Tuesday, March 31, 2009
For He’s a Jolly Good Fellow
Newton’s third law at work here—the air is rife with folks who are at the other end of the moral-socio-fiscal tug-of-war finding some willing listeners. The most listened-to voice being
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/the-ticker/2009/03/25/jake-desantis-dear-aig-i-quit-.html
Now, there appear to be two aspects on which the writer has my sympathies—one, laws applied retrospectively smack of poor judgment and aggressive shoulder-pushing when sensitivity is called for, and two, economic principles applied selectively like the 90% tax run the risk of being invoked by the wrong people at the wrong time, and usually, for the wrong reasons.
“The profitability of the businesses with which I was associated clearly supported my compensation. I never received any pay resulting from the credit default swaps that are now losing so much money. I did, however, like many others here, lose a significant portion of my life savings in the form of deferred compensation invested in the capital of A.I.G.-F.P. because of those losses. In this way I have personally suffered from this controversial activity — directly as well as indirectly with the rest of the taxpayers.
I have the utmost respect for the civic duty that you are now performing at A.I.G. You are as blameless for these credit default swap losses as I am. You answered your country’s call and you are taking a tremendous beating for it.
But you also are aware that most of the employees of your financial products unit had nothing to do with the large losses. And I am disappointed and frustrated over your lack of support for us. I and many others in the unit feel betrayed that you failed to stand up for us in the face of untrue and unfair accusations from certain members of Congress last Wednesday and from the press over our retention payments, and that you didn’t defend us against the baseless and reckless comments made by the attorneys general of New York and Connecticut."
So do the more conscientious among us find favour with Jake has to say ? Or will we resile from a stance borne more out of misplaced anger and jealousy ?
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/the-ticker/2009/03/25/jake-desantis-dear-aig-i-quit-.html
Now, there appear to be two aspects on which the writer has my sympathies—one, laws applied retrospectively smack of poor judgment and aggressive shoulder-pushing when sensitivity is called for, and two, economic principles applied selectively like the 90% tax run the risk of being invoked by the wrong people at the wrong time, and usually, for the wrong reasons.
“The profitability of the businesses with which I was associated clearly supported my compensation. I never received any pay resulting from the credit default swaps that are now losing so much money. I did, however, like many others here, lose a significant portion of my life savings in the form of deferred compensation invested in the capital of A.I.G.-F.P. because of those losses. In this way I have personally suffered from this controversial activity — directly as well as indirectly with the rest of the taxpayers.
I have the utmost respect for the civic duty that you are now performing at A.I.G. You are as blameless for these credit default swap losses as I am. You answered your country’s call and you are taking a tremendous beating for it.
But you also are aware that most of the employees of your financial products unit had nothing to do with the large losses. And I am disappointed and frustrated over your lack of support for us. I and many others in the unit feel betrayed that you failed to stand up for us in the face of untrue and unfair accusations from certain members of Congress last Wednesday and from the press over our retention payments, and that you didn’t defend us against the baseless and reckless comments made by the attorneys general of New York and Connecticut."
So do the more conscientious among us find favour with Jake has to say ? Or will we resile from a stance borne more out of misplaced anger and jealousy ?
