subject: Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>>>
>>> David Bernier > found these unused words:
>>>
>>>> Stray Dog wrote:
>>>>>
>>
>>>>> no reason to doubt or from certain media sources (including several
>>>>> posts over years on a.c.c where some guy did some programming work and
>>>>> said "what can I do, they didn't pay me," and also on
>>>>> misc.legal.moderated, which is also a valuable source of real-life ****,
>>>>> including failure to pay for work, that happens).
> I'll havta look these up.
>> Nolo press (also on the internet) has nice, simple books on how this works
>> and you can save a bundle on lawyer fees.
>>
>> It is absolutely imperitive, however, that you do your homework on how this
>> works in your local area. In my area, they (the local govt) handed out a
>> free videotape on how the process works, but they did not guarantee that
>> the process would be just like in the videotape and it wasn't.
>>
>> I know of a case where the outcome was not the way it should have been but
>> the planning and excution of the plaintiff was flawed and might have killed
>> the case.
>>
>> Local public libraries often have good books, written for the layperson, on
>> how this **** works and people who are wise will check out, before ****
>> happens, how things work.
>>
>> I have one book on "How to use a lawyer and what to do if things go wrong".
>> Excellent, and was written by a lawyer. Also, be aware that lawyers really
>> are primarily interested in making money and secondarily helping you.
>
> I will appear at a pretrial hearing on 3/26, pro se because what I am really
> trying to do is a class action lawsuit against criminal defense lawers. Who
> are not trying to win the war on drugs, but as I've posted many times on the
> net in recent years, trying to milk it.

My assumption: they have more money and resources than you. Not good for
you.

> I've been looking for some online source to check the proper way to present
> documents in Arkansas criminal court. I've been reporting about this at
> http://daybrown.org and if that reporting stops, you'll know I am in jail.

Most criminal court proceedings should be open to the public, you could
have gone and watched.

> Either way, the lawyers or the CEOs, it looks like the usual power elites
> trying to get as much as they can from the system while the getting is good
> cause they know it is going down.

Someday people will wake up to the fact that we are living in a
plutocracy, and the plutocrats are wearing sheep-democracy clothing.

In a similar way, we have Machiavelli
> saying that when a republic is on the skids, honorable men no longer seek
> high office.

There are very few honorable men, even when a republic is not on the
skids.

Stray Dog[_2_]
March 22nd 09, 11:38 PM
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009, Day Brown wrote:

> Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 16:24:07 -0500
> From: Day Brown >
> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
> misc.invest.stocks, alt.community
> Subject: Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>
> Stray Dog wrote:
>> I don't know, I'll expect by the end of the year at least one book on this.
>> Maybe some already out.
>
> Machiavelli wrote it some time back.
> 1- Aristocracies always corrupt republics.

Short answer: kings/autocrats just dissolve parlaments if they want to.

> a- fund the campaigns of demagogues who promise what we now call
> 'entitlements', who then make hidden deals to reduce taxes on the rich.

Of course.... the rich always felt that it was "entitled" to get and keep
any money it ever wanted; as Leona Helmsley said "Only little people pay
taxes."

> 2- The tax burden gets shifted to the middle and lower classes, who are soon
> broke (hence the housing bubble burst).

Old reference: Kevin Phillips: "Wealth and Democracy" (all about how, in
the last couple decades, the rich got richer, the poor got poorer).

> 3- When the other classes no longer feel they have any investment left in the
> system to protect, a demagogue arises from among the masses who is given all
> power to seize the assets of the rich to rebalance the books.

Robin Hood? Or, were you thinking of--like--AIG, etc?

> After all, it only makes sense to tax the people who actually have the money,
> the rich. Machiavelli noted that since the government cant get blood from
> stones, and cant tax the rich, it borrows the money from them to fulfill
> entitlements. Which works until some creditor sees that the tax base will no
> longer service the debt, much less pay it off, so he refuses to lend more.

All depends on who the entitlements are supposed to be 'for.'

> Which means the security forces dont get paid, so they look for new
> management willing to seize the money from whoever has it to pay them; ie,
> the rich. So- your call. have the rich pay now, thru the nose to stabilize
> the economy and government, or pay later- when they get dragged out to be
> shot

It will never happen, tsk, tsk.

and all their assets get taken to gratify the instinct for revenge on
> the part of the masses.

I just wonder if there are any non-greedy employees at AIG, etc.?

> I really dont pretend to know, but I can see that the seizure of the bonuses
> paid to management that does not perform profitably would go a long ways
> twards making the masses more patient.

Despite the long, detailed answer....the short, sweet answer is why should
bonuses be paid inside an organization that does a ****y job in its own
business, AND expects the taxpayer to help pay the bonuses? So, they got
two strikes against them.

BobR
March 23rd 09, 02:13 AM
On Mar 21, 9:45*pm, "Rod Speed" > wrote:
> BobR wrote:
> > On Mar 20, 5:03 pm, solon fox > wrote:
> >> On Mar 16, 9:29 pm, BobR > wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 16, 6:23 pm, solon fox > wrote:
>
> >>>> On Mar 16, 5:59 pm, BobR > wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Mar 16, 5:10 pm, solon fox > wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On Mar 16, 3:29 pm, Stray Dog > wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> Front page, todays WSJ (Mar, 16), far right column entitled:
>
> >>>>>>> "AIG faces growing wrath over payouts"
>
> >>>>>>> It also says they are 80% owned by the US taxpayers and I was
> >>>>>>> wondering if that is true could I have my share of the money
> >>>>>>> back ? Or, if I own it, could we somehow fire those executives?
>
> >>>>>>> It also said "...about $450 million in bonus payments planned
> >>>>>>> for employees at a business unit that lost $40.5 billion last
> >>>>>>> year."
>
> >>>>>>> Um...I was just wondering in what Alice-in-Wonderland universe
> >>>>>>> do you get big bucks bonuses for ****ing up. Oh, pardon me, its
> >>>>>>> the universe of overpaid, overbonused, overprotected, and
> >>>>>>> overpampered CEOs and other greedy-selfish executives
>
> >>>>>>> Pardon my "negative" attitude.
>
> >>>>>> I understand the general public outrage at paying out bonuses
> >>>>>> over- pampered CEO's and other greedy, selfish executives, yet I
> >>>>>> am concerned at some of the assumptions. I don't know anything
> >>>>>> about the bonuses at AIG, whether they are justified or
> >>>>>> outrageous excesses.
>
> >>>>> In most corporations owned by the stockholders, those bonuses
> >>>>> would be
> >>>>> between the stockholders and the executives to work out. In the
> >>>>> case
> >>>>> of AIG or any other corporation that has dipped into the public
> >>>>> funds
> >>>>> for their survival or even maintenance of their profitability, any
> >>>>> bonus paid out is outrageously excessive and can not be justified
> >>>>> by
> >>>>> any argument.
>
> >>>> Since the government is a stakeholder, then the government does
> >>>> have the right to ask the questions. Stockholders, don't make bonus
> >>>> decisions directly, but that's beside the point. I understand what
> >>>> you meant.
>
> >>> Right and yes I know the stockholders do not have direct control but
> >>> they ultimately have a say.
>
> >>>> Where "bonuses" are part of the normal compensation package and
> >>>> given for true performance, then these are appropriate (with the
> >>>> exception of the egregiously offensive bonuses paid to CEO's and
> >>>> boards of failing companies).
>
> >>> If these so called bonuses are in fact commisions then state them as
> >>> such but that is not what they have been called. Bonus implies
> >>> compensation beyond the normal compensation generally for superior
> >>> performance.
>
> >>>> I really have no specific argument with the government demanding
> >>>> rationalization of these bonuses. I just think the politicians are
> >>>> stoking moral outrage without the facts. If these facts are
> >>>> available, they have yet to be reported.
>
> >>> I agree, the politicians including Obama will get all the mileage
> >>> out of their moral outrage that they can get. Despite that, they
> >>> owe a complete accounting to the public.
>
> >>>>>> What I do know about is where I work. My company has not
> >>>>>> received any bailouts and I don't expect it ever will. There
> >>>>>> have been layoffs and there have been reductions in salaries.
> >>>>>> What troubles me is the assumption that millions of dollars in
> >>>>>> bonuses translates to CEO's and senior executives stuffing their
> >>>>>> pockets. In my world, sales are made by whole teams of people
> >>>>>> working together and every sales person carries the title of
> >>>>>> sales executive. Performance bonuses are based on sales - the
> >>>>>> lifeblood of the company. Millions of dollars of bonuses are
> >>>>>> divided amongst hundreds of people who brought in the new
> >>>>>> business. Some have small salaries and must depend on these
> >>>>>> commissions, others have more reasonable salaries, but bonuses
> >>>>>> still make up a substantial portion of their overall
> >>>>>> compensation.
>
> >>>>> Would those same employees be expecting to receive their bonus if
> >>>>> they
> >>>>> had instead of bringing in new profitable business brought the
> >>>>> company
> >>>>> to a point of bankruptcy where only tax dollars would keep you
> >>>>> working?
>
> >>>>>> I could be wrong, but I sense that all this disdain for
> >>>>>> performance bonuses may be hurting real, working middle-class
> >>>>>> people who earned and have ever right to their compensation.
>
> >>>>> You could be wrong or you could be right but the taxpayers who are
> >>>>> footing the bill for bailing out AIG have every right to be angry
> >>>>> and
> >>>>> demand an end to these bonus payouts. Rather that money is coming
> >>>>> out
> >>>>> of my check today or tomorrow makes no difference, it will
> >>>>> eventually
> >>>>> have to be paid by every taxpayer.
>
> >>>>>> I still don't know whether the AIG bonuses are justifiable, but I
> >>>>>> haven't seen any details. I don't work there and I don't know
> >>>>>> their culture. But I don't see anyone asking the right questions
> >>>>>> to ascertain the nature of the bonuses - the clamor of
> >>>>>> condemnation is too loud. If there are people there who made bad
> >>>>>> decisions, they should be fired.
>
> >>>>> Your final statement said it all but then you seem to ignore that
> >>>>> thought in everything else you said. The people receiving these
> >>>>> bonuses are the same who got the company into this mess and now
> >>>>> they
> >>>>> are rewarded. This excuse that they have to pay the bonuses to
> >>>>> retain
> >>>>> the "talented" people is really sort of funny when you realize
> >>>>> that
> >>>>> those "talented" people drove their company into this mess, have
> >>>>> been
> >>>>> tainted by that fact and probably couldn't find another job now
> >>>>> anywhere. I sure as hell wouldn't consider hiring any of them.-
> >>>>> Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >>>> You're probably right. The AIG bonus scenario smells bad and there
> >>>> are probably excesses and people that should be fired.
>
> >>>> My point is simply to remember that there are other real people who
> >>>> aren't the evil-doers and don't deserve to be blamed.
>
> >>> I had many friends at Enron when they went down and I am well aware
> >>> that many good people paid the price for the excess of the Enron
> >>> leadership. That will be the case with AIG as well but that is all
> >>> the more reason to expect AIG to be forthcoming with clear and above
> >>> board disclosure of their activities.
>
> >>>> We do know that they haven't changed the CEO and principle
> >>>> officers. I think those people who are responsible should be fired.
>
> >>> That is something that I can't understand. Why have they been
> >>> maintained? Then to consider giving them bonuses on top of that is
> >>> just above comprehension.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> Well, some days have passed and we have all learned a bit more about
> >> the $165M in AIG bonuses.
>
> >> Although it is an unpopular position, the more that comes out, the
> >> more that I begin to think my suspicions are correct. The AIG
> >> employees are being used as scapegoats and their bonuses are probably
> >> well-deserved.
>
> >> The CEO, Edward Libby is a replacement CEO and brought on board
> >> specifically to clean up the mess. While we wish there were no mess,
> >> and no credit default swap line of business at all, the fact is that
> >> a magic wand can't make it all disappear. Those employees that are
> >> left in that business unit are needed to help in the clean up. While
> >> the business unit is to be blamed, those particular employees are
> >> part of the solution. It wasn't their idea to create the mess in the
> >> first place.
>
> >> Yes, someone should be held accountable. We have the right to demand
> >> accountability, but it is wrong to punish every employee without
> >> examination.
>
> >> Some of these bonuses are keyed on performance, and we do want them
> >> to perform, now more than ever. Some of these bonuses are related to
> >> incentives in order to retain the personnel necessary to clean it up.
>
> >> I will admit that it is possible that some of the $6.5M bonuses may
> >> be paid to individuals that need to be held accountable, but we can't
> >> condemn them without a fair hearing. I am sure that some of those
> >> people receiving the $1,000 performance pay bonuses are completely
> >> free of culpability in this mess. The point is that we don't just
> >> willy nilly set about condemnations without fair hearings on the
> >> matter.
>
> >> The Treasury department convinced Libby to come on board to clean up
> >> AIG and part of that means that he is responsible for the company and
> >> the investigation as to what went wrong and who is accountable. He
> >> needs those people to do that.
>
> >> You bring up Enron. We know there were employees at Enron that were
> >> unfairly tossed aside and lost everything. Do we have to repeat those
> >> mistakes with AIG? Can't we be a little more methodical and use a
> >> fair process to recoup money from those who actually are responsible?
>
> >> I see a mob mentality and our US Congress is leading the lynching
> >> party.
> > I just have to wonder what is being swept under the
> > rug while everyone is preoccupied with these bonuses?
>
> More fool you.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

More you fool.

Day Brown[_4_]
March 23rd 09, 06:42 AM
Stray Dog wrote:
> In a similar way, we have Machiavelli
>> saying that when a republic is on the skids, honorable men no longer
>> seek high office.
>
> There are very few honorable men, even when a republic is not on the skids.
Agreed, but even so, they may be smart enuf to see they'll be dragged
out and shot if they dont do something to make sheeple feel like they
still have some investment left in the system.

The only question now, is how much money to give back. Machiavelli says
it will not be enuf to forestall revolution.

joe james
March 23rd 09, 07:28 AM
Day Brown wrote:
> Stray Dog wrote:
>> In a similar way, we have Machiavelli
>>> saying that when a republic is on the skids, honorable men no longer
>>> seek high office.
>>
>> There are very few honorable men, even when a republic is not on the
>> skids.
> Agreed, but even so, they may be smart enuf to see they'll be dragged
> out and shot if they dont do something to make sheeple feel like they
> still have some investment left in the system.
>
> The only question now, is how much money to give back. Machiavelli says it will not be enuf to forestall revolution.

Have fun listing the revolutions we've had in decent democracies in modern times, fool.

Stray Dog[_2_]
March 23rd 09, 03:02 PM
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Day Brown wrote:

> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 01:42:50 -0500
> From: Day Brown >
> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
> misc.invest.stocks, alt.community
> Subject: Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>
> Stray Dog wrote:
>> In a similar way, we have Machiavelli
>>> saying that when a republic is on the skids, honorable men no longer seek
>>> high office.
>>
>> There are very few honorable men, even when a republic is not on the skids.
> Agreed, but even so, they may be smart enuf to see they'll be dragged out and
> shot if they dont do something to make sheeple feel like they still have some
> investment left in the system.

Well, I appreciate your sentiments but I'd rather avoid bloodshed.
Instead, I'd rather see an expansion of accountability on the part of
elected officials to the "people".

I think when these guys leave office, there should be an opportunity for
the people to give them a letter grade for their performance.

I would also have the option for a "bonus" (for good work) or a "penalty"
(for bad work) for politicians.

And, I would expand the option to _remove_ a guy from office if he made a
promise and then couldn't keep his promise and gave a bad explanation for
why he couldn't keep his promise.

> The only question now, is how much money to give back. Machiavelli says it
> will not be enuf to forestall revolution.

The plutocrats won't want to give any money back, but, instead, be able to
grab more and more, all the time.

Stray Dog[_2_]
March 23rd 09, 03:18 PM
Looks like Rod Speed is posting under a new alias: "joe james".......

See below.....

On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, joe james wrote:

> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:28:04 +1100
> From: joe james >
> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
> misc.invest.stocks, alt.community
> Subject: Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>
> Day Brown wrote:
>> Stray Dog wrote:
>>> In a similar way, we have Machiavelli
>>>> saying that when a republic is on the skids, honorable men no longer
>>>> seek high office.
>>>
>>> There are very few honorable men, even when a republic is not on the
>>> skids.
>> Agreed, but even so, they may be smart enuf to see they'll be dragged
>> out and shot if they dont do something to make sheeple feel like they
>> still have some investment left in the system.
>>
>> The only question now, is how much money to give back. Machiavelli says it will not be enuf to forestall revolution.
>
> Have fun listing the revolutions we've had in decent democracies
> in modern times, fool.

Easier to list the military juntas in Latin America that took over
democracies there.

Also, the democracy in pre-Nazi Germany was considered, at the time, the
most enlightened democracy in Europe, and still got taken over by a
radical minority.

And, in the USA, the president has the power to make executive orders, in
secret and classified secret, and under NSPD 51 (National Security
Presidential Directive) has the power to dissolve congress and install
himself as "king".

In the 1930s, in the USA (a modern "decent" democracy), there was an
attempt to seize the White House, as described in the book "The Plot to
Seize the White House" by Jules Archer, and is now available as a reprint
of the original now rare book. Another version of the story is authored by
a highly decorated Marine officer, Smedly Butler, in a short book: "War is
a Racket" which is an even more rare book. Google hits are easy to get on
this. This takeover, funded and initiatiated by rich interests in the USA,
is also supposed to be at least partly investigated by the US congress at
the time, and I've seen it mentioned in history books.

In ancient times, Athenian democracy was almost abolished by the oligarchs
(including the richest 400 in Athens) for a few weeks in an attempt to
install totalitarianism in Athens by coup. Read your history books for more
details on this fact. It is described in Thucydides' "The Peloponisian
War" which I read the translation of.

Rod Speed is king of ad-hominems, barron of low density styrofoam brain
cells, but nothing much else besides a generator of a lot of hot air.

John Galt[_2_]
March 23rd 09, 03:45 PM
Stray Dog wrote:
>
> Looks like Rod Speed is posting under a new alias: "joe james".......

Yea. He had another alias (I forget what) that he posted a response to
me under after that time I told you to "Plonk him. Everyone else does."

So, he'll move it around to get his junk through, apparently.

JG


>
> See below.....
>
> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, joe james wrote:
>
>> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:28:04 +1100
>> From: joe james >
>> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
>> misc.invest.stocks, alt.community
>> Subject: Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>>
>> Day Brown wrote:
>>> Stray Dog wrote:
>>>> In a similar way, we have Machiavelli
>>>>> saying that when a republic is on the skids, honorable men no longer
>>>>> seek high office.
>>>>
>>>> There are very few honorable men, even when a republic is not on the
>>>> skids.
>>> Agreed, but even so, they may be smart enuf to see they'll be dragged
>>> out and shot if they dont do something to make sheeple feel like they
>>> still have some investment left in the system.
>>>
>>> The only question now, is how much money to give back. Machiavelli
>>> says it will not be enuf to forestall revolution.
>>
>> Have fun listing the revolutions we've had in decent democracies
>> in modern times, fool.
>
> Easier to list the military juntas in Latin America that took over
> democracies there.
>
> Also, the democracy in pre-Nazi Germany was considered, at the time, the
> most enlightened democracy in Europe, and still got taken over by a
> radical minority.
>
> And, in the USA, the president has the power to make executive orders,
> in secret and classified secret, and under NSPD 51 (National Security
> Presidential Directive) has the power to dissolve congress and install
> himself as "king".
>
> In the 1930s, in the USA (a modern "decent" democracy), there was an
> attempt to seize the White House, as described in the book "The Plot to
> Seize the White House" by Jules Archer, and is now available as a
> reprint of the original now rare book. Another version of the story is
> authored by a highly decorated Marine officer, Smedly Butler, in a short
> book: "War is a Racket" which is an even more rare book. Google hits are
> easy to get on this. This takeover, funded and initiatiated by rich
> interests in the USA, is also supposed to be at least partly
> investigated by the US congress at the time, and I've seen it mentioned
> in history books.
>
> In ancient times, Athenian democracy was almost abolished by the
> oligarchs (including the richest 400 in Athens) for a few weeks in an
> attempt to install totalitarianism in Athens by coup. Read your history
> books for more
> details on this fact. It is described in Thucydides' "The Peloponisian
> War" which I read the translation of.
>
> Rod Speed is king of ad-hominems, barron of low density styrofoam brain
> cells, but nothing much else besides a generator of a lot of hot air.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Stray Dog[_2_]
March 23rd 09, 05:44 PM
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, John Galt wrote:

> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:45:07 -0500
> From: John Galt >
> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
> misc.invest.stocks, alt.community
> Subject: Re: # Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>
> Stray Dog wrote:
>>
>> Looks like Rod Speed is posting under a new alias: "joe james".......
>
> Yea. He had another alias (I forget what) that he posted a response to me
> under after that time I told you to "Plonk him. Everyone else does."

Yeah, but I notice that not "everyone" plonks him. He loves attention.
But, also, if there isn't a lot of good posts out there to deserve _my_
attention, then I have to read his low-quality-low-density crap after all.

I've noticed a few of his aliases, too. For a while he was using "1297"
too.

> So, he'll move it around to get his junk through, apparently.

Well, if you recognize his "style" (i.e. with stuff like "more fool you"
and "nopes" and "You're lying now" etc.) you can test your willpower to
resist answering him.

If you can't resist, then you can use his posts as "target practice" and
practice counter-insulting the guy (yeah, I know, it doesn't do any good).

Or, unlike him, you can use his posts as an intellectual challenge to set
the record straight (since Rod Speed is wrong so often), or show everone
else how much you know compared to him.

I think he has some form of dementia and/or Alzheimers, too. In addition
to symptoms of ADHD, bipolar, OCD, delusions of grandeur, etc. We get all
these highly repetitious "****wit" posts, same short sentences that are
inappropriate ad-hominem attacks (because his brain is all jammed up from
having the rug pulled out from under him, or he just can't think of an
appropriate response, so you get these ad hominems).

So, what else is new under the sun?

Rod Speed as "jack-in-the-box" that presses the release button from inside
the box?

You're welcome to practice amateur psychiatrist on him, too, you know.

;-)

P.S. says that the stock market is up today (as of an hour ago, anyway).

Have a nice day (Monday, right?), anyway.



> JG


SD

(woof-woof)

Rod Speed
March 23rd 09, 06:48 PM
Stray Dog wrote:
> joe james >
>> Day Brown wrote:
>>> Stray Dog wrote:
>>>> In a similar way, we have Machiavelli
>>>>> saying that when a republic is on the skids, honorable men no
>>>>> longer seek high office.

>>>> There are very few honorable men, even when a republic is not on the skids.

>>> Agreed, but even so, they may be smart enuf to see they'll be dragged out and shot if they dont do something to make
>>> sheeple feel like> they still have some investment left in the system.

>>> The only question now, is how much money to give back. Machiavelli says it will not be enuf to forestall revolution.

>> Have fun listing the revolutions we've had in decent democracies in modern times, fool.

> Easier to list the military juntas in Latin America that took over democracies there.

They aint the US republic, fool.

> Also, the democracy in pre-Nazi Germany was considered, at the time, the most enlightened democracy in Europe,

Only by fools when their parliament was actually stupid enough to vote itself out of existence.

> and still got taken over by a radical minority.

But didnt have a revolution, fool. That radical minority was elected, fool.

> And, in the USA, the president has the power to make executive
> orders, in secret and classified secret, and under NSPD 51 (National
> Security Presidential Directive) has the power to dissolve congress
> and install himself as "king".

That last is a bare faced lie. It aint constitutional and the
supremes would give any prez stupid enough to try it the
bums rush so fast that he wouldnt know what hit him.

> In the 1930s, in the USA (a modern "decent" democracy), there was an attempt to seize the White House, as described in
> the book "The Plot to Seize the White House" by Jules Archer, and is now available as a reprint of the original now
> rare book.

Nothing even remotely resembling anything like a revolution, fool.

> Another version of the story is authored by a highly decorated Marine officer, Smedly Butler, in a short book: "War is
> a Racket" which is an even more rare book. Google hits are easy to get on this. This takeover, funded and initiatiated
> by rich interests in the USA, is also supposed to be at least partly investigated by the US congress at the time, and
> I've seen it mentioned in history books.

Nothing even remotely resembling anything like a revolution, fool.

> In ancient times,

Taint modern times, fool.

Stray Dog[_2_]
March 23rd 09, 07:17 PM
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Rod Speed wrote:

> Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 05:48:05 +1100
> From: Rod Speed >
> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
> misc.invest.stocks, alt.community
> Subject: Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>
> Stray Dog wrote:
>> joe james >
>>> Day Brown wrote:
>>>> Stray Dog wrote:
>>>>> In a similar way, we have Machiavelli
>>>>>> saying that when a republic is on the skids, honorable men no
>>>>>> longer seek high office.
>

>
>>>> The only question now, is how much money to give back. Machiavelli says it will not be enuf to forestall revolution.
>
>>> Have fun listing the revolutions we've had in decent democracies
in modern times, fool.
>
>> Easier to list the military juntas in Latin America that took over democracies there.
>
> They aint the US republic, fool.

All you asked for was "decent democracies" and they had some in Latin
America.

>> Also, the democracy in pre-Nazi Germany was considered, at the time,
the most enlightened democracy in Europe,
>
> Only by fools when their parliament was actually stupid enough to vote itself out of existence.

No, the Nazi's seized power in spite of the parliament.

>> and still got taken over by a radical minority.
>
> But didnt have a revolution, fool. That radical minority was elected, fool.

Nope.

>> And, in the USA, the president has the power to make executive
>> orders, in secret and classified secret, and under NSPD 51 (National
>> Security Presidential Directive) has the power to dissolve congress
>> and install himself as "king".
>
> That last is a bare faced lie.

Its even (or at least was, I have not checked) on the White House website,
and I got my copy straight from there, but you can also google on nspd51
and get it from lots of other places.

It aint constitutional and the
> supremes would give any prez stupid enough to try it the
> bums rush so fast that he wouldnt know what hit him.

Lots of Bush 2 secret memos have been released recently. Also Ashcroft,
back around 9/11 days, set up a parrallel legal system so if terrorism is
involved, constitutional rights go evaporate.

Of course, we had Gitmo and torture, too.

>> In the 1930s, in the USA (a modern "decent" democracy), there was an attempt to seize the White House, as described in
>> the book "The Plot to Seize the White House" by Jules Archer, and is now available as a reprint of the original now
>> rare book.
>
> Nothing even remotely resembling anything like a revolution, fool.

It was well documented and they tried hard to get Butler to go along but
he always declined.

>> Another version of the story is authored by a highly decorated Marine officer, Smedly Butler, in a short book: "War is
>> a Racket" which is an even more rare book. Google hits are easy to get on this. This takeover, funded and initiatiated
>> by rich interests in the USA, is also supposed to be at least partly investigated by the US congress at the time, and
>> I've seen it mentioned in history books.
>
> Nothing even remotely resembling anything like a revolution, fool.

We even had Nixon try to establish a secret police in the White House, and
this is documented.

>> In ancient times,
>
> Taint modern times, fool.

It was a decent democracy, and it was temporarily ****ed, too.

The fool is actually you.

The Rod Speed FAQ (I didn't write it) for your viewing pleasure.....




The "Rod Speed FAQ" read it below or at the URL for yourself.....
- - - - - - - - -
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Alt/alt.internet.wireless/2006-07/ms
g00462.html
- - - - - - - - - -

After its recent emergence in the thread "How to calculate increase
of home wireless router range?", readers of this group may find
this useful. [based on a post in comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage]


Who or What is Rod Speed?

Rod Speed is an entirely modern phenomenon. Essentially, Rod
Speed is an insecure and worthless individual who has discovered
he can enhance his own self-esteem in his own eyes by playing "the
big, hard man" on the InterNet.

Rod is believed to be from Australia.


Rod certainly posts a lot. Why is that?

It relates back to the point about boosting his own self esteem by
what amounts to effectively having a wank in public. Rod's
personality, as exemplified by his posts, means he is practically
unemployable which means he sits around at home all day festering
away and getting worse and worse. This means he posts more and
more try and boost the old failing self esteem. Being unemployed
also means he as a lot of time on his hands to post in he first
place.


But maybe Rod really is a very clever and knowledgable person?

Clever? His posts wouldn't support that theory. As far as being
knowledgable, well, Rod has posted to various aus newsgroups
including invest, comms, and politics. He has posted to all as a
self professed "expert" and flames any and all who disagree with
him. Logically, here's no way any single individual could be
more than a jack of all trades across such a wide spread of
subject matter.


But maybe Rod really is an expert in some areas?

Possibly. However, his "bedside manner" prevents him from being
taken seriously by most normal people. Also, he has damaged his
credibility in areas where he might know what he's on about by
shooting his self in the foot in areas where he does not. For
example, in the case of subject matter such as politics, even a
view held by Albert Einstein cannot be little more than an
opinion and to vociferously denigrate an opposing opinion is
simply small mindedness and bigotry, the kind of which Einstein
himself fought against his whole life.


What is Rod Speed's main modus operandi?

Simple! He shoots off a half brained opinion in response to any
other post and touts that opinion as fact. When challenged, he
responds with vociferous and rabid denigration. He has an
instantly recognisable set of schoolboy put downs limited pretty
much to the following: "Pathetic, Puerile, Little Boy, try
harder, trivial, more lies, gutless wonder, ******, etc etc".
The fact that Rod has been unable to come up with any new insults
says a lot about his outlook and intelligence.


But why do so many people respond to Rod in turn?

It has to do with effrontery and a lack of logic. Most people
who post have some basis of reason for what they write and when
Rod retorts with his usual denigration and derision they respond
emotionally rather than logically. It's like a teacher in a
class room who has a misbehaving pupil. The teacher challenges
the pupil to explain himself and the student responds with "***
off, Big Nose!" Even thought the teacher has a fairly normal
proboscis, he gets a dent in his self-esteem and might resort to
an emotional repsonse like "yeah? well your *** wouldn't fill a
pop rivet, punk", which merely invites some oneupmanship from the
naughty pupil. Of course, the teacher should not have justified
the initial comment with a response, especially in front of the
class. The correct response was "please report to the
headmaster's office right NOW!"


What is a "RodBot"?

Some respondents in aus.invest built a "virtual Rod" which was
indiscernable from the "real" Rod. Net users could enter an
opinion or even a fact and the RoDBot would tell them they were
pathetic lying schoolboys who should be able to do better or some
equally pithy Rod Speedism.


Are you saying that Rod Speed is a Troll?

You got it!


What is the best way to handle Rod Speed?

KillFile!

..

Day Brown[_4_]
March 23rd 09, 07:18 PM
Stray Dog wrote:
> The plutocrats won't want to give any money back, but, instead, be able
> to grab more and more, all the time.
They didnt wanna give bread away in Rome either, but remembered times
when mobs
gathered in the streets to then attack and loot their mansions.

Perhaps you recall, how after Crassus became the world's first
millionaire by manipulating the grain market and bankrupting farmers all
over Italy, there were riots in the streets over the prices his monopoly
offered. It got so bad they hadda call in a general with his legions to
restore order. Some dude named Caesar.

SO- now the question is whether today's plutocrats know enuf history to
see the danger, and whether they'll pony up the money to stop the slide.
I just dunno. The Mandarins never knew there was a problem til the
bricks in the palace wall started flying over it.

ITs not something I advocate. It'd disrupt agribusiness and that'll
result in mass starvation.

Stray Dog[_2_]
March 23rd 09, 07:46 PM
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Day Brown wrote:

> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:18:32 -0500
> From: Day Brown >
> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
> misc.invest.stocks, alt.community
> Subject: Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>
> Stray Dog wrote:
>> The plutocrats won't want to give any money back, but, instead, be able to
>> grab more and more, all the time.
>
> They didnt wanna give bread away in Rome either, but remembered times when
> mobs
> gathered in the streets to then attack and loot their mansions.

Well, at one time they did have a "grain dole" in Rome, so to some degree
and for some (small) period of time, they did have some kind of "welfare"
publically supported.

However, as I read all these books I have I notice that there really were
a lot of revolts and rebellions and for economic issues such as over
taxation, unfair taxation (eg. the rich did not have to pay taxes), etc.

> Perhaps you recall, how after Crassus became the world's first millionaire by
> manipulating the grain market and bankrupting farmers all over Italy,

OK, I don't remember that specific guy....

there
> were riots in the streets over the prices his monopoly offered. It got so bad
> they hadda call in a general with his legions to restore order. Some dude
> named Caesar.

But, over a thousand years earlier, the workers on the Pharo's pyramids
went on strike (as written down) when food price inflation was higher than
wages, and IIRC, the pharo finally buckled under that protest and did
something to answer the strike.

> SO- now the question is whether today's plutocrats know enuf history to see
> the danger, and whether they'll pony up the money to stop the slide.

After all I have read, the plutocrats almost never give a **** about
anything except their own asses. If you want any kind of fairness, you
have to depend on a rare politician who can get a law, of some kind, on
the books.

I just
> dunno.

Happily, I can say that there actually really were, in history, some good
kings and good emperors and during those times a majority of what was
written down about them was good and the people were generally happy.

The Mandarins never knew there was a problem til the bricks in the
> palace wall started flying over it.

Well, another "process" was the so-called "French Revolution" which
basically blew up the "old order" and replaced it with things, including
Napoleon, who might have given a few things to the French people but made
a lot of trouble for others. And, then we had Hitler. And, of course, the
English made a lot of trouble for nearby peoples over many centuries, too.
Don't forget Spain/Portugal (1500s on to early 1800s). Then, last century
it was US vs USSR, and lots of tension and stress (to say the least).

> ITs not something I advocate. It'd disrupt agribusiness and that'll result in
> mass starvation.

As much as I am mad about a lot of injustice and unfairness in the world,
I think we really do NOT want anything like "revolutions" like in
Moscow/Russia back in 1917+/- where things get bloody and widespread
disruptions and imposition of bad/totalitarian brutal force. And, I hope
we don't get any more 9/11-stuff, too.

March 23rd 09, 08:46 PM
On 18 mrt, 21:59, "Rod Speed" > wrote:
> Han de Bruijnwrote:
> > Stray Dog wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009,Han de Bruijnwrote:
>
> >>> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 09:01:35 +0100
> >>> From:Han de >
> >>> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants,sci.econ,
> >>> * * alt.politics.economics, misc.invest.stocks
> >>> Subject: Re: ## Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>
> >>> Stray Dog wrote:
>
> >>>> On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, thunder wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Still a contractual obligation, so they cant just refuse to pay
> >>>>>> it if its been contracted.
>
> >>>>> Without getting into whether they should or shouldn't be paid,
> >>>>> contractual obligations are not written in stone. *You'll note
> >>>>> that the autoworkers union just renegotiated their contracts
> >>>>> under the gun. Contracts *are* renegotiated all of the time.
>
> >>>> This is a very good point. Yes, I've heard of this, too. And, you
> >>>> also have the real situation, too, where people just walk away
> >>>> from a contract and say "OK, sue me," too. And, for lots of
> >>>> situations, it's best to just write off the losses.
>
> >>> If all the important decisions are made by the Money we Have, and
> >>> not by the Humans we Are, then what is there to complain ? What if
> >>> the world is ruled by money, rather than by humans ? We cannot even
> >>> do "what is best" then, because _we_ are simply not in charge. Our
> >>> money has overruled us.
>
> >> I think I understand what you mean. Here, below, are bits and pieces
> >> I typed up from a book I read a few years ago that I thought was
> >> interesting, and you might get something out of some of these bits
> >> and pieces, too. I think about this stuff all the time.
>
> > [ .. lengthy add-on snipped .. ]
>
> > I have a much older reference, actually.
>
> > Many people do not understand, at all, that money isn't the measure of
> > everything in the cosmos. They do not understand that money is created
> > by people. And that bowing for money is beneath our dignity as a human
> > being. It's already in the first few of the Ten Commandments, as can
> > be read in the Bible, e.g. Exodus 20:1-17.
>
> > 3. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
>
> > 4. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of
> > * *any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath,
> > * *or that is in the water under the earth:
>
> > 5. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: [ ... ]
>
> > _Much_ emphasis is on these first few of the 10 commandments and I
> > think that's not by coincidence. Bowing for a creation of our own
> > hands is not only beneath our dignity, but it is extremely
> > _dangerous_ as well. There is not a chance that we can survive such a
> > heathen, uncivilized custom.
>
> Odd that so many heathens did for millennia and hordes of them still do.
>
> > Note that one doesn't have to be a Christian or a Jew to appreciate the truth of "Thou shalt not bow down thyself for
> > a thing of thy own hands" (hope I oldified that correctly).
>
> There is no such word as oldified in english.http://onelook.com/?w=oldifiedhttp://onelook.com/?w=oldify

http://onelook.com/?w=factorys
http://onelook.com/?w=countrys

?

Han de Bruijn

Rod Speed
March 23rd 09, 08:54 PM
Stray Dog wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Stray Dog wrote:
>>> joe james >
>>>> Day Brown wrote:
>>>>> Stray Dog wrote:

>>>>>> In a similar way, we have Machiavelli saying that when a republic is on the skids, honorable men no longer seek
>>>>>> high office.

>>>>> The only question now, is how much money to give back.
>>>>> Machiavelli says it will not be enuf to forestall revolution.

>>>> Have fun listing the revolutions we've had in decent democracies in modern times, fool.

>>> Easier to list the military juntas in Latin America that took over democracies there.

>> They aint the US republic, fool.

> All you asked for was "decent democracies" and they had some in Latin America.

Pity not one of them had a revolution, ****wit.

>>> Also, the democracy in pre-Nazi Germany was considered, at the time, the most enlightened democracy in Europe,

>> Only by fools when their parliament was actually stupid enough to vote itself out of existence.

> No,

Yep.

> the Nazi's seized power in spite of the parliament.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a ****ing clue about even the most basic history.

And that wasnt a revolution anyway, fool.

>>> and still got taken over by a radical minority.

>> But didnt have a revolution, fool. That radical minority was elected, fool.

> Nope.

Yep.

>>> And, in the USA, the president has the power to make executive
>>> orders, in secret and classified secret, and under NSPD 51 (National Security Presidential Directive) has the power
>>> to dissolve congress and install himself as "king".

>> That last is a bare faced lie.

> Its even (or at least was, I have not checked) on the White House
> website, and I got my copy straight from there, but you can also
> google on nspd51 and get it from lots of other places.

Doesnt mean that the prez has the power to do that, fool.

>> It aint constitutional and the supremes would give any prez stupid enough to try it the bums rush so fast that he
>> wouldnt know what hit him.

> Lots of Bush 2 secret memos have been released recently.

Irrelevant to what the supremes would do to any prez stupid enough to try that.

> Also Ashcroft, back around 9/11 days, set up a parrallel legal system so if terrorism is involved, constitutional
> rights go evaporate.

The supremes wouldnt allow that either, fool.

> Of course, we had Gitmo and torture, too.

Nothing like your stupid claim about a prez declaring itself king.

>>> In the 1930s, in the USA (a modern "decent" democracy), there was
>>> an attempt to seize the White House, as described in the book "The
>>> Plot to Seize the White House" by Jules Archer, and is now
>>> available as a reprint of the original now rare book.

>> Nothing even remotely resembling anything like a revolution, fool.

> It was well documented and they tried hard to get Butler to go along but he always declined.

Nothing even remotely resembling anything like a revolution, fool.

>>> Another version of the story is authored by a highly decorated
>>> Marine officer, Smedly Butler, in a short book: "War is a Racket"
>>> which is an even more rare book. Google hits are easy to get on
>>> this. This takeover, funded and initiatiated by rich interests in
>>> the USA, is also supposed to be at least partly investigated by the
>>> US congress at the time, and I've seen it mentioned in history books.

>> Nothing even remotely resembling anything like a revolution, fool.

> We even had Nixon try to establish a secret police in the White House, and this is documented.

Nothing even remotely resembling anything like a revolution, fool.

>>> In ancient times,

>> Taint modern times, fool.

> It was a decent democracy, and it was temporarily ****ed, too.

Taint modern times, fool.

Rod Speed
March 23rd 09, 09:57 PM
wrote:
> On 18 mrt, 21:59, "Rod Speed" > wrote:
>> Han de Bruijnwrote:
>>> Stray Dog wrote:
>>
>>>> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009,Han de Bruijnwrote:
>>
>>>>> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 09:01:35 +0100
>>>>> From:Han de >
>>>>> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants,sci.econ,
>>>>> alt.politics.economics, misc.invest.stocks
>>>>> Subject: Re: ## Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>>
>>>>> Stray Dog wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, thunder wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> Still a contractual obligation, so they cant just refuse to pay
>>>>>>>> it if its been contracted.
>>
>>>>>>> Without getting into whether they should or shouldn't be paid,
>>>>>>> contractual obligations are not written in stone. You'll note
>>>>>>> that the autoworkers union just renegotiated their contracts
>>>>>>> under the gun. Contracts *are* renegotiated all of the time.
>>
>>>>>> This is a very good point. Yes, I've heard of this, too. And, you
>>>>>> also have the real situation, too, where people just walk away
>>>>>> from a contract and say "OK, sue me," too. And, for lots of
>>>>>> situations, it's best to just write off the losses.
>>
>>>>> If all the important decisions are made by the Money we Have, and
>>>>> not by the Humans we Are, then what is there to complain ? What if
>>>>> the world is ruled by money, rather than by humans ? We cannot
>>>>> even do "what is best" then, because _we_ are simply not in
>>>>> charge. Our money has overruled us.
>>
>>>> I think I understand what you mean. Here, below, are bits and
>>>> pieces I typed up from a book I read a few years ago that I
>>>> thought was interesting, and you might get something out of some
>>>> of these bits and pieces, too. I think about this stuff all the
>>>> time.
>>
>>> [ .. lengthy add-on snipped .. ]
>>
>>> I have a much older reference, actually.
>>
>>> Many people do not understand, at all, that money isn't the measure
>>> of
>>> everything in the cosmos. They do not understand that money is
>>> created
>>> by people. And that bowing for money is beneath our dignity as a
>>> human
>>> being. It's already in the first few of the Ten Commandments, as can
>>> be read in the Bible, e.g. Exodus 20:1-17.
>>
>>> 3. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
>>
>>> 4. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness
>>> of
>>> any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath,
>>> or that is in the water under the earth:
>>
>>> 5. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: [ ... ]
>>
>>> _Much_ emphasis is on these first few of the 10 commandments and I
>>> think that's not by coincidence. Bowing for a creation of our own
>>> hands is not only beneath our dignity, but it is extremely
>>> _dangerous_ as well. There is not a chance that we can survive such
>>> a
>>> heathen, uncivilized custom.
>>
>> Odd that so many heathens did for millennia and hordes of them still
>> do.
>>
>>> Note that one doesn't have to be a Christian or a Jew to appreciate
>>> the truth of "Thou shalt not bow down thyself for a thing of thy
>>> own hands" (hope I oldified that correctly).

>> There is no such word as oldified in english.
>> http://onelook.com/?w=oldifiedhttp://onelook.com/?w=oldify

> http://onelook.com/?w=factorys
> http://onelook.com/?w=countrys

I choose to spell that way. You get to like that or lump it.

Tim Bruening
March 23rd 09, 10:17 PM
alexy wrote:

> Tim Bruening > wrote:
>
> >Bonuses went to 11 people who no longer work for AIG. How can bonuses
> >be required to be paid to ex-employees?
>
> By contract. Valid questions can be raised about how well-designed
> such a comp system might be, particularly as it relates to the
> retention objective. But the question above shows incredible naivete.
> Almost all employees receive payment, after they leave a job, for
> services performed while they are on the job.

Its my understanding that the bonuses were "retention" bonuses. This would seem
to mean that if the executive recieving the bonus does not stay with his company,
he/she should return said bonus, since he/she isn't being "retained".

Tim Bruening
March 23rd 09, 10:20 PM
BobR wrote:

> On Mar 18, 3:06 am, Tim Bruening > wrote:
> > Bonuses went to 11 people who no longer work for AIG. How can bonuses
> > be required to be paid to ex-employees?
>
> They were retention bonuses. Didn't you know that? <BG>

Since those 11 did not stay "retained", how can they keep their "retention"
bonuses?

Stray Dog[_2_]
March 23rd 09, 10:21 PM
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Rod Speed wrote:

> Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 07:54:27 +1100
> From: Rod Speed >
> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
> misc.invest.stocks, alt.community
> Subject: Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>

>>>>> Have fun listing the revolutions we've had in decent democracies in modern times, fool.
>
>>>> Easier to list the military juntas in Latin America that took over democracies there.
>
>>> They aint the US republic, fool.
>
>> All you asked for was "decent democracies" and they had some in Latin America.
>
> Pity not one of them had a revolution, ****wit.

They called them military takeovers. Power flows suddenly from one part of
a country to another part, suddenly, and under force? Yeah, I'd call it a
revolution.

>>>> Also, the democracy in pre-Nazi Germany was considered, at the time, the most enlightened democracy in Europe,
>
>>> Only by fools when their parliament was actually stupid enough to vote itself out of existence.
>
>> No,
>
> Yep.

No.

>> the Nazi's seized power in spite of the parliament.
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
> never ever had a ****ing clue about even the most basic history.

Its in the books.

> And that wasnt a revolution anyway, fool.

A radical minority takes over a whole country?

You mean, like, Fidel Castro, with less than 200 guerillas taking over
Cuba is not a revolution?

>>>> and still got taken over by a radical minority.
>
>>> But didnt have a revolution, fool. That radical minority was elected, fool.
>
>> Nope.
>
> Yep.

Nope.

>>>> And, in the USA, the president has the power to make executive
>>>> orders, in secret and classified secret, and under NSPD 51 (National Security Presidential Directive) has the power
>>>> to dissolve congress and install himself as "king".
>
>>> That last is a bare faced lie.
>
>> Its even (or at least was, I have not checked) on the White House
>> website, and I got my copy straight from there, but you can also
>> google on nspd51 and get it from lots of other places.
>
> Doesnt mean that the prez has the power to do that, fool.

Presidents have been issuing executive orders going back a long time, and
more recently writing "presidential statements" on laws passed by congress
so that the president doesn't have to obey them.

Just go look it up.

>>> It aint constitutional and the supremes would give any prez stupid enough to try it the bums rush so fast that he
>>> wouldnt know what hit him.
>
>> Lots of Bush 2 secret memos have been released recently.
>
> Irrelevant to what the supremes would do to any prez stupid
enough to try that.

"Secret" means congress and the people never got to see or discuss them.

>> Also Ashcroft, back around 9/11 days, set up a parrallel legal system so if terrorism is involved, constitutional
>> rights go evaporate.
>
> The supremes wouldnt allow that either, fool.

They already did, and Gito is one proof of it.

>> Of course, we had Gitmo and torture, too.
>
> Nothing like your stupid claim about a prez declaring itself king.

Ever read what the CIA and NSA does?

>>>> In the 1930s, in the USA (a modern "decent" democracy), there was
>>>> an attempt to seize the White House, as described in the book "The
>>>> Plot to Seize the White House" by Jules Archer, and is now
>>>> available as a reprint of the original now rare book.
>
>>> Nothing even remotely resembling anything like a revolution, fool.
>
>> It was well documented and they tried hard to get Butler to go along but he always declined.
>
> Nothing even remotely resembling anything like a revolution, fool.

I read the book, you didn't. Otherwise you'd know what I was talking
about.

>>>> Another version of the story is authored by a highly decorated
>>>> Marine officer, Smedly Butler, in a short book: "War is a Racket"
>>>> which is an even more rare book. Google hits are easy to get on
>>>> this. This takeover, funded and initiatiated by rich interests in
>>>> the USA, is also supposed to be at least partly investigated by the
>>>> US congress at the time, and I've seen it mentioned in history books.
>
>>> Nothing even remotely resembling anything like a revolution, fool.
>
>> We even had Nixon try to establish a secret police in the White House, and this is documented.
>
> Nothing even remotely resembling anything like a revolution, fool.

You never heard of the "Pentagon Papers" either, I can tell.

>>>> In ancient times,
>
>>> Taint modern times, fool.
>
>> It was a decent democracy, and it was temporarily ****ed, too.
>
> Taint modern times, fool.

Just shows that they could have big problems, too.

See, I've just today, kicked your ass all over these newsgroups, and
kicked it good.

And, that is because you are not only impolite, but are rapidly forgetting
anything you know or learned.

And, your brain is falling apart, too.

Alzheimers, dementia, oppositional-defiant, Adult-ADHD?

Nervous breakdown or post traumatic stress syndrome?

Tim Bruening
March 23rd 09, 10:21 PM
alexy wrote:

> -=DirtBag© > wrote:
>
> >BobR wrote:
> >> On Mar 18, 3:06 am, Tim Bruening > wrote:
> >>> Bonuses went to 11 people who no longer work for AIG. How can bonuses
> >>> be required to be paid to ex-employees?
> >>
> >> They were retention bonuses. Didn't you know that? <BG>
> >
> >Well did they retain them or not?
>
> Presumably they retained them for the period that the retention
> agreements called for. Or are you also under the impression that
> retention bonuses are paid in advance in the hope that someone will be
> retained for a period after the bonuses are paid?

It's my understanding that those 11 left very shorty after getting the retention
bonuses.

Tim Bruening
March 23rd 09, 10:29 PM
Rod Speed wrote:

> Tim Bruening wrote:
>
> > Bonuses went to 11 people who no longer work for AIG.
> > How can bonuses be required to be paid to ex-employees?
>
> When that is what was contracted.

AIG contracted to pay retention bonuses to people who aren't retained?

Rod Speed
March 23rd 09, 11:14 PM
Tim Bruening wrote:
> Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> Tim Bruening wrote:
>>
>>> Bonuses went to 11 people who no longer work for AIG.
>>> How can bonuses be required to be paid to ex-employees?
>>
>> When that is what was contracted.
>
> AIG contracted to pay retention bonuses to people who aren't retained?

There was a hell of a lot more than just retention bonuses paid.

Rod Speed[_2_]
March 23rd 09, 11:15 PM
Some gutless ****wit psychopath with pathetic psychotic
delusions about being a dog, desperately cowering behind
Stray Dog desperately attempted to bull**** and lie its way out
of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.

No surprise that it got the bums rush, right out the door, onto its lard arse.

No surprise that its so pathetically bitter and twisted about it.

Day Brown[_4_]
March 23rd 09, 11:22 PM
Stray Dog wrote:
>> Perhaps you recall, how after Crassus became the world's first
>> millionaire by manipulating the grain market and bankrupting farmers
>> all over Italy,
>
> OK, I don't remember that specific guy....
Gibbon, "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" had fun with it. He
had his cronies appointed grain inspectors on the docks at Ostia. Told
to be assiduous in checking for vermin, ships were held up, and the
supply in Rome got short. So, the price rose.

Then, as farmers heard and then loaded up oxcarts to bring grain, he
told his cronies to release the ships, so that when the farmers arrive
the market is glutted.

The senate was delighted; all the bankrupted farms were bought up and
consolidated into landed estates for villas. Or as we now say,
"McMansions". And thanx to Crassus, we have "crass".

> After all I have read, the plutocrats almost never give a **** about
> anything except their own asses. If you want any kind of fairness, you
> have to depend on a rare politician who can get a law, of some kind, on
> the books.
Fat chance. Gibbon also reports the aristocracy encouraged immigration
to Rome from tribes that lacked strong republican traditions. The rich
funded the campaigns of demagogues who could say one thing to the new
immigrants in their language, but another in Latin to Romans.

> Happily, I can say that there actually really were, in history, some
> good kings and good emperors and during those times a majority of what
> was written down about them was good and the people were generally happy.
Gibbon cites the published letter of Julian the Apostate, the last non-
Christian emperor, who plainly says he is an apostle of Aristotle and
Plato. While governor of Gaul, he tried to clean up the corruption for
the benefit of the lower classes and the whole economy.

Julian was somewhat out of the loop of Constantine's Christian heirs,
who in classic Christian fashion, assassinated until only Julian was
left. When he took over he endowed the Athenian academies to collect and
collate pagan myth to extract the *allegorical truth*; in sharp contrast
to the unsupported claims of literal truth in scripture.

But in order to be the kind of rare politician you refer to, to get the
moral and military authority to clean up the system, he invaded Persia
to recover parts of the empire, and was unfortunately killed in battle
after only 14 months in office.

> disruptions and imposition of bad/totalitarian brutal force. And, I hope
> we don't get any more 9/11-stuff, too.
Oh, we wont. The failure of the 'intelligence community' to deal with
the 911 plot has made the CIA, like the Praetorians, clean up their act.
They mite like to take out Obama like they did JFK, but no doubt are
aware that the VP would then be endowed with even more power to act. I
am sure Biden knows a lot more about how to get things done in DC. And a
lot more about where the skeletons are hid.

And if they took out both Biden & Obama, then they'd get Hillary, who'd
really clean their clocks. Praetorians murdered so many emperors that
the rulers eventually figured it out, and quit ruling from Rome.

Interestingly, Gibbon notes that all the emperors who grew up in Rome
were disasters. Caligula and Nero come to mind. But all the really good
emperors you refer to were born and raised on farms out in the boonies.

There is modern neurological data to suggest why.

Stray Dog[_2_]
March 23rd 09, 11:39 PM
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Rod Speed wrote:

> Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:15:24 +1100
> From: Rod Speed >
> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
> misc.invest.stocks
> Subject: Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>
> Some gutless ****wit psychopath with pathetic psychotic
> delusions about being a dog, desperately cowering behind
> Stray Dog desperately attempted to bull**** and lie its way out
> of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.
>
> No surprise that it got the bums rush, right out the door, onto its lard arse.
>
> No surprise that its so pathetically bitter and twisted about it.

Oh, you are so smart.

You know how to copy and paste, or you have memorized a repetitive phrase,
word for word, and can type it very fast.

Here, at my end, its just two keystrokes ... and ...presto...look below...

(Unix shell accounts....there is no comparison)

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009, Rod Speed wrote:

> Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 11:20:55 +1100
> From: Rod Speed >
> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics
> Subject: Re: Hey, Rob R, read this....
>
> Some gutless ****wit psychopath with pathetic psychotic
> delusions about being a dog, desperately cowering behind
> Stray Dog desperately attempted to bull**** and lie its way out
> of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.
>
> No surprise that it got the bums rush, right out the door, onto its lard
> arse.
>
> No surprise that its so pathetically bitter and twisted about it.
>
>
>

Rod Speed
March 23rd 09, 11:44 PM
Some gutless ****wit psychopath with pathetic psychotic
delusions about being a dog, desperately cowering behind
Stray Dog desperately attempted to bull**** and lie its way out
of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.

No surprise that it got the bums rush, right out the door, onto its lard arse.

No surprise that its so pathetically bitter and twisted about it.

Stray Dog[_2_]
March 24th 09, 12:02 AM
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Day Brown wrote:

> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:22:02 -0500
> From: Day Brown >
> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
> misc.invest.stocks, alt.community
> Subject: Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>
> Stray Dog wrote:
>>> Perhaps you recall, how after Crassus became the world's first millionaire
>>> by manipulating the grain market and bankrupting farmers all over Italy,
>>
>> OK, I don't remember that specific guy....
>
> Gibbon, "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" had fun with it. He
> had his cronies appointed grain inspectors on the docks at Ostia. Told to be
> assiduous in checking for vermin, ships were held up, and the supply in Rome
> got short. So, the price rose.

Brilliant. Really brilliant. I'm not surprised.

> Then, as farmers heard and then loaded up oxcarts to bring grain, he told his
> cronies to release the ships, so that when the farmers arrive
> the market is glutted.

So, there's really not much going on today that wasn't going on way back
then, eh?

> The senate was delighted; all the bankrupted farms were bought up and
> consolidated into landed estates for villas. Or as we now say, "McMansions".
> And thanx to Crassus, we have "crass".

And, let me tell you one, in return. I read two economic history books
recently about the USA, one started around 1770s, or when we did Decl. of
Independ., and the other one started back in 1550s. Actually a lot of
overlap with another US history book by Charles and Mary Beard (who are
famous by the way). Turns out the robber-barrons were right here, right
from the beginning. Kings of England were running imperialism up and down
the east coast of the USA all the way up to 1776 when, for some years
before that date, the kings tried to increase taxes and extract stuff from
us and "the people" got fed up and told the king to screw off. Yes, the
robber-barrons were here in the 1500s AD, and all along, right along.

>> After all I have read, the plutocrats almost never give a **** about
>> anything except their own asses. If you want any kind of fairness, you have
>> to depend on a rare politician who can get a law, of some kind, on the
>> books.
>
> Fat chance. Gibbon also reports the aristocracy encouraged immigration to
> Rome from tribes that lacked strong republican traditions. The rich funded
> the campaigns of demagogues who could say one thing to the new
> immigrants in their language, but another in Latin to Romans.

Scheming and conniving. I call it the "tricky-cheaty-sneaky" stuff.

>> Happily, I can say that there actually really were, in history, some good
>> kings and good emperors and during those times a majority of what was
>> written down about them was good and the people were generally happy.
>
> Gibbon cites the published letter of Julian the Apostate, the last non-
> Christian emperor, who plainly says he is an apostle of Aristotle and Plato.
> While governor of Gaul, he tried to clean up the corruption for the benefit
> of the lower classes and the whole economy.

I read a book about ancient Sumer (pronounced "soomer" by the way) which
was about where central iraq is now and going east quite a bit. All back
4,000 years ago. They had a lot of the same thing: bad kings and some good
kings.

> Julian was somewhat out of the loop of Constantine's Christian heirs, who in
> classic Christian fashion, assassinated until only Julian was left. When he
> took over he endowed the Athenian academies to collect and collate pagan myth
> to extract the *allegorical truth*; in sharp contrast to the unsupported
> claims of literal truth in scripture.

OK

> But in order to be the kind of rare politician you refer to, to get the moral
> and military authority to clean up the system, he invaded Persia to recover
> parts of the empire, and was unfortunately killed in battle after only 14
> months in office.

Well, a lot of kings and emperors suffered from homicide, even by members
of their own families. From various sources, about 1/3 to as much as 1/2
of kings and emperors were poisoned or assasinated, and everywhere from
various places in England/Scotland all over to Chinese emperors. All kinds
of reasons. I even finished a book couple months ago that there were at
least about three dozen attempts to kill Hitler (too bad they all failed,
eh?) and most of them that were investigated felt that the perp felt that
Hitler was taking Germany down the wrong path.

>> disruptions and imposition of bad/totalitarian brutal force. And, I hope we
>> don't get any more 9/11-stuff, too.
>
> Oh, we wont. The failure of the 'intelligence community' to deal with the 911
> plot has made the CIA, like the Praetorians, clean up their act.

Nice idea, but I'd vote against the effectiveness. Big bureaucracies will
always be big bureaucracies. But, one thing we have now are these vast-big
spy databases on everyone. Big Brother (1984) is here, already. Cameras
going up everywhere.

> They mite like to take out Obama like they did JFK, but no doubt are aware
> that the VP would then be endowed with even more power to act. I am sure
> Biden knows a lot more about how to get things done in DC.

Well, they have Hillary and Emmanuel and etc., to help, too. I'm really
neutral about all of them. The depression is more important than anything
else right now.

And a lot more
> about where the skeletons are hid.

Maybe, I don't know the guy. I don't follow politician details that much.
They usually disappoint me. And, I could never be a politician; you have
to have a good lie-schmooze smoothness and be so careful about gaffs.

> And if they took out both Biden & Obama, then they'd get Hillary, who'd
> really clean their clocks. Praetorians murdered so many emperors that the
> rulers eventually figured it out, and quit ruling from Rome.

Oh, is that why they split the empire around 300 into a Western and
Eastern Empire?

> Interestingly, Gibbon notes that all the emperors who grew up in Rome were
> disasters. Caligula and Nero come to mind.

Those two were really bad guys.

But all the really good emperors
> you refer to were born and raised on farms out in the boonies.

I didn't take notes when I read all that stuff.

> There is modern neurological data to suggest why.

Oh, I'll pass on that because articles keep coming out that contradict
each other, but I appreciate your interest. I'm too old to worry about
cholesterol.

Thanks for the fills from Gibbon. Another good book I read was:
"The

alexy
March 24th 09, 04:16 PM
Tim Bruening > wrote:

>
>
>alexy wrote:
>
>> Tim Bruening > wrote:
>>
>> >Bonuses went to 11 people who no longer work for AIG. How can bonuses
>> >be required to be paid to ex-employees?
>>
>> By contract. Valid questions can be raised about how well-designed
>> such a comp system might be, particularly as it relates to the
>> retention objective. But the question above shows incredible naivete.
>> Almost all employees receive payment, after they leave a job, for
>> services performed while they are on the job.
>
>Its my understanding that the bonuses were "retention" bonuses. This would seem
>to mean that if the executive recieving the bonus does not stay with his company,
>he/she should return said bonus, since he/she isn't being "retained".

Retention bonuses are typically designed to assure employment for a
certain period of time, and are paid only AFTER the employee stays for
the specified time. They are not paid in HOPE that an individual will
stay.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

alexy
March 24th 09, 04:18 PM
Tim Bruening > wrote:

>
>
>alexy wrote:
>
>> -=DirtBag© > wrote:
>>
>> >BobR wrote:
>> >> On Mar 18, 3:06 am, Tim Bruening > wrote:
>> >>> Bonuses went to 11 people who no longer work for AIG. How can bonuses
>> >>> be required to be paid to ex-employees?
>> >>
>> >> They were retention bonuses. Didn't you know that? <BG>
>> >
>> >Well did they retain them or not?
>>
>> Presumably they retained them for the period that the retention
>> agreements called for. Or are you also under the impression that
>> retention bonuses are paid in advance in the hope that someone will be
>> retained for a period after the bonuses are paid?
>
>It's my understanding that those 11 left very shorty after getting the retention
>bonuses.

That's fairly common. Usually, there is a reason that a retention
bonus is needed, and once that retention period is over the employees
leave.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

alexy
March 24th 09, 04:19 PM
Tim Bruening > wrote:

>
>
>BobR wrote:
>
>> On Mar 18, 3:06 am, Tim Bruening > wrote:
>> > Bonuses went to 11 people who no longer work for AIG. How can bonuses
>> > be required to be paid to ex-employees?
>>
>> They were retention bonuses. Didn't you know that? <BG>
>
>Since those 11 did not stay "retained", how can they keep their "retention"
>bonuses?

Because they stayed for the period specified in order to receive the
retention bonuses.

Why is this so hard to understand?

--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

alexy
March 24th 09, 04:22 PM
Tim Bruening > wrote:

>
>
>Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> Tim Bruening wrote:
>>
>> > Bonuses went to 11 people who no longer work for AIG.
>> > How can bonuses be required to be paid to ex-employees?
>>
>> When that is what was contracted.
>
>AIG contracted to pay retention bonuses to people who aren't retained?

No, they contracted to pay retention bonuses to employees who remained
employed for a specific period of time.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

March 24th 09, 04:55 PM
alexy wrote:
> Tim Bruening > wrote:
>
>>
>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>>> Tim Bruening wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bonuses went to 11 people who no longer work for AIG.
>>>> How can bonuses be required to be paid to ex-employees?
>>> When that is what was contracted.
>> AIG contracted to pay retention bonuses to people who aren't retained?
>
> No, they contracted to pay retention bonuses to employees who remained
> employed for a specific period of time.


A Million dollars to stay two weeks? Sounds and smell like crap to me.

alexy
March 24th 09, 04:57 PM
wrote:

>alexy wrote:
>> Tim Bruening > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tim Bruening wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bonuses went to 11 people who no longer work for AIG.
>>>>> How can bonuses be required to be paid to ex-employees?
>>>> When that is what was contracted.
>>> AIG contracted to pay retention bonuses to people who aren't retained?
>>
>> No, they contracted to pay retention bonuses to employees who remained
>> employed for a specific period of time.
>
>
>A Million dollars to stay two weeks? Sounds and smell like crap to me.

I never heard that the retention period was two weeks. Where did you
hear that?

--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

Poetic Justice[_2_]
March 24th 09, 05:17 PM
wrote:
> alexy wrote:
>> Tim Bruening > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tim Bruening wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bonuses went to 11 people who no longer work for AIG.
>>>>> How can bonuses be required to be paid to ex-employees?
>>>> When that is what was contracted.
>>> AIG contracted to pay retention bonuses to people who aren't retained?
>>
>> No, they contracted to pay retention bonuses to employees who remained
>> employed for a specific period of time.
>
>
> A Million dollars to stay two weeks? Sounds and smell like crap to me.

Now the companies have no way to keep talent. So if someone is a good
employee they are better off to jump off the sinking ship and find a
good job the moment they get wind of their company needing to be bailed
out.


So now the "Rescue" plans will be installed with the good employees gone.


Good luck with that.

March 24th 09, 05:26 PM
alexy wrote:
> wrote:
>
>> alexy wrote:
>>> Tim Bruening > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Tim Bruening wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bonuses went to 11 people who no longer work for AIG.
>>>>>> How can bonuses be required to be paid to ex-employees?
>>>>> When that is what was contracted.
>>>> AIG contracted to pay retention bonuses to people who aren't retained?
>>> No, they contracted to pay retention bonuses to employees who remained
>>> employed for a specific period of time.
>>
>> A Million dollars to stay two weeks? Sounds and smell like crap to me.
>
> I never heard that the retention period was two weeks. Where did you
> hear that?
>

If they just got the "retentions" this past couple of weeks and have
already left. The "retentions" were an idea by Morgan to get around
calling them " A bonus".

alexy
March 24th 09, 06:50 PM
wrote:

>alexy wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>>> alexy wrote:
>>>> Tim Bruening > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Tim Bruening wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bonuses went to 11 people who no longer work for AIG.
>>>>>>> How can bonuses be required to be paid to ex-employees?
>>>>>> When that is what was contracted.
>>>>> AIG contracted to pay retention bonuses to people who aren't retained?
>>>> No, they contracted to pay retention bonuses to employees who remained
>>>> employed for a specific period of time.
>>>
>>> A Million dollars to stay two weeks? Sounds and smell like crap to me.
>>
>> I never heard that the retention period was two weeks. Where did you
>> hear that?
>>
>
>If they just got the "retentions" this past couple of weeks and have
>already left. The "retentions" were an idea by Morgan to get around
>calling them " A bonus".

Yes, they received the payouts of the retention bonuses, and as is
typical, with no further retention bonuses on the table, they left
(probably for the reason that the retention bonuses were deemed
necessary in the first place).

Who is Morgan? My understanding is that Liddy claims that these
retention agreements were entered into under a previous CEO. Greenberg
denies that it was on his watch, but there were two CEOs between
Greenberg and Liddy. Was Morgan one of the CEOs between Greenberg and
Liddy?
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

Poetic Justice[_2_]
March 25th 09, 12:33 AM
Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
> Poetic Justice > found these unused words:
>
>> wrote:
>>> alexy wrote:
>>>> Tim Bruening > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Tim Bruening wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bonuses went to 11 people who no longer work for AIG.
>>>>>>> How can bonuses be required to be paid to ex-employees?
>>>>>> When that is what was contracted.
>>>>> AIG contracted to pay retention bonuses to people who aren't retained?
>>>> No, they contracted to pay retention bonuses to employees who remained
>>>> employed for a specific period of time.
>>>
>>> A Million dollars to stay two weeks? Sounds and smell like crap to me.
>> Now the companies have no way to keep talent. So if someone is a good
>> employee they are better off to jump off the sinking ship and find a
>> good job the moment they get wind of their company needing to be bailed
>> out.
>>
>>
>> So now the "Rescue" plans will be installed with the good employees gone.
>>
>>
>> Good luck with that.
>>
> Wouldn't make any difference!
>
> An employee that cares, isn't in it solely for the bonus - that's left
> politic thinking.
>


Self interest says that you need to keep the company out of
bankruptcy.... If it looks grim, and the bail out plan "stinks" then
the good people will leave, but if a retention bonus is offered they may
postpone their escape.

Mike
March 25th 09, 03:22 AM
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:33:11 -0400, Poetic Justice wrote:

> Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
>> Poetic Justice > found these unused
>> words:
>>
>>> wrote:
>>>> alexy wrote:
>>>>> Tim Bruening > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tim Bruening wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bonuses went to 11 people who no longer work for AIG. How can
>>>>>>>> bonuses be required to be paid to ex-employees?
>>>>>>> When that is what was contracted.
>>>>>> AIG contracted to pay retention bonuses to people who aren't
>>>>>> retained?
>>>>> No, they contracted to pay retention bonuses to employees who
>>>>> remained employed for a specific period of time.
>>>>
>>>> A Million dollars to stay two weeks? Sounds and smell like crap to
>>>> me.
>>> Now the companies have no way to keep talent. So if someone is a good
>>> employee they are better off to jump off the sinking ship and find a
>>> good job the moment they get wind of their company needing to be
>>> bailed out.
>>>
>>>
>>> So now the "Rescue" plans will be installed with the good employees
>>> gone.
>>>
>>>
>>> Good luck with that.
>>>
>> Wouldn't make any difference!
>>
>> An employee that cares, isn't in it solely for the bonus - that's left
>> politic thinking.
>>
>>
>
> Self interest says that you need to keep the company out of
> bankruptcy.... If it looks grim, and the bail out plan "stinks" then
> the good people will leave, but if a retention bonus is offered they may
> postpone their escape.


for every person that leaves AIG there's a hundred others that can take
their place, how hard of a job do you think it is to lose hundreds of
$billions...

John Galt[_2_]
March 25th 09, 03:26 AM
Mike wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:33:11 -0400, Poetic Justice wrote:
>
>> Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
>>> Poetic Justice > found these unused
>>> words:
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> alexy wrote:
>>>>>> Tim Bruening > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tim Bruening wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bonuses went to 11 people who no longer work for AIG. How can
>>>>>>>>> bonuses be required to be paid to ex-employees?
>>>>>>>> When that is what was contracted.
>>>>>>> AIG contracted to pay retention bonuses to people who aren't
>>>>>>> retained?
>>>>>> No, they contracted to pay retention bonuses to employees who
>>>>>> remained employed for a specific period of time.
>>>>> A Million dollars to stay two weeks? Sounds and smell like crap to
>>>>> me.
>>>> Now the companies have no way to keep talent. So if someone is a good
>>>> employee they are better off to jump off the sinking ship and find a
>>>> good job the moment they get wind of their company needing to be
>>>> bailed out.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So now the "Rescue" plans will be installed with the good employees
>>>> gone.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Good luck with that.
>>>>
>>> Wouldn't make any difference!
>>>
>>> An employee that cares, isn't in it solely for the bonus - that's left
>>> politic thinking.
>>>
>>>
>> Self interest says that you need to keep the company out of
>> bankruptcy.... If it looks grim, and the bail out plan "stinks" then
>> the good people will leave, but if a retention bonus is offered they may
>> postpone their escape.
>
>
> for every person that leaves AIG there's a hundred others that can take
> their place, how hard of a job do you think it is to lose hundreds of
> $billions...

Not hard, but that job description has been changed.

The new job description is for somebody to fix it, and the key
experience the right applicant must have is to understand how it got
broken.

Hence the effort at retention, rightly or wrongly.

JG


>
>
>
>
>
>

Mike
March 25th 09, 03:40 AM
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 22:26:22 -0500, John Galt wrote:

> Mike wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:33:11 -0400, Poetic Justice wrote:
>>
>>> Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
>>>> Poetic Justice > found these unused
>>>> words:
>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> alexy wrote:
>>>>>>> Tim Bruening > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tim Bruening wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Bonuses went to 11 people who no longer work for AIG. How can
>>>>>>>>>> bonuses be required to be paid to ex-employees?
>>>>>>>>> When that is what was contracted.
>>>>>>>> AIG contracted to pay retention bonuses to people who aren't
>>>>>>>> retained?
>>>>>>> No, they contracted to pay retention bonuses to employees who
>>>>>>> remained employed for a specific period of time.
>>>>>> A Million dollars to stay two weeks? Sounds and smell like crap to
>>>>>> me.
>>>>> Now the companies have no way to keep talent. So if someone is a
>>>>> good employee they are better off to jump off the sinking ship and
>>>>> find a good job the moment they get wind of their company needing to
>>>>> be bailed out.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So now the "Rescue" plans will be installed with the good employees
>>>>> gone.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Good luck with that.
>>>>>
>>>> Wouldn't make any difference!
>>>>
>>>> An employee that cares, isn't in it solely for the bonus - that's
>>>> left politic thinking.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Self interest says that you need to keep the company out of
>>> bankruptcy.... If it looks grim, and the bail out plan "stinks" then
>>> the good people will leave, but if a retention bonus is offered they
>>> may postpone their escape.
>>
>>
>> for every person that leaves AIG there's a hundred others that can take
>> their place, how hard of a job do you think it is to lose hundreds of
>> $billions...
>
> Not hard, but that job description has been changed.
>
> The new job description is for somebody to fix it,


if by "fix it" you mean dole out hundreds of $billions of bailout $ to a
few CDS counter-parties (ie. goldman sachs & a few other big banks), i
suppose a qualified candidate would need to be strong enough to heft
those big bags of money...



> and the key
> experience the right applicant must have is to understand how it got
> broken.
>
> Hence the effort at retention, rightly or wrongly.
>
> JG
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

Poetic Justice[_2_]
March 25th 09, 03:49 AM
Mike wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:33:11 -0400, Poetic Justice wrote:
>
>> Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
>>> Poetic Justice > found these unused
>>> words:
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> alexy wrote:
>>>>>> Tim Bruening > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tim Bruening wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bonuses went to 11 people who no longer work for AIG. How can
>>>>>>>>> bonuses be required to be paid to ex-employees?
>>>>>>>> When that is what was contracted.
>>>>>>> AIG contracted to pay retention bonuses to people who aren't
>>>>>>> retained?
>>>>>> No, they contracted to pay retention bonuses to employees who
>>>>>> remained employed for a specific period of time.
>>>>> A Million dollars to stay two weeks? Sounds and smell like crap to
>>>>> me.
>>>> Now the companies have no way to keep talent. So if someone is a good
>>>> employee they are better off to jump off the sinking ship and find a
>>>> good job the moment they get wind of their company needing to be
>>>> bailed out.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So now the "Rescue" plans will be installed with the good employees
>>>> gone.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Good luck with that.
>>>>
>>> Wouldn't make any difference!
>>>
>>> An employee that cares, isn't in it solely for the bonus - that's left
>>> politic thinking.
>>>
>>>
>> Self interest says that you need to keep the company out of
>> bankruptcy.... If it looks grim, and the bail out plan "stinks" then
>> the good people will leave, but if a retention bonus is offered they may
>> postpone their escape.
>
>
> for every person that leaves AIG there's a hundred others that can take
> their place, how hard of a job do you think it is to lose hundreds of
> $billions...

You don't want a hundred all you want is one, the one that can do the
job.... and the only way to get a particular person is to offer him or
her some incentive.


But why bother with you Socialists, you don't understand business or
economics. Where are all the socialist self made millionaires?

Mike
March 25th 09, 04:12 AM
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 23:49:02 -0400, Poetic Justice wrote:

> Mike wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:33:11 -0400, Poetic Justice wrote:
>>
>>> Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
>>>> Poetic Justice > found these unused
>>>> words:
>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> alexy wrote:
>>>>>>> Tim Bruening > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tim Bruening wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Bonuses went to 11 people who no longer work for AIG. How can
>>>>>>>>>> bonuses be required to be paid to ex-employees?
>>>>>>>>> When that is what was contracted.
>>>>>>>> AIG contracted to pay retention bonuses to people who aren't
>>>>>>>> retained?
>>>>>>> No, they contracted to pay retention bonuses to employees who
>>>>>>> remained employed for a specific period of time.
>>>>>> A Million dollars to stay two weeks? Sounds and smell like crap to
>>>>>> me.
>>>>> Now the companies have no way to keep talent. So if someone is a
>>>>> good employee they are better off to jump off the sinking ship and
>>>>> find a good job the moment they get wind of their company needing to
>>>>> be bailed out.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So now the "Rescue" plans will be installed with the good employees
>>>>> gone.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Good luck with that.
>>>>>
>>>> Wouldn't make any difference!
>>>>
>>>> An employee that cares, isn't in it solely for the bonus - that's
>>>> left politic thinking.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Self interest says that you need to keep the company out of
>>> bankruptcy.... If it looks grim, and the bail out plan "stinks" then
>>> the good people will leave, but if a retention bonus is offered they
>>> may postpone their escape.
>>
>>
>> for every person that leaves AIG there's a hundred others that can take
>> their place, how hard of a job do you think it is to lose hundreds of
>> $billions...
>
> You don't want a hundred all you want is one, the one that can do the
> job.... and the only way to get a particular person is to offer him or
> her some incentive.
>
>
> But why bother with you Socialists, you don't understand business or
> economics. Where are all the socialist self made millionaires?


the only thing i don't understand is why some people think those working
at AIG are special. what's special about the ability to lose hundreds of
$billions or dole out bailout money to a few CDS counterparties?

Tim Bruening
March 25th 09, 12:54 PM
alexy wrote:

> Tim Bruening > wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >alexy wrote:
> >
> >> -=DirtBag© > wrote:
> >>
> >> >BobR wrote:
> >> >> On Mar 18, 3:06 am, Tim Bruening > wrote:
> >> >>> Bonuses went to 11 people who no longer work for AIG. How can bonuses
> >> >>> be required to be paid to ex-employees?
> >> >>
> >> >> They were retention bonuses. Didn't you know that? <BG>
> >> >
> >> >Well did they retain them or not?
> >>
> >> Presumably they retained them for the period that the retention
> >> agreements called for. Or are you also under the impression that
> >> retention bonuses are paid in advance in the hope that someone will be
> >> retained for a period after the bonuses are paid?
> >
> >It's my understanding that those 11 left very shorty after getting the retention
> >bonuses.
>
> That's fairly common. Usually, there is a reason that a retention
> bonus is needed, and once that retention period is over the employees
> leave.

I assume that AIG needed those 11 to stay in order to help it recover from its
slump. Since AIG hasn't yet recovered, those 11 haven't fulfilled the purpose for
which they were retained, so they should still be on the job, so should return their
retention bonuses!

Tim Bruening
March 25th 09, 12:56 PM
alexy wrote:

> Tim Bruening > wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >BobR wrote:
> >
> >> On Mar 18, 3:06 am, Tim Bruening > wrote:
> >> > Bonuses went to 11 people who no longer work for AIG. How can bonuses
> >> > be required to be paid to ex-employees?
> >>
> >> They were retention bonuses. Didn't you know that? <BG>
> >
> >Since those 11 did not stay "retained", how can they keep their "retention"
> >bonuses?
>
> Because they stayed for the period specified in order to receive the
> retention bonuses.
>
> Why is this so hard to understand?

I got the impression that they left almost immediately after getting the bonuses.

Shouldn't they have been required to stay until they have righted AIG's ship? If
that was not the purpose of paying them retention bonuses, what's the point of
giving them retention bonuses?

Doobie Keebler[_2_]
March 25th 09, 01:12 PM
On Mar 24, 10:49*pm, Poetic Justice >
wrote:

> But why bother with you Socialists, you don't understand business or
> economics. *Where are all the socialist self made millionaires?

see: George Soros

Doobie Keebler[_2_]
March 25th 09, 01:17 PM
On Mar 25, 7:56*am, Tim Bruening > wrote:

> I got the impression that they left almost immediately after getting the bonuses.
>
> Shouldn't they have been required to stay until they have righted AIG's ship? *If
> that was not the purpose of paying them retention bonuses, what's the point of
> giving them retention bonuses?

Hah! The captain and crew should remain behind as the ship sinks?

This is Wall Street we're talking about:
"screw the widows and orphans, I got mine for me, and I'm jumping
ship!"

You were expecting sharks to become dolphins?

..

John Galt[_2_]
March 25th 09, 01:21 PM
Mike wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 22:26:22 -0500, John Galt wrote:
>
>> Mike wrote:
>>> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:33:11 -0400, Poetic Justice wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
>>>>> Poetic Justice > found these unused
>>>>> words:
>>>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> alexy wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tim Bruening > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Tim Bruening wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Bonuses went to 11 people who no longer work for AIG. How can
>>>>>>>>>>> bonuses be required to be paid to ex-employees?
>>>>>>>>>> When that is what was contracted.
>>>>>>>>> AIG contracted to pay retention bonuses to people who aren't
>>>>>>>>> retained?
>>>>>>>> No, they contracted to pay retention bonuses to employees who
>>>>>>>> remained employed for a specific period of time.
>>>>>>> A Million dollars to stay two weeks? Sounds and smell like crap to
>>>>>>> me.
>>>>>> Now the companies have no way to keep talent. So if someone is a
>>>>>> good employee they are better off to jump off the sinking ship and
>>>>>> find a good job the moment they get wind of their company needing to
>>>>>> be bailed out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So now the "Rescue" plans will be installed with the good employees
>>>>>> gone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good luck with that.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Wouldn't make any difference!
>>>>>
>>>>> An employee that cares, isn't in it solely for the bonus - that's
>>>>> left politic thinking.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Self interest says that you need to keep the company out of
>>>> bankruptcy.... If it looks grim, and the bail out plan "stinks" then
>>>> the good people will leave, but if a retention bonus is offered they
>>>> may postpone their escape.
>>>
>>> for every person that leaves AIG there's a hundred others that can take
>>> their place, how hard of a job do you think it is to lose hundreds of
>>> $billions...
>> Not hard, but that job description has been changed.
>>
>> The new job description is for somebody to fix it,
>
>
> if by "fix it" you mean dole out hundreds of $billions of bailout $ to a
> few CDS counter-parties

No. I mean unwind and deleverage complex financial instruments.
Obviously, making counterparties whole (or partially whole) is part of
the matter.


JG


(ie. goldman sachs & a few other big banks), i
> suppose a qualified candidate would need to be strong enough to heft
> those big bags of money...
>
>
>
>> and the key
>> experience the right applicant must have is to understand how it got
>> broken.
>>
>> Hence the effort at retention, rightly or wrongly.
>>
>> JG
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>

alexy
March 25th 09, 01:43 PM
Tim Bruening > wrote:

>
>
>alexy wrote:
>
>> Tim Bruening > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >alexy wrote:
>> >
>> >> -=DirtBag© > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >BobR wrote:
>> >> >> On Mar 18, 3:06 am, Tim Bruening > wrote:
>> >> >>> Bonuses went to 11 people who no longer work for AIG. How can bonuses
>> >> >>> be required to be paid to ex-employees?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> They were retention bonuses. Didn't you know that? <BG>
>> >> >
>> >> >Well did they retain them or not?
>> >>
>> >> Presumably they retained them for the period that the retention
>> >> agreements called for. Or are you also under the impression that
>> >> retention bonuses are paid in advance in the hope that someone will be
>> >> retained for a period after the bonuses are paid?
>> >
>> >It's my understanding that those 11 left very shorty after getting the retention
>> >bonuses.
>>
>> That's fairly common. Usually, there is a reason that a retention
>> bonus is needed, and once that retention period is over the employees
>> leave.
>
>I assume that AIG needed those 11 to stay in order to help it recover from its
>slump.

Or more accurately, that management thought that they needed them. The
way I heard it (maybe speculation as uninformed as we get here), the
purpose was to retain the expertise needed to unwind some of the
credit swap contracts--an element of recovery, but not recovery per
se.

> Since AIG hasn't yet recovered, those 11 haven't fulfilled the purpose for
>which they were retained, so they should still be on the job, so should return their
>retention bonuses!

You seem to be confusing performance under a contract with attaining
the other party's objective in entering the contract. If a homeowner
buys 3 yard of sand, thinking that will solve the problem of the
sink-hole in his yard, the sand supplier has performed on the contract
once he delivers the 3 yards of sand, whether or not that sand
accomplishes what the homeowner hoped to accomplish in buying the
sand.

--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

alexy
March 25th 09, 01:48 PM
Tim Bruening > wrote:

>
>
>alexy wrote:
>
>> Tim Bruening > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >BobR wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mar 18, 3:06 am, Tim Bruening > wrote:
>> >> > Bonuses went to 11 people who no longer work for AIG. How can bonuses
>> >> > be required to be paid to ex-employees?
>> >>
>> >> They were retention bonuses. Didn't you know that? <BG>
>> >
>> >Since those 11 did not stay "retained", how can they keep their "retention"
>> >bonuses?
>>
>> Because they stayed for the period specified in order to receive the
>> retention bonuses.
>>
>> Why is this so hard to understand?
>
>I got the impression that they left almost immediately after getting the bonuses.
>
>Shouldn't they have been required to stay until they have righted AIG's ship?

A good argument could be made that that is the deal AIG SHOULD have
struck with these individuals. But it appears not to have been.
Hopefully we are not going to have congresscritters reviewing all
business contracts after the fact to determine what deal should have
been struck, then holding the parties to the deal Congress thought
they should have agreed to.


> If
>that was not the purpose of paying them retention bonuses, what's the point of
>giving them retention bonuses?

--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

BobR
March 25th 09, 02:20 PM
On Mar 24, 10:22*pm, Mike > wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:33:11 -0400, Poetic Justice wrote:
> > Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
> >> Poetic Justice > found these unused
> >> words:
>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> alexy wrote:
> >>>>> Tim Bruening > wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> Tim Bruening wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> Bonuses went to 11 people who no longer work for AIG. How can
> >>>>>>>> bonuses be required to be paid to ex-employees?
> >>>>>>> When that is what was contracted.
> >>>>>> AIG contracted to pay retention bonuses to people who aren't
> >>>>>> retained?
> >>>>> No, they contracted to pay retention bonuses to employees who
> >>>>> remained employed for a specific period of time.
>
> >>>> A Million dollars to stay two weeks? Sounds and smell like crap to
> >>>> me.
> >>> Now the companies have no way to keep talent. *So if someone is a good
> >>> employee they are better off to jump off the sinking ship and find a
> >>> good job the moment they get wind of their company needing to be
> >>> bailed out.
>
> >>> So now the "Rescue" plans will be installed with the good employees
> >>> gone.
>
> >>> Good luck with that.
>
> >> Wouldn't make any difference!
>
> >> An employee that cares, isn't in it solely for the bonus - that's left
> >> politic thinking.
>
> > Self interest says that you need to keep the company out of
> > bankruptcy.... *If it looks grim, and the bail out plan "stinks" then
> > the good people will leave, but if a retention bonus is offered they may
> > postpone their escape.
>
> for every person that leaves AIG there's a hundred others that can take
> their place, how hard of a job do you think it is to lose hundreds of
> $billions...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It must be pretty hard, I have been working for over 45 years and
haven't been able to even lose a measly $1 million. Takes some very
special training and lots of hard work apparently...or so they claim.

BobR
March 25th 09, 02:22 PM
On Mar 24, 10:26*pm, John Galt > wrote:
> Mike wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:33:11 -0400, Poetic Justice wrote:
>
> >> Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
> >>> Poetic Justice > found these unused
> >>> words:
>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> alexy wrote:
> >>>>>> Tim Bruening > wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> Tim Bruening wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> Bonuses went to 11 people who no longer work for AIG. How can
> >>>>>>>>> bonuses be required to be paid to ex-employees?
> >>>>>>>> When that is what was contracted.
> >>>>>>> AIG contracted to pay retention bonuses to people who aren't
> >>>>>>> retained?
> >>>>>> No, they contracted to pay retention bonuses to employees who
> >>>>>> remained employed for a specific period of time.
> >>>>> A Million dollars to stay two weeks? Sounds and smell like crap to
> >>>>> me.
> >>>> Now the companies have no way to keep talent. *So if someone is a good
> >>>> employee they are better off to jump off the sinking ship and find a
> >>>> good job the moment they get wind of their company needing to be
> >>>> bailed out.
>
> >>>> So now the "Rescue" plans will be installed with the good employees
> >>>> gone.
>
> >>>> Good luck with that.
>
> >>> Wouldn't make any difference!
>
> >>> An employee that cares, isn't in it solely for the bonus - that's left
> >>> politic thinking.
>
> >> Self interest says that you need to keep the company out of
> >> bankruptcy.... *If it looks grim, and the bail out plan "stinks" then
> >> the good people will leave, but if a retention bonus is offered they may
> >> postpone their escape.
>
> > for every person that leaves AIG there's a hundred others that can take
> > their place, how hard of a job do you think it is to lose hundreds of
> > $billions...
>
> Not hard, but that job description has been changed.
>
> The new job description is for somebody to fix it, and the key
> experience the right applicant must have is to understand how it got
> broken.
>
> Hence the effort at retention, rightly or wrongly.
>
> JG

If they couldn't keep it from getting broken in the first place how
does anyone in their right mind expect that they can now fix it? This
is looking more and more like the standard definition of insanity.

BobR
March 25th 09, 02:23 PM
On Mar 25, 8:21*am, John Galt > wrote:
> Mike wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 22:26:22 -0500, John Galt wrote:
>
> >> Mike wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:33:11 -0400, Poetic Justice wrote:
>
> >>>> Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
> >>>>> Poetic Justice > found these unused
> >>>>> words:
>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> alexy wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Tim Bruening > wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Tim Bruening wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Bonuses went to 11 people who no longer work for AIG. How can
> >>>>>>>>>>> bonuses be required to be paid to ex-employees?
> >>>>>>>>>> When that is what was contracted.
> >>>>>>>>> AIG contracted to pay retention bonuses to people who aren't
> >>>>>>>>> retained?
> >>>>>>>> No, they contracted to pay retention bonuses to employees who
> >>>>>>>> remained employed for a specific period of time.
> >>>>>>> A Million dollars to stay two weeks? Sounds and smell like crap to
> >>>>>>> me.
> >>>>>> Now the companies have no way to keep talent. *So if someone is a
> >>>>>> good employee they are better off to jump off the sinking ship and
> >>>>>> find a good job the moment they get wind of their company needing to
> >>>>>> be bailed out.
>
> >>>>>> So now the "Rescue" plans will be installed with the good employees
> >>>>>> gone.
>
> >>>>>> Good luck with that.
>
> >>>>> Wouldn't make any difference!
>
> >>>>> An employee that cares, isn't in it solely for the bonus - that's
> >>>>> left politic thinking.
>
> >>>> Self interest says that you need to keep the company out of
> >>>> bankruptcy.... *If it looks grim, and the bail out plan "stinks" then
> >>>> the good people will leave, but if a retention bonus is offered they
> >>>> may postpone their escape.
>
> >>> for every person that leaves AIG there's a hundred others that can take
> >>> their place, how hard of a job do you think it is to lose hundreds of
> >>> $billions...
> >> Not hard, but that job description has been changed.
>
> >> The new job description is for somebody to fix it,
>
> > if by "fix it" you mean dole out hundreds of $billions of bailout $ to a
> > few CDS counter-parties
>
> No. I mean unwind and deleverage complex financial instruments.
> Obviously, making counterparties whole (or partially whole) is part of
> the matter.
>
> JG
>
> * (ie. goldman sachs & a few other big banks), i

I wouldn't trust those clowns to manage my change jar!

John Galt[_2_]
March 25th 09, 03:10 PM
BobR wrote:
> On Mar 24, 10:26 pm, John Galt > wrote:
>> Mike wrote:
>>> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:33:11 -0400, Poetic Justice wrote:
>>>> Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
>>>>> Poetic Justice > found these unused
>>>>> words:
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> alexy wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tim Bruening > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Tim Bruening wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Bonuses went to 11 people who no longer work for AIG. How can
>>>>>>>>>>> bonuses be required to be paid to ex-employees?
>>>>>>>>>> When that is what was contracted.
>>>>>>>>> AIG contracted to pay retention bonuses to people who aren't
>>>>>>>>> retained?
>>>>>>>> No, they contracted to pay retention bonuses to employees who
>>>>>>>> remained employed for a specific period of time.
>>>>>>> A Million dollars to stay two weeks? Sounds and smell like crap to
>>>>>>> me.
>>>>>> Now the companies have no way to keep talent. So if someone is a good
>>>>>> employee they are better off to jump off the sinking ship and find a
>>>>>> good job the moment they get wind of their company needing to be
>>>>>> bailed out.
>>>>>> So now the "Rescue" plans will be installed with the good employees
>>>>>> gone.
>>>>>> Good luck with that.
>>>>> Wouldn't make any difference!
>>>>> An employee that cares, isn't in it solely for the bonus - that's left
>>>>> politic thinking.
>>>> Self interest says that you need to keep the company out of
>>>> bankruptcy.... If it looks grim, and the bail out plan "stinks" then
>>>> the good people will leave, but if a retention bonus is offered they may
>>>> postpone their escape.
>>> for every person that leaves AIG there's a hundred others that can take
>>> their place, how hard of a job do you think it is to lose hundreds of
>>> $billions...
>> Not hard, but that job description has been changed.
>>
>> The new job description is for somebody to fix it, and the key
>> experience the right applicant must have is to understand how it got
>> broken.
>>
>> Hence the effort at retention, rightly or wrongly.
>>
>> JG
>
> If they couldn't keep it from getting broken in the first place how
> does anyone in their right mind expect that they can now fix it?

The question contains an incorrect assumption. They COULD have kept it
from getting broken, but they were incented to do otherwise.

JG


This
> is looking more and more like the standard definition of insanity.

John Galt[_2_]
March 25th 09, 03:12 PM
BobR wrote:
> On Mar 25, 8:21 am, John Galt > wrote:
>> Mike wrote:
>>> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 22:26:22 -0500, John Galt wrote:
>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:33:11 -0400, Poetic Justice wrote:
>>>>>> Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
>>>>>>> Poetic Justice > found these unused
>>>>>>> words:
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> alexy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Tim Bruening > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tim Bruening wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bonuses went to 11 people who no longer work for AIG. How can
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bonuses be required to be paid to ex-employees?
>>>>>>>>>>>> When that is what was contracted.
>>>>>>>>>>> AIG contracted to pay retention bonuses to people who aren't
>>>>>>>>>>> retained?
>>>>>>>>>> No, they contracted to pay retention bonuses to employees who
>>>>>>>>>> remained employed for a specific period of time.
>>>>>>>>> A Million dollars to stay two weeks? Sounds and smell like crap to
>>>>>>>>> me.
>>>>>>>> Now the companies have no way to keep talent. So if someone is a
>>>>>>>> good employee they are better off to jump off the sinking ship and
>>>>>>>> find a good job the moment they get wind of their company needing to
>>>>>>>> be bailed out.
>>>>>>>> So now the "Rescue" plans will be installed with the good employees
>>>>>>>> gone.
>>>>>>>> Good luck with that.
>>>>>>> Wouldn't make any difference!
>>>>>>> An employee that cares, isn't in it solely for the bonus - that's
>>>>>>> left politic thinking.
>>>>>> Self interest says that you need to keep the company out of
>>>>>> bankruptcy.... If it looks grim, and the bail out plan "stinks" then
>>>>>> the good people will leave, but if a retention bonus is offered they
>>>>>> may postpone their escape.
>>>>> for every person that leaves AIG there's a hundred others that can take
>>>>> their place, how hard of a job do you think it is to lose hundreds of
>>>>> $billions...
>>>> Not hard, but that job description has been changed.
>>>> The new job description is for somebody to fix it,
>>> if by "fix it" you mean dole out hundreds of $billions of bailout $ to a
>>> few CDS counter-parties
>> No. I mean unwind and deleverage complex financial instruments.
>> Obviously, making counterparties whole (or partially whole) is part of
>> the matter.
>>
>> JG
>>
>> (ie. goldman sachs & a few other big banks), i
>
> I wouldn't trust those clowns to manage my change!

Possibly not. But I wouldn't trust a guy with a degree in sociology to
manage it, either, and if Congress chases off all the bankers, that's
what you're going to get.

JG

Mike
March 25th 09, 04:11 PM
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:21:06 -0500, John Galt wrote:

> Mike wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 22:26:22 -0500, John Galt wrote:
>>
>>> Mike wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:33:11 -0400, Poetic Justice wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
>>>>>> Poetic Justice > found these unused
>>>>>> words:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> alexy wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Tim Bruening > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Tim Bruening wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Bonuses went to 11 people who no longer work for AIG. How can
>>>>>>>>>>>> bonuses be required to be paid to ex-employees?
>>>>>>>>>>> When that is what was contracted.
>>>>>>>>>> AIG contracted to pay retention bonuses to people who aren't
>>>>>>>>>> retained?
>>>>>>>>> No, they contracted to pay retention bonuses to employees who
>>>>>>>>> remained employed for a specific period of time.
>>>>>>>> A Million dollars to stay two weeks? Sounds and smell like crap
>>>>>>>> to me.
>>>>>>> Now the companies have no way to keep talent. So if someone is a
>>>>>>> good employee they are better off to jump off the sinking ship and
>>>>>>> find a good job the moment they get wind of their company needing
>>>>>>> to be bailed out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So now the "Rescue" plans will be installed with the good
>>>>>>> employees gone.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good luck with that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wouldn't make any difference!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An employee that cares, isn't in it solely for the bonus - that's
>>>>>> left politic thinking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Self interest says that you need to keep the company out of
>>>>> bankruptcy.... If it looks grim, and the bail out plan "stinks"
>>>>> then the good people will leave, but if a retention bonus is offered
>>>>> they may postpone their escape.
>>>>
>>>> for every person that leaves AIG there's a hundred others that can
>>>> take their place, how hard of a job do you think it is to lose
>>>> hundreds of $billions...
>>> Not hard, but that job description has been changed.
>>>
>>> The new job description is for somebody to fix it,
>>
>>
>> if by "fix it" you mean dole out hundreds of $billions of bailout $ to
>> a few CDS counter-parties
>
> No. I mean unwind and deleverage complex financial instruments.


which consists of writing off hundreds of $billions in losses (plus
$millions more to pay bonuses to those doing the writedowns and doling
out bailout money, so where do i sign up for such a highly overpaid easy
job)


> Obviously, making counterparties whole (or partially whole) is part of
> the matter.
>
>
> JG
>
>
> (ie. goldman sachs & a few other big banks), i
>> suppose a qualified candidate would need to be strong enough to heft
>> those big bags of money...
>>
>>
>>
>>> and the key
>>> experience the right applicant must have is to understand how it got
>>> broken.
>>>
>>> Hence the effort at retention, rightly or wrongly.
>>>
>>> JG
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>

Mike
March 25th 09, 04:13 PM
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 07:20:19 -0700, BobR wrote:

> It must be pretty hard, I have been working for over 45 years and
> haven't been able to even lose a measly $1 million. Takes some very
> special training and lots of hard work apparently...or so they claim.

LOL!

John Galt[_2_]
March 25th 09, 04:16 PM
Mike wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:21:06 -0500, John Galt wrote:
>
>> Mike wrote:
>>> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 22:26:22 -0500, John Galt wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:33:11 -0400, Poetic Justice wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
>>>>>>> Poetic Justice > found these unused
>>>>>>> words:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> alexy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Tim Bruening > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tim Bruening wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bonuses went to 11 people who no longer work for AIG. How can
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bonuses be required to be paid to ex-employees?
>>>>>>>>>>>> When that is what was contracted.
>>>>>>>>>>> AIG contracted to pay retention bonuses to people who aren't
>>>>>>>>>>> retained?
>>>>>>>>>> No, they contracted to pay retention bonuses to employees who
>>>>>>>>>> remained employed for a specific period of time.
>>>>>>>>> A Million dollars to stay two weeks? Sounds and smell like crap
>>>>>>>>> to me.
>>>>>>>> Now the companies have no way to keep talent. So if someone is a
>>>>>>>> good employee they are better off to jump off the sinking ship and
>>>>>>>> find a good job the moment they get wind of their company needing
>>>>>>>> to be bailed out.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So now the "Rescue" plans will be installed with the good
>>>>>>>> employees gone.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Good luck with that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wouldn't make any difference!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An employee that cares, isn't in it solely for the bonus - that's
>>>>>>> left politic thinking.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Self interest says that you need to keep the company out of
>>>>>> bankruptcy.... If it looks grim, and the bail out plan "stinks"
>>>>>> then the good people will leave, but if a retention bonus is offered
>>>>>> they may postpone their escape.
>>>>> for every person that leaves AIG there's a hundred others that can
>>>>> take their place, how hard of a job do you think it is to lose
>>>>> hundreds of $billions...
>>>> Not hard, but that job description has been changed.
>>>>
>>>> The new job description is for somebody to fix it,
>>>
>>> if by "fix it" you mean dole out hundreds of $billions of bailout $ to
>>> a few CDS counter-parties
>> No. I mean unwind and deleverage complex financial instruments.
>
>
> which consists of writing off hundreds of $billions in losses (plus
> $millions more to pay bonuses to those doing the writedowns and doling
> out bailout money, so where do i sign up for such a highly overpaid easy
> job)

Hopefully outside of the US. I prefer less cynical employees.

JG


>
>
>> Obviously, making counterparties whole (or partially whole) is part of
>> the matter.
>>
>>
>> JG
>>
>>
>> (ie. goldman sachs & a few other big banks), i
>>> suppose a qualified candidate would need to be strong enough to heft
>>> those big bags of money...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> and the key
>>>> experience the right applicant must have is to understand how it got
>>>> broken.
>>>>
>>>> Hence the effort at retention, rightly or wrongly.
>>>>
>>>> JG
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>

March 25th 09, 04:35 PM
John Galt wrote:
> Mike wrote:

>>
>>
>> which consists of writing off hundreds of $billions in losses (plus
>> $millions more to pay bonuses to those doing the writedowns and doling
>> out bailout money, so where do i sign up for such a highly overpaid
>> easy job)
>
> Hopefully outside of the US. I prefer less cynical employees.
>
> JG


You spelled perceptive wrong............

Poetic Justice[_2_]
March 25th 09, 04:38 PM
Mike wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 23:49:02 -0400, Poetic Justice wrote:
>
>> Mike wrote:
>>> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:33:11 -0400, Poetic Justice wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
>>>>> Poetic Justice > found these unused
>>>>> words:
>>>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> alexy wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tim Bruening > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Tim Bruening wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Bonuses went to 11 people who no longer work for AIG. How can
>>>>>>>>>>> bonuses be required to be paid to ex-employees?
>>>>>>>>>> When that is what was contracted.
>>>>>>>>> AIG contracted to pay retention bonuses to people who aren't
>>>>>>>>> retained?
>>>>>>>> No, they contracted to pay retention bonuses to employees who
>>>>>>>> remained employed for a specific period of time.
>>>>>>> A Million dollars to stay two weeks? Sounds and smell like crap to
>>>>>>> me.
>>>>>> Now the companies have no way to keep talent. So if someone is a
>>>>>> good employee they are better off to jump off the sinking ship and
>>>>>> find a good job the moment they get wind of their company needing to
>>>>>> be bailed out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So now the "Rescue" plans will be installed with the good employees
>>>>>> gone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good luck with that.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Wouldn't make any difference!
>>>>>
>>>>> An employee that cares, isn't in it solely for the bonus - that's
>>>>> left politic thinking.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Self interest says that you need to keep the company out of
>>>> bankruptcy.... If it looks grim, and the bail out plan "stinks" then
>>>> the good people will leave, but if a retention bonus is offered they
>>>> may postpone their escape.
>>>
>>> for every person that leaves AIG there's a hundred others that can take
>>> their place, how hard of a job do you think it is to lose hundreds of
>>> $billions...
>> You don't want a hundred all you want is one, the one that can do the
>> job.... and the only way to get a particular person is to offer him or
>> her some incentive.
>>
>>
>> But why bother with you Socialists, you don't understand business or
>> economics. Where are all the socialist self made millionaires?
>
>
> the only thing i don't understand is why some people think those working
> at AIG are special. what's special about the ability to lose hundreds of
> $billions or dole out bailout money to a few CDS counterparties?
>
>
>
If true Why did you support giving money to AIG? I didn't.

Mason C
March 25th 09, 04:42 PM
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:35:18 -0400, wrote:

>John Galt wrote:
>> Mike wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>>> which consists of writing off hundreds of $billions in losses (plus
>>> $millions more to pay bonuses to those doing the writedowns and doling
>>> out bailout money, so where do i sign up for such a highly overpaid
>>> easy job)
>>
>> Hopefully outside of the US. I prefer less cynical employees.
>>
>> JG
>
>
>You spelled perceptive wrong............

"wrongly" not "wrong"




Mason Clark
*Greater America in the Age of Rebellion*
http://frontal-lobe.info/greateramerica.html
-- many excerpts you can see --

John Galt[_2_]
March 25th 09, 04:58 PM
wrote:
> John Galt wrote:
>> Mike wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>>> which consists of writing off hundreds of $billions in losses (plus
>>> $millions more to pay bonuses to those doing the writedowns and
>>> doling out bailout money, so where do i sign up for such a highly
>>> overpaid easy job)
>>
>> Hopefully outside of the US. I prefer less cynical employees.
>>
>> JG
>
>
> You spelled perceptive wrong............

Perceptive never entered into my mind. There are two lunatic positions
in this debate. One is the position that these guys are without blame,
and they need no supervision going forward. The other is the notion that
they are wholly to blame, and that we're better off without them.

A little balance is in order. History shows that societies who blame
smart people for all their woes don't get good results.

There are probably no more than few dozen people in this country who can
honestly say "If I were in the position of these guys, I would have
stood up to my management, turned down the money, quit my job, gone
public (and been blackballed by the industry), for the good of the economy."

Everyone else would have done exactly as they did, been glad for the
paycheck, and tried to keep the ball rolling as long as possible, the
economy be damned.

JG

Poetic Justice[_2_]
March 25th 09, 05:22 PM
BobR wrote:
> On Mar 24, 10:26 pm, John Galt > wrote:
>> Mike wrote:
>>> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:33:11 -0400, Poetic Justice wrote:
>>>> Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
>>>>> Poetic Justice > found these unused
>>>>> words:
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> alexy wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tim Bruening > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Tim Bruening wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Bonuses went to 11 people who no longer work for AIG. How can
>>>>>>>>>>> bonuses be required to be paid to ex-employees?
>>>>>>>>>> When that is what was contracted.
>>>>>>>>> AIG contracted to pay retention bonuses to people who aren't
>>>>>>>>> retained?
>>>>>>>> No, they contracted to pay retention bonuses to employees who
>>>>>>>> remained employed for a specific period of time.
>>>>>>> A Million dollars to stay two weeks? Sounds and smell like crap to
>>>>>>> me.
>>>>>> Now the companies have no way to keep talent. So if someone is a good
>>>>>> employee they are better off to jump off the sinking ship and find a
>>>>>> good job the moment they get wind of their company needing to be
>>>>>> bailed out.
>>>>>> So now the "Rescue" plans will be installed with the good employees
>>>>>> gone.
>>>>>> Good luck with that.
>>>>> Wouldn't make any difference!
>>>>> An employee that cares, isn't in it solely for the bonus - that's left
>>>>> politic thinking.
>>>> Self interest says that you need to keep the company out of
>>>> bankruptcy.... If it looks grim, and the bail out plan "stinks" then
>>>> the good people will leave, but if a retention bonus is offered they may
>>>> postpone their escape.
>>> for every person that leaves AIG there's a hundred others that can take
>>> their place, how hard of a job do you think it is to lose hundreds of
>>> $billions...
>> Not hard, but that job description has been changed.
>>
>> The new job description is for somebody to fix it, and the key
>> experience the right applicant must have is to understand how it got
>> broken.
>>
>> Hence the effort at retention, rightly or wrongly.
>>
>> JG
>
> If they couldn't keep it from getting broken in the first place how
> does anyone in their right mind expect that they can now fix it? This
> is looking more and more like the standard definition of insanity.

The Government set the rules.....

Poetic Justice[_2_]
March 25th 09, 05:37 PM
alexy wrote:
> Tim Bruening > wrote:
>
>>
>> alexy wrote:
>>
>>> Tim Bruening > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> BobR wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 18, 3:06 am, Tim Bruening > wrote:
>>>>>> Bonuses went to 11 people who no longer work for AIG. How can bonuses
>>>>>> be required to be paid to ex-employees?
>>>>> They were retention bonuses. Didn't you know that? <BG>
>>>> Since those 11 did not stay "retained", how can they keep their "retention"
>>>> bonuses?
>>> Because they stayed for the period specified in order to receive the
>>> retention bonuses.
>>>
>>> Why is this so hard to understand?
>> I got the impression that they left almost immediately after getting the bonuses.
>>
>> Shouldn't they have been required to stay until they have righted AIG's ship?
>
> A good argument could be made that that is the deal AIG SHOULD have
> struck with these individuals. But it appears not to have been.
> Hopefully we are not going to have congresscritters reviewing all
> business contracts after the fact to determine what deal should have
> been struck, then holding the parties to the deal Congress thought
> they should have agreed to.
>
>

As I have said over and over, the government won't keep to their deals,
The Government doesn't like their deal, they will write a new law to
make themselves the winner in that deal. The 90% tax on bonuses
emphasized the the truth of what I exclaimed.

No one with any "Business" savvy will trust Obama's Government enough to
do business with them. The people that are in business with the
Democrats and Obama, are *NOT* in Business but in Collusion with them.
The reason is that you can't do business against someone that writes the
rules.

That would be like getting into a card game where the dealer gets to
change the rules to his favor as the game progresses.

Having made that point, why would I buy into AIG or the Stock market for
that matter, to compete with the Obama Government that just change the
rules retroactively to their favor in the middle of the game. That's
not "Business" that's theft. Congress and Obama are colluding to steal
money from people that was openly offered for their services.

I will be closing Bank accounts that are in Banks being Nationalized by
the Government. I will never release MY private health care records. I
will do all I can to obstruct the government take over of the economy
and my individual rights.





--

I'd rather be FREE and poor, than to have my life micromanaged by
Socialists. - Poetic Justice -

A war on its citizens will not be won by the government, it will only
create slaves to the government. - Poetic Justice 2009 -

Doobie Keebler[_2_]
March 25th 09, 05:38 PM
On Mar 25, 11:58*am, John Galt > wrote:

> Everyone else would have done exactly as they did, been glad for the
> paycheck, and tried to keep the ball rolling as long as possible, the
> economy be damned.
>
> JG

I don't think "The Chauffeur's Dilemma" gives them a pass, John.
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0624-27.htm

Heck, Bin Laden's driver (Hamden) got 5-1/2 years in prison.
Ok, maybe that's a weak analogy, but just because you're smart and
your skills are scarce shouldn't make you immune from retribution.

IMHO, the guys who ran these derivative trading systems are just
glorified hackers.

Most of them have already left AIG.

They should be found and prosecuted of whatever crimes they may have
committed.

(One would think it's unlikely that you could crash the global
financial market without breaking some laws, eh?)

But what of those left behind?

Many dedicated AIG employees, who worked in different divisions of
the company and had nothing to do with all the bull****, are being
tarred with the same broad brush.

Check out today's Op-Ed contribution in the NY Times by Jake DeSantis:

"Dear A.I.G., I Quit! "

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/opinion/25desantis.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=aig&st=cse


..-=d00b

BobR
March 25th 09, 05:43 PM
On Mar 25, 10:10*am, John Galt > wrote:
> BobR wrote:
> > On Mar 24, 10:26 pm, John Galt > wrote:
> >> Mike wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:33:11 -0400, Poetic Justice wrote:
> >>>> Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
> >>>>> Poetic Justice > found these unused
> >>>>> words:
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> alexy wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Tim Bruening > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Tim Bruening wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Bonuses went to 11 people who no longer work for AIG. How can
> >>>>>>>>>>> bonuses be required to be paid to ex-employees?
> >>>>>>>>>> When that is what was contracted.
> >>>>>>>>> AIG contracted to pay retention bonuses to people who aren't
> >>>>>>>>> retained?
> >>>>>>>> No, they contracted to pay retention bonuses to employees who
> >>>>>>>> remained employed for a specific period of time.
> >>>>>>> A Million dollars to stay two weeks? Sounds and smell like crap to
> >>>>>>> me.
> >>>>>> Now the companies have no way to keep talent. *So if someone is a good
> >>>>>> employee they are better off to jump off the sinking ship and find a
> >>>>>> good job the moment they get wind of their company needing to be
> >>>>>> bailed out.
> >>>>>> So now the "Rescue" plans will be installed with the good employees
> >>>>>> gone.
> >>>>>> Good luck with that.
> >>>>> Wouldn't make any difference!
> >>>>> An employee that cares, isn't in it solely for the bonus - that's left
> >>>>> politic thinking.
> >>>> Self interest says that you need to keep the company out of
> >>>> bankruptcy.... *If it looks grim, and the bail out plan "stinks" then
> >>>> the good people will leave, but if a retention bonus is offered they may
> >>>> postpone their escape.
> >>> for every person that leaves AIG there's a hundred others that can take
> >>> their place, how hard of a job do you think it is to lose hundreds of
> >>> $billions...
> >> Not hard, but that job description has been changed.
>
> >> The new job description is for somebody to fix it, and the key
> >> experience the right applicant must have is to understand how it got
> >> broken.
>
> >> Hence the effort at retention, rightly or wrongly.
>
> >> JG
>
> > If they couldn't keep it from getting broken in the first place how
> > does anyone in their right mind expect that they can now fix it? *
>
> The question contains an incorrect assumption. They COULD have kept it
> from getting broken, but they were incented to do otherwise.
>
> JG

Well, we both have an assumption and either way I don't have a high
degree of trust that the ones who got us there are capable of fixing
it.

BobR
March 25th 09, 05:49 PM
On Mar 25, 11:58*am, John Galt > wrote:
> wrote:
> > John Galt wrote:
> >> Mike wrote:
>
> >>> which consists of writing off hundreds of $billions in losses (plus
> >>> $millions more to pay bonuses to those doing the writedowns and
> >>> doling out bailout money, so where do i sign up for such a highly
> >>> overpaid easy job)
>
> >> Hopefully outside of the US. I prefer less cynical employees.
>
> >> JG
>
> > You spelled perceptive wrong............
>
> Perceptive never entered into my mind. There are two lunatic positions
> in this debate. One is the position that these guys are without blame,
> and they need no supervision going forward. The other is the notion that
> they are wholly to blame, and that we're better off without them.
>
> A little balance is in order. History shows that societies who blame
> smart people for all their woes don't get good results.
>

I don't blame this on the smart people, I blame it on the greedy
people. If the two happen to be the same, too damn bad and we are
better off without them.

> There are probably no more than few dozen people in this country who can
> honestly say "If I were in the position of these guys, I would have
> stood up to my management, turned down the money, quit my job, gone
> public (and been blackballed by the industry), for the good of the economy."
>
> Everyone else would have done exactly as they did, been glad for the
> paycheck, and tried to keep the ball rolling as long as possible, the
> economy be damned.
>
> JG-

I just love it when the justification for something begins with the
"everyone else is doing it" argument. We do seem to have transitioned
from the "Me Generation" to the "Everyone's doing it Generation". In
this case though, please speak only for yourself.

John Galt[_2_]
March 25th 09, 05:53 PM
BobR wrote:
> On Mar 25, 10:10 am, John Galt > wrote:
>> BobR wrote:
>>> On Mar 24, 10:26 pm, John Galt > wrote:
>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:33:11 -0400, Poetic Justice wrote:
>>>>>> Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
>>>>>>> Poetic Justice > found these unused
>>>>>>> words:
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> alexy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Tim Bruening > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tim Bruening wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bonuses went to 11 people who no longer work for AIG. How can
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bonuses be required to be paid to ex-employees?
>>>>>>>>>>>> When that is what was contracted.
>>>>>>>>>>> AIG contracted to pay retention bonuses to people who aren't
>>>>>>>>>>> retained?
>>>>>>>>>> No, they contracted to pay retention bonuses to employees who
>>>>>>>>>> remained employed for a specific period of time.
>>>>>>>>> A Million dollars to stay two weeks? Sounds and smell like crap to
>>>>>>>>> me.
>>>>>>>> Now the companies have no way to keep talent. So if someone is a good
>>>>>>>> employee they are better off to jump off the sinking ship and find a
>>>>>>>> good job the moment they get wind of their company needing to be
>>>>>>>> bailed out.
>>>>>>>> So now the "Rescue" plans will be installed with the good employees
>>>>>>>> gone.
>>>>>>>> Good luck with that.
>>>>>>> Wouldn't make any difference!
>>>>>>> An employee that cares, isn't in it solely for the bonus - that's left
>>>>>>> politic thinking.
>>>>>> Self interest says that you need to keep the company out of
>>>>>> bankruptcy.... If it looks grim, and the bail out plan "stinks" then
>>>>>> the good people will leave, but if a retention bonus is offered they may
>>>>>> postpone their escape.
>>>>> for every person that leaves AIG there's a hundred others that can take
>>>>> their place, how hard of a job do you think it is to lose hundreds of
>>>>> $billions...
>>>> Not hard, but that job description has been changed.
>>>> The new job description is for somebody to fix it, and the key
>>>> experience the right applicant must have is to understand how it got
>>>> broken.
>>>> Hence the effort at retention, rightly or wrongly.
>>>> JG
>>> If they couldn't keep it from getting broken in the first place how
>>> does anyone in their right mind expect that they can now fix it?
>> The question contains an incorrect assumption. They COULD have kept it
>> from getting broken, but they were incented to do otherwise.
>>
>> JG
>
> Well, we both have an assumption and either way I don't have a high
> degree of trust that the ones who got us there are capable of fixing
> it.

The group most applicable to your above statement is not "AIG
employees." It's "politicians."

I trust the AIG guys a lot more than I do the politicos.

JG

John Galt[_2_]
March 25th 09, 06:37 PM
BobR wrote:
> On Mar 25, 11:58 am, John Galt > wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> John Galt wrote:
>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>> which consists of writing off hundreds of $billions in losses (plus
>>>>> $millions more to pay bonuses to those doing the writedowns and
>>>>> doling out bailout money, so where do i sign up for such a highly
>>>>> overpaid easy job)
>>>> Hopefully outside of the US. I prefer less cynical employees.
>>>> JG
>>> You spelled perceptive wrong............
>> Perceptive never entered into my mind. There are two lunatic positions
>> in this debate. One is the position that these guys are without blame,
>> and they need no supervision going forward. The other is the notion that
>> they are wholly to blame, and that we're better off without them.
>>
>> A little balance is in order. History shows that societies who blame
>> smart people for all their woes don't get good results.
>>
>
> I don't blame this on the smart people, I blame it on the greedy
> people. If the two happen to be the same, too damn bad and we are
> better off without them.
>
>> There are probably no more than few dozen people in this country who can
>> honestly say "If I were in the position of these guys, I would have
>> stood up to my management, turned down the money, quit my job, gone
>> public (and been blackballed by the industry), for the good of the economy."
>>
>> Everyone else would have done exactly as they did, been glad for the
>> paycheck, and tried to keep the ball rolling as long as possible, the
>> economy be damned.
>>
>> JG-
>
> I just love it when the justification for something begins with the
> "everyone else is doing it" argument. We do seem to have transitioned
> from the "Me Generation" to the "Everyone's doing it Generation".

You read that as a justification? It's far from it. I'm simply saying
that you're scapegoating the wrong guys.

There is nothing inherently evil or corrupt or dangerous about a CDS,
and so guys who were hired to manage portfolios of them aren't evil or
corrupt or intentionally putting the economy at risk. They were hired to
do a job, they did it, and if they did it well, they got paid a stupid
amount of money, but that's biz, sometimes.

A CDS is either used as insurance or as a put on something that's not an
equity. Nothing new there. The guys that got rich "shorting CDO's"
didn't really short CDO's, because there's no way to do that; what they
did was get AIG to write them CDSs that would pay off if and when the
CDOs trashed.

The problem with CDSs is the way they, by FASB regulation, have to be
accounted for. They're subject to mark-to-market, and thus introduce
tremendous volatility (and therefore risk) into the financial statements
of the company. This means that your BAD GUYS, since you seem to have to
have one to garrot, is NOT the trader, it's some combination of (1) the
CPA's who missed the risk, (2) the business managers who decided to
ignore the CPA's, (3) the risk managers who missed the risk, and/or (4)
the business managers who decided to ignore the risk managers. (The
latter group carries most of the blame for the CDO debacles at Lehman,
Merrill, Bear, and the rest, btw. One of the more interesting stories is
how all these investment banks got trashed by the CDOs, except for
Goldman, who invested in CDOs like everyone else but managed but avoid
most of the financial distress.)

Here's reality. You get hired to do a job. Your job is to write and
manage a portfolio of CDSs. You didn't invent CDSs, you have no reason
to concern yourself with the broader implications of their existence,
you have no ABILITY to concern yourself with the broader implications of
their existence, because you don't have transparency to how leveraged
your employer is into them. You do your job excellently. You are
rewarded well, because you did your job. You, with reasonable accuracy
and honesty based on known information, assess the risk on the CDSs you
write, but because your COMPANY failed to AGGREGATE that risk, disaster
occurs.

For that, you get to face the mob, spurred on by Congress and Attorney
Generals using tactics that IF, used by a non-politician, would get you
convicted under RICO.

You like this picture of America you're supporting?

> In
> this case though, please speak only for yourself.

If you want to claim that you would have somehow known things that were,
for the most part, unknowable to you, then brought those things to your
superiors, who would have then told you to put up or shut up; and then
afterwards you would have quit on principle and gone public, despite its
negative impact on your family and future, then I apologize.

JG

Awaken21
March 25th 09, 07:54 PM
On Mar 25, 12:11*pm, Mike > wrote:

>
> which consists of writing off hundreds of $billions in losses (plus
> $millions more to pay bonuses to those doing the writedowns and doling
> out bailout money, so where do i sign up for such a highly overpaid easy
> job)

You get a master's degree in finance from the right US business
university.

Mike
March 25th 09, 08:10 PM
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:58:34 -0500, John Galt wrote:

> wrote:
>> John Galt wrote:
>>> Mike wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> which consists of writing off hundreds of $billions in losses (plus
>>>> $millions more to pay bonuses to those doing the writedowns and
>>>> doling out bailout money, so where do i sign up for such a highly
>>>> overpaid easy job)
>>>
>>> Hopefully outside of the US. I prefer less cynical employees.
>>>
>>> JG
>>
>>
>> You spelled perceptive wrong............
>
> Perceptive never entered into my mind. There are two lunatic positions
> in this debate. One is the position that these guys are without blame,
> and they need no supervision going forward. The other is the notion that
> they are wholly to blame, and that we're better off without them.


neither of which has anything to do with what i said.


> A little balance is in order.


yeah, like when the local AM radio station describes itself as "fair &
balanced" despite being 7x24 right-wing propaganda. phrases like that
always preface highly biased opinions. the only thing anyone on a public
message board has to offer is one person's opinion (including me). the
balance comes from opposing viewpoints and i think it's already pretty
obvious from previous discussions where i stand with regard to yours.


> History shows that societies who blame
> smart people for all their woes don't get good results.
>
> There are probably no more than few dozen people in this country who can
> honestly say "If I were in the position of these guys, I would have
> stood up to my management, turned down the money, quit my job, gone
> public (and been blackballed by the industry), for the good of the
> economy."
>
> Everyone else would have done exactly as they did, been glad for the
> paycheck, and tried to keep the ball rolling as long as possible, the
> economy be damned.
>
> JG

Doobie Keebler[_2_]
March 25th 09, 08:14 PM
On Mar 25, 10:12*am, John Galt > wrote:
> ... if Congress chases off all the bankers, that's
> what you're going to get.
>
> JG

I don't see that's the case.

There are many prudent banks with sound balance sheets out there who
DIDN"T go for the 35:1 leverage.

Let them buy the troubled banks (assets) out of bankruptcy.

The cherry on top: a bankrupt bank has no money to pay executive
bonuses with.

Problem solved, moral hazard and all.

..

John Galt[_2_]
March 25th 09, 08:28 PM
Doobie Keebler wrote:
> On Mar 25, 10:12 am, John Galt > wrote:
>> ... if Congress chases off all the bankers, that's
>> what you're going to get.
>>
>> JG
>
> I don't see that's the case.
>
> There are many prudent banks with sound balance sheets out there who
> DIDN"T go for the 35:1 leverage.
>
> Let them buy the troubled banks (assets) out of bankruptcy.

To the extent possible, sure. Remember, these big banks are loaded with
assets which normal banks have no expertise in and no interest in
owning. These guys were providing services and products which normal
banks don't screw with. Doesn't matter how nice your real estate in
Mumbai is, First National of Peoria doesn't want to manage overseas real
estate, for example.

Not like a Chinese buffet, here. But, I agree that they ought to be FDIC
auctioned off in pieces. Problem is what to do with the leftovers.

JG


>
> The cherry on top: a bankrupt bank has no money to pay executive
> bonuses with.
>
> Problem solved, moral hazard and all.
>
> .
>

BobR
March 25th 09, 08:54 PM
On Mar 25, 12:53*pm, John Galt > wrote:
> BobR wrote:
> > On Mar 25, 10:10 am, John Galt > wrote:
> >> BobR wrote:
> >>> On Mar 24, 10:26 pm, John Galt > wrote:
> >>>> Mike wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:33:11 -0400, Poetic Justice wrote:
> >>>>>> Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
> >>>>>>> Poetic Justice > found these unused
> >>>>>>> words:
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> alexy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Tim Bruening > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Tim Bruening wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Bonuses went to 11 people who no longer work for AIG. How can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> bonuses be required to be paid to ex-employees?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> When that is what was contracted.
> >>>>>>>>>>> AIG contracted to pay retention bonuses to people who aren't
> >>>>>>>>>>> retained?
> >>>>>>>>>> No, they contracted to pay retention bonuses to employees who
> >>>>>>>>>> remained employed for a specific period of time.
> >>>>>>>>> A Million dollars to stay two weeks? Sounds and smell like crap to
> >>>>>>>>> me.
> >>>>>>>> Now the companies have no way to keep talent. *So if someone is a good
> >>>>>>>> employee they are better off to jump off the sinking ship and find a
> >>>>>>>> good job the moment they get wind of their company needing to be
> >>>>>>>> bailed out.
> >>>>>>>> So now the "Rescue" plans will be installed with the good employees
> >>>>>>>> gone.
> >>>>>>>> Good luck with that.
> >>>>>>> Wouldn't make any difference!
> >>>>>>> An employee that cares, isn't in it solely for the bonus - that's left
> >>>>>>> politic thinking.
> >>>>>> Self interest says that you need to keep the company out of
> >>>>>> bankruptcy.... *If it looks grim, and the bail out plan "stinks" then
> >>>>>> the good people will leave, but if a retention bonus is offered they may
> >>>>>> postpone their escape.
> >>>>> for every person that leaves AIG there's a hundred others that can take
> >>>>> their place, how hard of a job do you think it is to lose hundreds of
> >>>>> $billions...
> >>>> Not hard, but that job description has been changed.
> >>>> The new job description is for somebody to fix it, and the key
> >>>> experience the right applicant must have is to understand how it got
> >>>> broken.
> >>>> Hence the effort at retention, rightly or wrongly.
> >>>> JG
> >>> If they couldn't keep it from getting broken in the first place how
> >>> does anyone in their right mind expect that they can now fix it? *
> >> The question contains an incorrect assumption. They COULD have kept it
> >> from getting broken, but they were incented to do otherwise.
>
> >> JG
>
> > Well, we both have an assumption and either way I don't have a high
> > degree of trust that the ones who got us there are capable of fixing
> > it.
>
> The group most applicable to your above statement is not "AIG
> employees." It's "politicians."
>
> I trust the AIG guys a lot more than I do the politicos.
>
> JG-

Well hell, now you went and changed the subject. Ok, I wouldn't trust
either one of them with my change jar much less my investments. I
will have to agree with you though, is isn't possible to have less
trust than I have for politicians so that would automatically put the
AIG guys higher.

March 25th 09, 08:56 PM
heard he gave AIG bailout money to goldman sachs . is this true ?


"THE BLACK HAND" is the name of the international
terrorist group that is causing all the problems.

BobR
March 25th 09, 09:22 PM
On Mar 25, 1:37*pm, John Galt > wrote:
> BobR wrote:
> > On Mar 25, 11:58 am, John Galt > wrote:
> >> wrote:
> >>> John Galt wrote:
> >>>> Mike wrote:
> >>>>> which consists of writing off hundreds of $billions in losses (plus
> >>>>> $millions more to pay bonuses to those doing the writedowns and
> >>>>> doling out bailout money, so where do i sign up for such a highly
> >>>>> overpaid easy job)
> >>>> Hopefully outside of the US. I prefer less cynical employees.
> >>>> JG
> >>> You spelled perceptive wrong............
> >> Perceptive never entered into my mind. There are two lunatic positions
> >> in this debate. One is the position that these guys are without blame,
> >> and they need no supervision going forward. The other is the notion that
> >> they are wholly to blame, and that we're better off without them.
>
> >> A little balance is in order. History shows that societies who blame
> >> smart people for all their woes don't get good results.
>
> > I don't blame this on the smart people, I blame it on the greedy
> > people. *If the two happen to be the same, too damn bad and we are
> > better off without them.
>
> >> There are probably no more than few dozen people in this country who can
> >> honestly say "If I were in the position of these guys, I would have
> >> stood up to my management, turned down the money, quit my job, gone
> >> public (and been blackballed by the industry), for the good of the economy."
>
> >> Everyone else would have done exactly as they did, been glad for the
> >> paycheck, and tried to keep the ball rolling as long as possible, the
> >> economy be damned.
>
> >> JG-
>
> > I just love it when the justification for something begins with the
> > "everyone else is doing it" argument. *We do seem to have transitioned
> > from the "Me Generation" to the "Everyone's doing it Generation". *
>
> You read that as a justification? It's far from it. I'm simply saying
> that you're scapegoating the wrong guys.
>

No, I am not throwing everyone at AIG into the same bucket. I had
several friends who worked at ENRON and they were good honest people
who lost everything they had worked for when ENRON failed. A couple
of them though knew what was going on and decided to do nothing about
it. For those, I have little pity. They made their bed, accepted
that it was being done and paid the price.

> There is nothing inherently evil or corrupt or dangerous about a CDS,
> and so guys who were hired to manage portfolios of them aren't evil or
> corrupt or intentionally putting the economy at risk. They were hired to
> do a job, they did it, and if they did it well, they got paid a stupid
> amount of money, but that's biz, sometimes.
>
> A CDS is either used as insurance or as a put on something that's not an
> equity. Nothing new there. The guys that got rich "shorting CDO's"
> didn't really short CDO's, because there's no way to do that; what they
> did was get AIG to write them CDSs that would pay off if and when the
> CDOs trashed.
>
> The problem with CDSs is the way they, by FASB regulation, have to be
> accounted for. They're subject to mark-to-market, and thus introduce
> tremendous volatility (and therefore risk) into the financial statements
> of the company. This means that your BAD GUYS, since you seem to have to
> have one to garrot, is NOT the trader, it's some combination of (1) the
> CPA's who missed the risk, (2) the business managers who decided to
> ignore the CPA's, (3) the risk managers who missed the risk, and/or (4)
> the business managers who decided to ignore the risk managers. (The
> latter group carries most of the blame for the CDO debacles at Lehman,
> Merrill, Bear, and the rest, btw. One of the more interesting stories is
> how all these investment banks got trashed by the CDOs, except for
> Goldman, who invested in CDOs like everyone else but managed but avoid
> most of the financial distress.)
>
> Here's reality. You get hired to do a job. Your job is to write and
> manage a portfolio of CDSs. You didn't invent CDSs, you have no reason
> to concern yourself with the broader implications of their existence,
> you have no ABILITY to concern yourself with the broader implications of
> their existence, because you don't have transparency to how leveraged
> your employer is into them. You do your job excellently. You are
> rewarded well, because you did your job. You, with reasonable accuracy
> and honesty based on known information, assess the risk on the CDSs you
> write, but because your COMPANY failed to AGGREGATE that risk, disaster
> occurs.
>
> For that, you get to face the mob, spurred on by Congress and Attorney
> Generals using tactics that IF, used by a non-politician, would get you
> convicted under RICO.
>
> You like this picture of America you're supporting?
>

So you are telling me that they were simply unthinking machines that
did their job without knowing what they were really doing. WOW, I
didn't know that.

> *> In
> *> this case though, please speak only for yourself.
>
> If you want to claim that you would have somehow known things that were,
> for the most part, unknowable to you, then brought those things to your
> superiors, who would have then told you to put up or shut up; and then
> afterwards you would have quit on principle and gone public, despite its
> negative impact on your family and future, then I apologize.
>
> JG-

Never worked for AIG but I have done just that a number of years ago.
The circumstances were somewhat different but I found out that a
majority partner in a business that I was involved with was pulling
some numbers with the books for tax purposes and I couldn't accept
that it was legal. I resigned on the spot, did an orderly shutdown of
the business, and went looking for work. At the time, I had a 15
month old daughter and a new house to pay for without a job and I lost
a substantial stake in the business. It wasn't easy but it worked out
for the better and I would do it again if I were faced with a similar
situation.

The very reason that we are seeing the Enron, WorldCom, AIG, and a
host of other companies involved in mismanagement and fraud stems back
to when good people do nothing. If you know about it, accept and
support it, then you are just as guilty as those who are doing it. It
is unfortunate that in today's society the pretend you didn't see has
become the norm in too may ways.

John Galt[_2_]
March 25th 09, 09:22 PM
Mike wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:58:34 -0500, John Galt wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>> John Galt wrote:
>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>
>>>>> which consists of writing off hundreds of $billions in losses (plus
>>>>> $millions more to pay bonuses to those doing the writedowns and
>>>>> doling out bailout money, so where do i sign up for such a highly
>>>>> overpaid easy job)
>>>> Hopefully outside of the US. I prefer less cynical employees.
>>>>
>>>> JG
>>>
>>> You spelled perceptive wrong............
>> Perceptive never entered into my mind. There are two lunatic positions
>> in this debate. One is the position that these guys are without blame,
>> and they need no supervision going forward. The other is the notion that
>> they are wholly to blame, and that we're better off without them.
>
>
> neither of which has anything to do with what i said.
>
>
>> A little balance is in order.
>
>
> yeah, like when the local AM radio station describes itself as "fair &
> balanced" despite being 7x24 right-wing propaganda.

No, it's not "like that" at all. When you want to financially penalize
an individual, you are under a moral obligation to figure out if they
deserve to be penalized. I don't care if you're a liberal or a
conservative, the rule of law is supposed to matter, and take precedence
over emotions.

phrases like that
> always preface highly biased opinions. the only thing anyone on a public
> message board has to offer is one person's opinion (including me). the
> balance comes from opposing viewpoints and i think it's already pretty
> obvious from previous discussions where i stand with regard to yours.

As far as I can tell, yours is pretty much "hang em high", while I'm
arguing for those who want to think the matter through rationally.

YMMV, and I'm sure it does.

JG


>
>
>> History shows that societies who blame
>> smart people for all their woes don't get good results.
>>
>> There are probably no more than few dozen people in this country who can
>> honestly say "If I were in the position of these guys, I would have
>> stood up to my management, turned down the money, quit my job, gone
>> public (and been blackballed by the industry), for the good of the
>> economy."
>>
>> Everyone else would have done exactly as they did, been glad for the
>> paycheck, and tried to keep the ball rolling as long as possible, the
>> economy be damned.
>>
>> JG
>

John Galt[_2_]
March 25th 09, 09:35 PM
BobR wrote:
> On Mar 25, 1:37 pm, John Galt > wrote:
>> BobR wrote:
>>> On Mar 25, 11:58 am, John Galt > wrote:
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> John Galt wrote:
>>>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>>>> which consists of writing off hundreds of $billions in losses (plus
>>>>>>> $millions more to pay bonuses to those doing the writedowns and
>>>>>>> doling out bailout money, so where do i sign up for such a highly
>>>>>>> overpaid easy job)
>>>>>> Hopefully outside of the US. I prefer less cynical employees.
>>>>>> JG
>>>>> You spelled perceptive wrong............
>>>> Perceptive never entered into my mind. There are two lunatic positions
>>>> in this debate. One is the position that these guys are without blame,
>>>> and they need no supervision going forward. The other is the notion that
>>>> they are wholly to blame, and that we're better off without them.
>>>> A little balance is in order. History shows that societies who blame
>>>> smart people for all their woes don't get good results.
>>> I don't blame this on the smart people, I blame it on the greedy
>>> people. If the two happen to be the same, too damn bad and we are
>>> better off without them.
>>>> There are probably no more than few dozen people in this country who can
>>>> honestly say "If I were in the position of these guys, I would have
>>>> stood up to my management, turned down the money, quit my job, gone
>>>> public (and been blackballed by the industry), for the good of the economy."
>>>> Everyone else would have done exactly as they did, been glad for the
>>>> paycheck, and tried to keep the ball rolling as long as possible, the
>>>> economy be damned.
>>>> JG-
>>> I just love it when the justification for something begins with the
>>> "everyone else is doing it" argument. We do seem to have transitioned
>>> from the "Me Generation" to the "Everyone's doing it Generation".
>> You read that as a justification? It's far from it. I'm simply saying
>> that you're scapegoating the wrong guys.
>>
>
> No, I am not throwing everyone at AIG into the same bucket. I had
> several friends who worked at ENRON and they were good honest people
> who lost everything they had worked for when ENRON failed. A couple
> of them though knew what was going on and decided to do nothing about
> it. For those, I have little pity. They made their bed, accepted
> that it was being done and paid the price.

I get the analogy, but I also see the difference. Enron was engaged in
fraudulent accounting and market manipulations. AIG does not, at this
time, appear to have done anything illegal.
>
>> There is nothing inherently evil or corrupt or dangerous about a CDS,
>> and so guys who were hired to manage portfolios of them aren't evil or
>> corrupt or intentionally putting the economy at risk. They were hired to
>> do a job, they did it, and if they did it well, they got paid a stupid
>> amount of money, but that's biz, sometimes.
>>
>> A CDS is either used as insurance or as a put on something that's not an
>> equity. Nothing new there. The guys that got rich "shorting CDO's"
>> didn't really short CDO's, because there's no way to do that; what they
>> did was get AIG to write them CDSs that would pay off if and when the
>> CDOs trashed.
>>
>> The problem with CDSs is the way they, by FASB regulation, have to be
>> accounted for. They're subject to mark-to-market, and thus introduce
>> tremendous volatility (and therefore risk) into the financial statements
>> of the company. This means that your BAD GUYS, since you seem to have to
>> have one to garrot, is NOT the trader, it's some combination of (1) the
>> CPA's who missed the risk, (2) the business managers who decided to
>> ignore the CPA's, (3) the risk managers who missed the risk, and/or (4)
>> the business managers who decided to ignore the risk managers. (The
>> latter group carries most of the blame for the CDO debacles at Lehman,
>> Merrill, Bear, and the rest, btw. One of the more interesting stories is
>> how all these investment banks got trashed by the CDOs, except for
>> Goldman, who invested in CDOs like everyone else but managed but avoid
>> most of the financial distress.)
>>
>> Here's reality. You get hired to do a job. Your job is to write and
>> manage a portfolio of CDSs. You didn't invent CDSs, you have no reason
>> to concern yourself with the broader implications of their existence,
>> you have no ABILITY to concern yourself with the broader implications of
>> their existence, because you don't have transparency to how leveraged
>> your employer is into them. You do your job excellently. You are
>> rewarded well, because you did your job. You, with reasonable accuracy
>> and honesty based on known information, assess the risk on the CDSs you
>> write, but because your COMPANY failed to AGGREGATE that risk, disaster
>> occurs.
>>
>> For that, you get to face the mob, spurred on by Congress and Attorney
>> Generals using tactics that IF, used by a non-politician, would get you
>> convicted under RICO.
>>
>> You like this picture of America you're supporting?
>>
>
> So you are telling me that they were simply unthinking machines that
> did their job without knowing what they were really doing. WOW, I
> didn't know that.

No. They can be as brilliant as you like. The point is that they were
hired to do a LEGAL job, which was to write CDSs according to risk
metrics which, as we have now found, were sorely lacking in assessing
that risk. There was no reason for any of the underwriters, traders, or
portfolio managers to think they were putting the entire economy into
systemic risk.

Think of it this way. You're a car dealer. You sell cars that have
48,000 mile manufacturer warranties. The manufacturer goes belly up.
Your customers are ****ed off. Is it your fault?
>
>> > In
>> > this case though, please speak only for yourself.
>>
>> If you want to claim that you would have somehow known things that were,
>> for the most part, unknowable to you, then brought those things to your
>> superiors, who would have then told you to put up or shut up; and then
>> afterwards you would have quit on principle and gone public, despite its
>> negative impact on your family and future, then I apologize.
>>
>> JG-
>
> Never worked for AIG but I have done just that a number of years ago.
> The circumstances were somewhat different but I found out that a
> majority partner in a business that I was involved with was pulling
> some numbers with the books for tax purposes and I couldn't accept
> that it was legal. I resigned on the spot, did an orderly shutdown of
> the business, and went looking for work. At the time, I had a 15
> month old daughter and a new house to pay for without a job and I lost
> a substantial stake in the business. It wasn't easy but it worked out
> for the better and I would do it again if I were faced with a similar
> situation.

I quite agree with what you did, BUT AGAIN, the analogy is different.
Like Enron, you saw fraud. Unlike your situation, the CDSs were legal.
Since you are focused on your own portfolio, and you have no insight
into the portfolio of others, you have no data that might indicate to
you that the TOTAL of those portfolios is leading to systemic risk for
an entire 14 trillion dollar economy.
>
> The very reason that we are seeing the Enron, WorldCom, AIG, and a
> host of other companies involved in mismanagement and fraud stems back
> to when good people do nothing. If you know about it, accept and
> support it, then you are just as guilty as those who are doing it. It
> is unfortunate that in today's society the pretend you didn't see has
> become the norm in too may ways.

Once more. AIG -- WASN'T -- DOING -- FRAUD. Their upper management is
guilty of stupidity, but last I checked, that's not an actionable crime.

JG

Poetic Justice[_2_]
March 25th 09, 09:52 PM
Mike wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:58:34 -0500, John Galt wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>> John Galt wrote:
>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>
>>>>> which consists of writing off hundreds of $billions in losses (plus
>>>>> $millions more to pay bonuses to those doing the writedowns and
>>>>> doling out bailout money, so where do i sign up for such a highly
>>>>> overpaid easy job)
>>>> Hopefully outside of the US. I prefer less cynical employees.
>>>>
>>>> JG
>>>
>>> You spelled perceptive wrong............
>> Perceptive never entered into my mind. There are two lunatic positions
>> in this debate. One is the position that these guys are without blame,
>> and they need no supervision going forward. The other is the notion that
>> they are wholly to blame, and that we're better off without them.
>
>
> neither of which has anything to do with what i said.
>
>
>> A little balance is in order.
>
>
> yeah, like when the local AM radio station describes itself as "fair &
> balanced" despite being 7x24 right-wing propaganda. phrases like that

Which station is that.... I would like to listen to it.

> always preface highly biased opinions. the only thing anyone on a public
> message board has to offer is one person's opinion (including me). the
> balance comes from opposing viewpoints and i think it's already pretty
> obvious from previous discussions where i stand with regard to yours.
>
>
>> History shows that societies who blame
>> smart people for all their woes don't get good results.
>>
>> There are probably no more than few dozen people in this country who can
>> honestly say "If I were in the position of these guys, I would have
>> stood up to my management, turned down the money, quit my job, gone
>> public (and been blackballed by the industry), for the good of the
>> economy."
>>
>> Everyone else would have done exactly as they did, been glad for the
>> paycheck, and tried to keep the ball rolling as long as possible, the
>> economy be damned.
>>
>> JG
>

Mike
March 25th 09, 10:00 PM
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:22:18 -0500, John Galt wrote:

> Mike wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:58:34 -0500, John Galt wrote:
>>
>>> wrote:
>>>> John Galt wrote:
>>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> which consists of writing off hundreds of $billions in losses (plus
>>>>>> $millions more to pay bonuses to those doing the writedowns and
>>>>>> doling out bailout money, so where do i sign up for such a highly
>>>>>> overpaid easy job)
>>>>> Hopefully outside of the US. I prefer less cynical employees.
>>>>>
>>>>> JG
>>>>
>>>> You spelled perceptive wrong............
>>> Perceptive never entered into my mind. There are two lunatic positions
>>> in this debate. One is the position that these guys are without blame,
>>> and they need no supervision going forward. The other is the notion
>>> that they are wholly to blame, and that we're better off without them.
>>
>>
>> neither of which has anything to do with what i said.
>>
>>
>>> A little balance is in order.
>>
>>
>> yeah, like when the local AM radio station describes itself as "fair &
>> balanced" despite being 7x24 right-wing propaganda.
>
> No, it's not "like that" at all. When you want to financially penalize
> an individual, you are under a moral obligation to figure out if they
> deserve to be penalized. I don't care if you're a liberal or a
> conservative, the rule of law is supposed to matter, and take precedence
> over emotions.
>
> phrases like that
>> always preface highly biased opinions. the only thing anyone on a
>> public message board has to offer is one person's opinion (including
>> me). the balance comes from opposing viewpoints and i think it's
>> already pretty obvious from previous discussions where i stand with
>> regard to yours.
>
> As far as I can tell, yours is pretty much "hang em high", while I'm
> arguing for those who want to think the matter through rationally.
>
> YMMV, and I'm sure it does.
>
> JG


neither of your replies has anything to do with what i said and your
attempts to ascribe opinions to me do not represent my views.

Mike
March 25th 09, 11:20 PM
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:52:37 -0400, Poetic Justice wrote:

>> yeah, like when the local AM radio station describes itself as "fair &
>> balanced" despite being 7x24 right-wing propaganda. phrases like that
>
> Which station is that.... I would like to listen to it.


http://www.640whlo.com/main.html


actually the "fair & balanced" is part of the FOX news feed that they get.

i was referring to the limbaugh, hannity & levin shows which spans noon
to 9PM, i don't really know if all the other programs are right-wing.
the matt patrick show in the morning is relatively new, a local DJ turned
talk show host. i liked it better when they had michael savage (which
was in the evening), but they took him off quite a while ago.

Les Cargill
March 26th 09, 12:20 AM
Mike wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 23:49:02 -0400, Poetic Justice wrote:
>
<snip>
>
>
> the only thing i don't understand is why some people think those working
> at AIG are special. what's special about the ability to lose hundreds of
> $billions or dole out bailout money to a few CDS counterparties?
>
>
>

If you watch the Frontline from Feb 17th, "Inside the Meltdown",
Bear was mostly okay until it became known that Geithner was
wanting to bail them out.

Hedge funds turn over every night. The next morning, they were toast.

Bear's internal controls showed no evidence of toxicity, but the
audit Geithner did killed 'em dead.

This is what's on the Frontline. It makes little sense to me.

Why is it that this fits the Enron profile - they were
heros until they lost money, then they're criminals? It
starts to sound like "just don't get caught."

--
Les Cargill

Mike
March 26th 09, 03:39 AM
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:20:34 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:

> Mike wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 23:49:02 -0400, Poetic Justice wrote:
>>
> <snip>
>>
>>
>> the only thing i don't understand is why some people think those
>> working at AIG are special. what's special about the ability to lose
>> hundreds of $billions or dole out bailout money to a few CDS
>> counterparties?
>>
>>
>>
>>
> If you watch the Frontline from Feb 17th, "Inside the Meltdown", Bear
> was mostly okay until it became known that Geithner was wanting to bail
> them out.
>
> Hedge funds turn over every night. The next morning, they were toast.
>
> Bear's internal controls showed no evidence of toxicity, but the audit
> Geithner did killed 'em dead.
>
> This is what's on the Frontline. It makes little sense to me.
>
> Why is it that this fits the Enron profile - they were heros until they
> lost money, then they're criminals? It starts to sound like "just don't
> get caught."


i thought in the enron case they were just outright lying about the
numbers they were reporting, whereas in the current financial "meltdown"
there isn't any one entity solely responsible for a blatant fraud that
caused it but instead a whole bunch of independent entities involved
(everyone from home buyers to lenders, underwriters, wall-street
bankers, ratings agencies, AIG, fannie/freddie, the SEC, etc) each of
which is partly to blame for various missteps which separately wouldn't
have done nearly as much damage (had the rest of the system been
functioning properly) but collectively added up to a sequence of events
that no individual entity can take full credit for producing nor be
expected to bear the entire brunt of the blame for the mess.

as to "just don't get caught" i would say it goes without saying.
corporations can get away with murder as long as they're hugely
profitable, the issue of legality (not to mention all that other messy
stuff like ethics, morals & social value) does not come into play until
after the money stops flowing.

Poetic Justice[_2_]
March 26th 09, 03:56 AM
Les Cargill wrote:
> Mike wrote:

I removed the attribute to myself for anything below... I didn't write it.

>>
> <snip>
>>
>>
>> the only thing i don't understand is why some people think those
>> working at AIG are special. what's special about the ability to lose
>> hundreds of $billions or dole out bailout money to a few CDS
>> counterparties?
>>
>>
>>
>
> If you watch the Frontline from Feb 17th, "Inside the Meltdown",
> Bear was mostly okay until it became known that Geithner was
> wanting to bail them out.
>
> Hedge funds turn over every night. The next morning, they were toast.
>
> Bear's internal controls showed no evidence of toxicity, but the
> audit Geithner did killed 'em dead.
>
> This is what's on the Frontline. It makes little sense to me.
>
> Why is it that this fits the Enron profile - they were
> heros until they lost money, then they're criminals? It
> starts to sound like "just don't get caught."
>
> --
> Les Cargill
>

Poetic Justice[_2_]
March 26th 09, 04:25 AM
Mike wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:52:37 -0400, Poetic Justice wrote:
>
>>> yeah, like when the local AM radio station describes itself as "fair &
>>> balanced" despite being 7x24 right-wing propaganda. phrases like that
>> Which station is that.... I would like to listen to it.
>
>
> http://www.640whlo.com/main.html
>
>
> actually the "fair & balanced" is part of the FOX news feed that they get.
>
> i was referring to the limbaugh, hannity & levin shows which spans noon
> to 9PM, i don't really know if all the other programs are right-wing.
> the matt patrick show in the morning is relatively new, a local DJ turned
> talk show host. i liked it better when they had michael savage (which
> was in the evening), but they took him off quite a while ago.

You do know that there are probably 20 other stations on your radio. To
me it's like going to HOME DEPOT to buy Louis Vuitton purses. Just go
somewhere that you can buy what you want, if there are none then maybe
like the buggy whip stores, there is no one buying what you think should
be sold.

Since there is room for at least 20 stations across the AM dial, maybe
if more than half the bandwidth is consumed by total right wing
propaganda 24/7 we should begin to think about why no one is buying
Liberal radio.

Les Cargill
March 26th 09, 05:09 AM
Mike wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:20:34 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:
>
>> Mike wrote:
>>> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 23:49:02 -0400, Poetic Justice wrote:
>>>
>> <snip>
>>>
>>> the only thing i don't understand is why some people think those
>>> working at AIG are special. what's special about the ability to lose
>>> hundreds of $billions or dole out bailout money to a few CDS
>>> counterparties?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> If you watch the Frontline from Feb 17th, "Inside the Meltdown", Bear
>> was mostly okay until it became known that Geithner was wanting to bail
>> them out.
>>
>> Hedge funds turn over every night. The next morning, they were toast.
>>
>> Bear's internal controls showed no evidence of toxicity, but the audit
>> Geithner did killed 'em dead.
>>
>> This is what's on the Frontline. It makes little sense to me.
>>
>> Why is it that this fits the Enron profile - they were heros until they
>> lost money, then they're criminals? It starts to sound like "just don't
>> get caught."
>
>
> i thought in the enron case they were just outright lying about the
> numbers they were reporting,

Not quite, but close.

> whereas in the current financial "meltdown"
> there isn't any one entity solely responsible for a blatant fraud that
> caused it but instead a whole bunch of independent entities involved
> (everyone from home buyers to lenders, underwriters, wall-street
> bankers, ratings agencies, AIG, fannie/freddie, the SEC, etc) each of
> which is partly to blame for various missteps which separately wouldn't
> have done nearly as much damage (had the rest of the system been
> functioning properly) but collectively added up to a sequence of events
> that no individual entity can take full credit for producing nor be
> expected to bear the entire brunt of the blame for the mess.
>

That's pretty close to my understanding. Still, Enron was a Best In Show
on business mags, just like all the high flyers recently.

> as to "just don't get caught" i would say it goes without saying.
> corporations can get away with murder as long as they're hugely
> profitable, the issue of legality (not to mention all that other messy
> stuff like ethics, morals & social value) does not come into play until
> after the money stops flowing.
>
>
>

That's Glbraith's "bezzle" ( a unit of time ):

http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/03/measurement_error.php

--
Les Cargill

David Bernier
March 26th 09, 11:21 AM
Les Cargill wrote:
> Mike wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 23:49:02 -0400, Poetic Justice wrote:
>>
> <snip>
>>
>>
>> the only thing i don't understand is why some people think those
>> working at AIG are special. what's special about the ability to lose
>> hundreds of $billions or dole out bailout money to a few CDS
>> counterparties?
>>
>>
>>
>
> If you watch the Frontline from Feb 17th, "Inside the Meltdown",
> Bear was mostly okay until it became known that Geithner was
> wanting to bail them out.

I assume Bear is Bear Stearns ...

David Bernier


> Hedge funds turn over every night. The next morning, they were toast.
>
> Bear's internal controls showed no evidence of toxicity, but the
> audit Geithner did killed 'em dead.
>
> This is what's on the Frontline. It makes little sense to me.
>
> Why is it that this fits the Enron profile - they were
> heros until they lost money, then they're criminals? It
> starts to sound like "just don't get caught."

Doobie Keebler[_2_]
March 26th 09, 11:24 AM
On Mar 25, 11:25*pm, Poetic Justice >
wrote:
> why no one is buying Liberal radio.

Liberals know better than to bother with AM radio.

Why limit yourself to 20 stations when satellite broadcasting and
podcasts offer so much more?

AM is for dinosaurs.

David Bernier
March 26th 09, 11:55 AM
Stray Dog wrote:
>
> On Sat, 21 Mar 2009, David Bernier wrote:
>
>> Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 15:07:24 -0400
>> From: David Bernier >
>> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
>> misc.invest.stocks
>> Subject: Re: AIG bonuses: actually about $450 million....
>>
>> Les Cargill wrote:
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Mar 18, 8:19 am, wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 16, 6:50 pm, "Rod Speed" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> <snip>
>
>>> Yes, but why do "they destroy jobs"? Generally because an industry,
>>> product or service is going through a cost reduction or excess capacity
>>> cycle. It's Schumpeterian creative destruction. I've been through it
>>> a half dozen times.
>>>
>>> Bonus rage is too easy. For one thing, it's disproportionate.
>>> http://xkcd.com/558/
>>> For another, it looks a lot like people are attaching
>>> free floating anxiety to a number because it's easy to
>>> understand. The story "they're greedy b*stards" is easier
>>> than thinking about just how messy the world is.
>>>
>>> My own personal heresy is that there has been real, basic
>>> demand destruction. That there is consumer fatigue, and that
>>> consumers may not bounce back.
>>>
>>> I don't buy that AIG (or the others ) were "creators of jobs". They were
>>> one element of a system that pumped up the housing bubble. I've
>>
>> There's one piece of the housing bubble puzzle that
>> I'm curious about. As a general rule, who hired the
>> contractors who built the houses that were part of
>> the bubble?
>>
>> David Bernier
>>
>
> You should probably be asking, instead, who paid their paychecks?
>
> Usually, a _builder_ gets an $X or $XX, or more, million loan, from a
> bank (etc) to buy a large tract of land AND build Z units (i.e. each
> unit either
> an appt or detached house, etc) and starts building. Individuals then
> pick out what they want to buy and then get financing to buy one of the
> Z units, and that comes from a bank or mortgage company (etc).
>
> The "feeding frenzy" was that (according to one article), some 1/3 of
> all purchases of housing were not to get housing but spec buying (to
> "flip" the house some months to, say, a year later and get 10-15% ROI on
> this). And, "money brokers" added to that frenzy because they were
> writing all the paperwork _AND_ collecting their commissions up front.
> And, it all snowballed on itself. Of course, the CDO/CMO feeding frenzy
> fed off that because the banks (etc) didn't want a loan on their books
> but wanted to dump the loan and get _all_ their money back real quick
> instead of over 20-30 years so they could loan it out _again_, so they
> "securitized" the loans and sold them anywhere they could so the buyers
> of those CDO/CMOs got the interest payments (+/-) over all those 20-30
> years (maybe, what, 1-2% higher than if it were in the bank as a CD),
> and it was a big shark party. Of course, there were other players, too,
> (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Sallie Mae, etc., etc, I don't follow them
> that much), and they were playing games, too. And, of course, insurance
> companies (AIG-de ja vu) make investments for ROI to help their own
> profits, and what did they do? Fancy-schmantzy (risky) derivatives and
> what happened? They blew up in their faces (and the **** hit the fan).
>
> You're welcome to contribute "fills" to my layperson explanation above.

From a Standard&Poors' 2007 leaflet on structured finance ratings:

<< The main driver of our CDO ratings is a credit model, named CDO Evaluator. >>

Cf.:
"The Fundamentals Of Structured Finance Ratings" , page 15:

< http://www2.standardandpoors.com/spf/pdf/fixedincome/Fundamentals_SF_Ratings.pdf >

I read somewhere that a credit analyst at one of the ratings companies
asked to see the mortgage origination papers, data on payments/servicing
for the mortgages underlying some RMBS. His supervisor refused to
oblige. But eventually someone at Fitch Ratings got their hands
on the origination and servicing files (lots of data ...) .
The conclusion after a limited inspection was that there
were "issues" with those files. In fact, with that info.,
I guess they would normally start looking into downgrading
the RM BS . But I think it was already late in the
MBS saga.

David Bernier

Doobie Keebler[_2_]
March 26th 09, 12:02 PM
On Mar 26, 6:21*am, David Bernier > wrote:

> I assume Bear is Bear Stearns ...
>
> David Bernier


Bear, as in 'Don't take you money out of Bear!'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUkbdjetlY8

Curiously, this fine gentleman STILL has a TV show.

Hard to fathom that 'liberal media', eh?

..-=d00b
..

David Bernier
March 26th 09, 12:13 PM
David Bernier wrote:
> Stray Dog wrote:
>>
[...]

>> You should probably be asking, instead, who paid their paychecks?
>>
>> Usually, a _builder_ gets an $X or $XX, or more, million loan, from a
>> bank (etc) to buy a large tract of land AND build Z units (i.e. each
>> unit either
>> an appt or detached house, etc) and starts building. Individuals then
>> pick out what they want to buy and then get financing to buy one of
>> the Z units, and that comes from a bank or mortgage company (etc).
>>
>> The "feeding frenzy" was that (according to one article), some 1/3 of
>> all purchases of housing were not to get housing but spec buying (to
>> "flip" the house some months to, say, a year later and get 10-15% ROI
>> on this). And, "money brokers" added to that frenzy because they were
>> writing all the paperwork _AND_ collecting their commissions up front.
>> And, it all snowballed on itself. Of course, the CDO/CMO feeding
>> frenzy fed off that because the banks (etc) didn't want a loan on
>> their books but wanted to dump the loan and get _all_ their money back
>> real quick instead of over 20-30 years so they could loan it out
>> _again_, so they "securitized" the loans and sold them anywhere they
>> could so the buyers of those CDO/CMOs got the interest payments (+/-)
>> over all those 20-30 years (maybe, what, 1-2% higher than if it were
>> in the bank as a CD), and it was a big shark party. Of course, there
>> were other players, too, (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Sallie Mae, etc.,
>> etc, I don't follow them that much), and they were playing games, too.
>> And, of course, insurance companies (AIG-de ja vu) make investments
>> for ROI to help their own profits, and what did they do?
>> Fancy-schmantzy (risky) derivatives and what happened? They blew up in
>> their faces (and the **** hit the fan).
>>
>> You're welcome to contribute "fills" to my layperson explanation above.
>
> From a Standard&Poors' 2007 leaflet on structured finance ratings:
>
> << The main driver of our CDO ratings is a credit model, named CDO
> Evaluator. >>
>
> Cf.:
> "The Fundamentals Of Structured Finance Ratings" , page 15:
>
> <
> http://www2.standardandpoors.com/spf/pdf/fixedincome/Fundamentals_SF_Ratings.pdf
> >
>
> I read somewhere that a credit analyst at one of the ratings companies
> asked to see the mortgage origination papers, data on payments/servicing
> for the mortgages underlying some RMBS. His supervisor refused to
> oblige. But eventually someone at Fitch Ratings got their hands
> on the origination and servicing files (lots of data ...) .
> The conclusion after a limited inspection was that there
> were "issues" with those files. In fact, with that info.,
> I guess they would normally start looking into downgrading
> the RM BS . But I think it was already late in the
> MBS saga.

There's more on the the business and models of ratings agencies (with comments
from outsiders and also people speaking for the agencies) in this
WSJ article from March 23:

< http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123776128675908145.html?mod=googlenews_wsj >

David Bernier

David Bernier
March 26th 09, 12:41 PM
David Bernier wrote:
> David Bernier wrote:
>> Stray Dog wrote:
>>>
> [...]
>
>>> You should probably be asking, instead, who paid their paychecks?
>>>
>>> Usually, a _builder_ gets an $X or $XX, or more, million loan, from a
>>> bank (etc) to buy a large tract of land AND build Z units (i.e. each
>>> unit either
>>> an appt or detached house, etc) and starts building. Individuals then
>>> pick out what they want to buy and then get financing to buy one of
>>> the Z units, and that comes from a bank or mortgage company (etc).
>>>
>>> The "feeding frenzy" was that (according to one article), some 1/3 of
>>> all purchases of housing were not to get housing but spec buying (to
>>> "flip" the house some months to, say, a year later and get 10-15% ROI
>>> on this). And, "money brokers" added to that frenzy because they were
>>> writing all the paperwork _AND_ collecting their commissions up
>>> front. And, it all snowballed on itself. Of course, the CDO/CMO
>>> feeding frenzy fed off that because the banks (etc) didn't want a
>>> loan on their books but wanted to dump the loan and get _all_ their
>>> money back real quick instead of over 20-30 years so they could loan
>>> it out _again_, so they "securitized" the loans and sold them
>>> anywhere they could so the buyers of those CDO/CMOs got the interest
>>> payments (+/-) over all those 20-30 years (maybe, what, 1-2% higher
>>> than if it were in the bank as a CD), and it was a big shark party.
>>> Of course, there were other players, too, (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac,
>>> Sallie Mae, etc., etc, I don't follow them that much), and they were
>>> playing games, too. And, of course, insurance companies (AIG-de ja
>>> vu) make investments for ROI to help their own profits, and what did
>>> they do? Fancy-schmantzy (risky) derivatives and what happened? They
>>> blew up in their faces (and the **** hit the fan).
>>>
>>> You're welcome to contribute "fills" to my layperson explanation above.
>>
>> From a Standard&Poors' 2007 leaflet on structured finance ratings:
>>
>> << The main driver of our CDO ratings is a credit model, named CDO
>> Evaluator. >>
>>
>> Cf.:
>> "The Fundamentals Of Structured Finance Ratings" , page 15:
>>
>> <
>> http://www2.standardandpoors.com/spf/pdf/fixedincome/Fundamentals_SF_Ratings.pdf
>> >
>>
>> I read somewhere that a credit analyst at one of the ratings companies
>> asked to see the mortgage origination papers, data on payments/servicing
>> for the mortgages underlying some RMBS. His supervisor refused to
>> oblige. But eventually someone at Fitch Ratings got their hands
>> on the origination and servicing files (lots of data ...) .
>> The conclusion after a limited inspection was that there
>> were "issues" with those files. In fact, with that info.,
>> I guess they would normally start looking into downgrading
>> the RM BS . But I think it was already late in the
>> MBS saga.
>
> There's more on the the business and models of ratings agencies (with
> comments
> from outsiders and also people speaking for the agencies) in this
> WSJ article from March 23:
>
> <
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123776128675908145.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
>
About CDO Evaluator (Tm):

There's some explanation here:

< http://www.thefreelibrary.com/CDO+evaluator+and+portfolio+benchmarks-a0137012481 >

They write:

<< Chart 1 below presents an example histogram of a probability distribution
for a highly diverse pool of 50 corporate bonds rated 'BB', each
with a 10-year maturity and the same principal balance. >>

That's the input. For MBS, they have to use _some_ input .
Corporate bonds (which they've done for years) are one thing.
But how does one assess the risk for some individual mortgage ? Whatever
method is used, even if it's a very sophisticated statistical model
including correlation effects between bonds/mortgages in a CDO ,
the model needs some input data. For their corporate bond
example, the risk of one bond is incorporated in the assumption:
- bonds rated 'BB'

So what's the input for CDOs based on pools of residential mortgages,
credit card debt, etc. ?

David Bernier

David Bernier
March 26th 09, 03:16 PM
David Bernier wrote:
> David Bernier wrote:
>> David Bernier wrote:
>>> Stray Dog wrote:
>>>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> You should probably be asking, instead, who paid their paychecks?
>>>>
>>>> Usually, a _builder_ gets an $X or $XX, or more, million loan, from
>>>> a bank (etc) to buy a large tract of land AND build Z units (i.e.
>>>> each unit either
>>>> an appt or detached house, etc) and starts building. Individuals
>>>> then pick out what they want to buy and then get financing to buy
>>>> one of the Z units, and that comes from a bank or mortgage company
>>>> (etc).
>>>>
>>>> The "feeding frenzy" was that (according to one article), some 1/3
>>>> of all purchases of housing were not to get housing but spec buying
>>>> (to "flip" the house some months to, say, a year later and get
>>>> 10-15% ROI on this). And, "money brokers" added to that frenzy
>>>> because they were writing all the paperwork _AND_ collecting their
>>>> commissions up front. And, it all snowballed on itself. Of course,
>>>> the CDO/CMO feeding frenzy fed off that because the banks (etc)
>>>> didn't want a loan on their books but wanted to dump the loan and
>>>> get _all_ their money back real quick instead of over 20-30 years so
>>>> they could loan it out _again_, so they "securitized" the loans and
>>>> sold them anywhere they could so the buyers of those CDO/CMOs got
>>>> the interest payments (+/-) over all those 20-30 years (maybe, what,
>>>> 1-2% higher than if it were in the bank as a CD), and it was a big
>>>> shark party. Of course, there were other players, too, (Fannie Mae,
>>>> Freddie Mac, Sallie Mae, etc., etc, I don't follow them that much),
>>>> and they were playing games, too. And, of course, insurance
>>>> companies (AIG-de ja vu) make investments for ROI to help their own
>>>> profits, and what did they do? Fancy-schmantzy (risky) derivatives
>>>> and what happened? They blew up in their faces (and the **** hit the
>>>> fan).
>>>>
>>>> You're welcome to contribute "fills" to my layperson explanation above.
>>>
>>> From a Standard&Poors' 2007 leaflet on structured finance ratings:
>>>
>>> << The main driver of our CDO ratings is a credit model, named CDO
>>> Evaluator. >>
>>>
>>> Cf.:
>>> "The Fundamentals Of Structured Finance Ratings" , page 15:
>>>
>>> <
>>> http://www2.standardandpoors.com/spf/pdf/fixedincome/Fundamentals_SF_Ratings.pdf
>>> >
>>>
>>> I read somewhere that a credit analyst at one of the ratings companies
>>> asked to see the mortgage origination papers, data on payments/servicing
>>> for the mortgages underlying some RMBS. His supervisor refused to
>>> oblige. But eventually someone at Fitch Ratings got their hands
>>> on the origination and servicing files (lots of data ...) .
>>> The conclusion after a limited inspection was that there
>>> were "issues" with those files. In fact, with that info.,
>>> I guess they would normally start looking into downgrading
>>> the RM BS . But I think it was already late in the
>>> MBS saga.
>>
>> There's more on the the business and models of ratings agencies (with
>> comments
>> from outsiders and also people speaking for the agencies) in this
>> WSJ article from March 23:
>>
>> <
>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123776128675908145.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
>>
> About CDO Evaluator (Tm):
>
> There's some explanation here:
>
> <
> http://www.thefreelibrary.com/CDO+evaluator+and+portfolio+benchmarks-a0137012481
> >
>
> They write:
>
> << Chart 1 below presents an example histogram of a probability
> distribution
> for a highly diverse pool of 50 corporate bonds rated 'BB', each
> with a 10-year maturity and the same principal balance. >>
>
> That's the input. For MBS, they have to use _some_ input .
> Corporate bonds (which they've done for years) are one thing.
> But how does one assess the risk for some individual mortgage ? Whatever
> method is used, even if it's a very sophisticated statistical model
> including correlation effects between bonds/mortgages in a CDO ,
> the model needs some input data. For their corporate bond
> example, the risk of one bond is incorporated in the assumption:
> - bonds rated 'BB'
>
> So what's the input for CDOs based on pools of residential mortgages,
> credit card debt, etc. ?

I vote for Standard & Poor's over Jeremy J. Siegel concerning S&P500 earnings in Q4 2008,
as discussed by Siegel here:

< http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123552586347065675.html > .

The explanation is simple, and is given by David M. Blitzer
of Standard&Poors :

---> S&P Responds to Professor Siegel's Feb 25. Op-Ed at:
< http://www.spviews.com/presentationsTestimoniesOpeds/index.html >

What may be the case is that large write-downs occur more often in Q4
(e.g. AIG), but Siegel is wrong either way.

S&P: 1, Siegel: 0 .

David Bernier