Let me start by saying they shouldn't have had a bailout. Said it at the time will say it again now. Everyone here thinks banks shouldn't be this big, and shouldn't take the risks they do. No matter what laws you put on them, they will still be big and still take huge risks if they know (and believe me they have enough evidence and history of being bailed out) to know they will be bailed out again. Stop bailing them out and they will operate more market efficient.
That said on the bailout they kind of were given a take it or take it proposition. They couldn't really negotiate. It says in there they were allowed to say no and bankrupt the company, but I have a hard time believing that. There was no way the Fed was going to allow that to happen even if AIG wanted it. I can't imagine AIG would choose that option anyway. The whole bailout was a huge mess up to me. Even good companies like Wells Fargo didn't need the money but were forced to take it. Some of the terms AIG was forced to take weren't very favorable. So I get that, and I'd be ticked too if I was them. Especially when most of the company was very profitable and doing things correctly. Although with still the hatred for how big these companies are, and how they wrecked parts of the economy, I think it's asinine to sue the government. Talk about bad PR, this is a case if I was leading AIG I'd say yea we got screwed in our opinion on these terms but we now are back to operating and making money let it go. It'd be hard press to find 8 or 10 jurors (I can't remember how many people are on a jury) to think AIG is the victim.
Last edited by behindmydesk; 01-09-2013 at 10:32 AM.
Therefore he doesn't exist
So poof...vamoose son of a b itch