The Bigger They Are The Harder They Should Fall: Let AIG Die and Let’s Get on With Renewal
Just when you think AIG couldn’t look worse, the crack team of greed-parasites (formally known as “the management team”) one up themselves. This just in: after causing a huge furor by admitting they were contractually obliged to pay about $165-million in retention pay “bonuses” to the “we destroyed the company / financial system unit” (formally known as the financial products unit), it turns out the actual figure is much higher: $218 or $220 million, depending on which documents are consulted. This includes “bonuses” of more than $1-million to 73 employees, five of which received “bonuses” of more than $4-million. This was discovered Saturday by the Attorney General of Connecticut. I kind of get the feeling the fine people at AIG were hoping they might just slip this one under the radar. For the Globe’s coverage, click here.
Look, it’s all well and good to be outraged but there is a much more important lesson to be found here. What is happening right now at AIG is exactly the reason why governments should not prop up failed companies — no matter how big they are. AIG did not fail because of some act of God. It failed because it was grossly mismanaged and because the management team adopted a business model no sane and responsible person could ever reasonably adopt. Unless that sane person is also willing to gamble — and we know these guys are gamblers — that he can count on the government stepping in to pick up the pieces if everything goes to hell. That’s exactly what happened and now these guys are going to continue to do exactly what they were doing before — bleeding the company and the economy dry. It worked for them so far, why would they stop now?
So let’ be clear, as enraging as the retention pay “bonuses” may be, they are not the problem. The problem is the US government’s decision to prop up this rotten to the core company and prevent it from failing as it was meant to fail. If it really means the whole financial system goes with it, so be it. If the system is that broken, propping it up and protecting and entrenching the very people who destroyed it is not going to fix it. In fact, it is likely only to delay the genuine renewal which is so desperately needed. Sometimes you’ve got to burn the tree, to save the forest.
Maybe a metaphor will help. Let’s say, a bridge crucial to everyone’s well-being, thanks to glorious mismanagement, has become so rotten and in such great disrepair that one day it becomes clear it will collapse. In a panic, quick measures are taken to reinforce the bridge as best as possible. Of course, no one really knows how rotten the bridge is, they just do whatever the can to make sure it doesn’t collapse in the here and now. Then, after all the work, they discover the bridge is still unreliable and the guys who managed it are still mismanaging it. Moreover, so long as they keep trying to patch up the old bridge, everyone is afraid to use it. Remember also, if by some impossible stroke of luck, they manage to reinforce the bridge enough that some people start to use it again, it will still just be a rotten bridge with a patch work of reinforcements waiting to crumble. In other words, after years of repair and struggle, the situation will hardly have improved.
That rotten bridge is the financial system right now. Better to let it collapse and start work on building a new and better bridge instead of wasting time, energy, and resources (borrowed from future generations) to prop up this rotten bridge. Sure, while the bridge is down, life won’t be easy. We will need to figure out new ways to get across the river, maybe use older underused methods, but life won’t end. Eventually through hard work, patience, and ingenuity a new bridge will be built and new — and probably better — ways of crossing the river will be found.
Yes, this is the worst financial disaster since the Great Depression, but remember, since that time, we have had an era of unprecedented economic growth. We would have to fall very very far indeed before we approach anything like the economic hardships encountered then. Previous generations suffered great hardships to make our lives better; surely, we can bear the inconvenience of properly fixing this mess now — instead of mortgaging the well-being of future generations.
For more of my social and political commentary, click here.
Perfectly stated; I couldn’t agree more.
Paper Bag Princess
March 22, 2009
Thanks. It’s all madness. I suppose enough folks in Washington also parasite off the present system that they will just keep patching it up until it collapses for someone else to deal with.
sterlinglynch
March 22, 2009
I gave this post a shout out on P&PBP…
Paper Bag Princess
March 22, 2009
Word!
sterlinglynch
March 22, 2009
Well said. Unfortunately, the genie is well
out of the bottle on this one. Obama will
probably be judged harshly by the future generations
that he is allowing corporate America to screw
over.
Wayne C
March 23, 2009
I’ve been agreeing with Sterling for far too long…
Any time I’ve had the pleasure of watching a rotten bridge get replaced, the construction crew has properly braced the existing bridge for just long enough until the replacement bridge is in place right beside it…
However, in your analogy, AIG is more like the island than the bridge. If it goes under, it takes with it billions (trillions?) of dollars in health plans, property insurance, retirement savings, investments, commercial backing, construction projects, jobs, etc, etc, instantly. Essentially people’s lives.
The scope of AIG is staggering. In the act of teaching these fat cats a lesson by letting AIG fail, far more innocent people, with much more to lose, will be harmed. Would you be willing to take the hit if your home, life, and health insurance were handled by AIG or a subsidiary? Not me.
It sucks, but the bailout is the better of two shite options. At least the gov’t is getting ownership for their $$.
I have a related question for you. Do you oppose the bailout on moral grounds (i.e. anyone who rips off the taxpayer should be taught a lesson – whether it’s a dollar or a billion dollars) or is it the size of the fraud that galls you so?
Alf
March 30, 2009
Alf! Thanks for your comments, they are most helpful.
I especially like your first addition to the analogy. I would be much less worried if there was any indication that a new bridge was going up, but all signs so far indicate this isn’t the case. And that kind of makes sense. There is only so much time and resources available and only so much money can be borrowed. Because that is the case, I would much rather see US resources going to build a new and better bridge. Remember uncertainly is what kills consumer demand. So long as everyone is left wondering if this bridge is going to go-over, no one will do anything but wait.
Also, the unfortunate reality is that buying up the bad debt and the company do not make the debts disappear or the lost money reappear; it means only that the public — via the government — take on the debt and the corresponding risk that no one else in the market is prepared to bear. So, on this model US citizens get screwed twice. First, because companies like AIG flushed their real assets down the toilet and, second, by being fear-mongered into buying up the bad debts that no one wants.
Also, it is clear that good team AIG do not give a damn about the American people or the financial system. Keep them in place and they will continue to milk the system for every thin dime. But I should be clear: for me it is not a question of teaching them a lesson. What lesson can they be taught? All of them are still going to walk away with the billions of dollars they “made” (up) in the past few years. For me, it is more of a question of getting rid of the incompetent people who got us in this mess, letting the failed institutions crumble, and letting new more competent people come in and pick up the pieces and start the very necessary process of renewal. This is how markets are meant to work.
And yes, I can’t deny the short term effects will be hard but everyone should also admit it won’t be like the Depression. We have had decades of unparalleled growth. There is plenty to go around. I also can’t help but note that those who speak loudest of the “staggering repercussions” are the very folks who will benefit the most by trying to keep this broken beast standing. Yes, I think governments should make every effort to soften the blow through direct support to their citizens. I would much rather see billions thrown at US citizens than at a failed institution. Moreover, at the end of the day, a lot of this wealth people are losing isn’t wealth at all. It was a bubble and it should go pop. Especially, if the only way to prevent that bubble from popping entails stealing from future generations.
So in answer to your question: I oppose the bail-out because it is bad economics and not a solution to the problem. Bailing these companies out will, I think make everyone worse off in the long and not even solve the problem. At best, the repercussions will be delayed and even more difficult to deal with when we are eventually forced to deal with them. Now, given the direction things are going, I hope I am wonderfully wrong on this, but I suspect I that is not the case. Of course, with Obama’s new hardball tactics with the auto industry, I am hopeful his administration is waking up to the economic (and political) realities of what these bail-outs represent.
sterlinglynch
March 30, 2009
A daily show clip worth watching…
http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart/barack-obama/best-of-barack-obama/#clip159894
sterlinglynch
April 11, 2009
Another Daily Show clip worth watching on this issue.
http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/#clip180780
sterlinglynch
June 15, 2009