LegendKiller, in all fairness and full disclosure, do you work for AIG? You have said in the past that you work for one of the biggest investment companies and you have addressed this topic as "we" when talking about AIG.
Also, you have created a few false dilemmas in this thread.
1. You have tried to make the case that if and AIG exec left we would not be able to realize any money that s/he would have been able to generate. What about that person's replacement? Are they automatically going to have a negative impact or is there the same possibility that they can generate the same $5MM and you saved the $300k "retention" bonus while generating the same revenue/results?
2. You claim that if all of this talent leaves, that there will be nothing left. Where are all of the BoA layoff people? What about the BS people? Or those that are still looking from other companies like LEH? They are just as capable and in the same position to poach talent from other companies as they are likely to lose talent to other companies. You try to make this a one way street when it obviously is not.
3. Your house analogy falls under the same crap as #2. You are trying to claim that AIG isn't allowed to make improvements to their property but others are allowed and/or invited to strip them blind. It's a pretty stupid case to make and I wouldn't have expected such a vapid argument from you.
4. You also try to make the case that if AIG doesn't get any bailout money and all of their talent leaves, the taxpayers see no benefit. Won't the company that they go to and make money for have to pay taxes on the extra revenue? Won't they have to pay additional taxes themselves? We are likely to see more coming in that form than we are anything from AIG. They are going to find a way to make sure that every executive gets very rich off of any sales way before they feel any obligation to pay back the taxpayers that kept them afloat after their own greed and/or incompetence made the company beg for $120BB+.
Also, you have created a few false dilemmas in this thread.
1. You have tried to make the case that if and AIG exec left we would not be able to realize any money that s/he would have been able to generate. What about that person's replacement? Are they automatically going to have a negative impact or is there the same possibility that they can generate the same $5MM and you saved the $300k "retention" bonus while generating the same revenue/results?
2. You claim that if all of this talent leaves, that there will be nothing left. Where are all of the BoA layoff people? What about the BS people? Or those that are still looking from other companies like LEH? They are just as capable and in the same position to poach talent from other companies as they are likely to lose talent to other companies. You try to make this a one way street when it obviously is not.
3. Your house analogy falls under the same crap as #2. You are trying to claim that AIG isn't allowed to make improvements to their property but others are allowed and/or invited to strip them blind. It's a pretty stupid case to make and I wouldn't have expected such a vapid argument from you.
4. You also try to make the case that if AIG doesn't get any bailout money and all of their talent leaves, the taxpayers see no benefit. Won't the company that they go to and make money for have to pay taxes on the extra revenue? Won't they have to pay additional taxes themselves? We are likely to see more coming in that form than we are anything from AIG. They are going to find a way to make sure that every executive gets very rich off of any sales way before they feel any obligation to pay back the taxpayers that kept them afloat after their own greed and/or incompetence made the company beg for $120BB+.
Facebook
Twitter