I don't see how either what Goldman did or AIG did was fishy. I think the govt was stupid. The banks convinced the govt that they needed to bail them out right away and the govt did. The intention of bailing out AIG was to enable it to pay out on its obligations. AIG paid out on its obligations to Goldman. What is fishy about that. Should Goldman have refused to accept payment on of money that AIG owed it? The government should have forced AIG into bankruptcy and then it could have examined how to pay out to the AIGs creditors and counterparties. Alas the goverment did not do that.

What's fishy is the "stupid" administrator making the decision to enable AIG to pay Goldman in full was a past (recently so) chairman of Goldman, with ongoing ties. There's a probable case for conflict there. You seem to think it's too late to do anything about that. Why? Do you LIKE being buggered by weasels?

I believe in the rule of law.

"I believe in the rule of law"

Unfortunately, the "rule of law" in America is heavily tilted toward protecting the interests of the wealthy at the expense of working people and taxpayers. The "rule of law" sees to it that powerful capitalists at Goldman Sachs, AIG, etc. are rewarded for the consequences of their greed with public funds, while that same law acts to dispossess millions of homeowners who have defaulted on their mortgages. Apparently, "free market capitalism" is good only for individuals, who must shoulder the burden of their own financial decisions, while large corporations line up at the public trough for "bailouts", all within the "rule of law".

There's a social democratic political party in Canada which used to campaign against what it called "corporate welfare bums", meaning corporations which demand government financial support while at the same time criticizing social program spending on health, education, housing or relief of poverty. So when the government gives money to the poor, it's socialism, but when the government gives money to AIG, it's . . . . what?

dj macdonald:

"I believe in the rule of law"

Unfortunately, the "rule of law" in America is heavily tilted toward protecting the interests of the wealthy at the expense of working people and taxpayers. The "rule of law" sees to it that powerful capitalists at Goldman Sachs, AIG, etc. are rewarded for the consequences of their greed with public funds, while that same law acts to dispossess millions of homeowners who have defaulted on their mortgages. Apparently, "free market capitalism" is good only for individuals, who must shoulder the burden of their own financial decisions, while large corporations line up at the public trough for "bailouts", all within the "rule of law".

There's a social democratic political party in Canada which used to campaign against what it called "corporate welfare bums", meaning corporations which demand government financial support while at the same time criticizing social program spending on health, education, housing or relief of poverty. So when the government gives money to the poor, it's socialism, but when the government gives money to AIG, it's . . . . what?

Welfare for the rich has a long history in the USA.

Agricultural subsidies to multi-millionaires- still going on.Federally-subsidized storm insurance for beach homes for the same guys. Could probably think of some more examples. Oh- tax breaks for stadium owners.

"I believe in the rule of law."

Okey Dokey.

The law says, when banks fail, which is to say, when they fall into insolvency, the FDIC has to take them over and sell off their assets at whatever the market will pay. Acting strictly according to the LAW, the feds should hve forced AIG into bankruptcy, fired its management, voided its contracts, and settled its debts at whatever percentage it deemed proper. One Hundred Percent is, in this case, not proper: it's so far above market, it's theft.

The taxpayers who are footing the bill for this nonsense have all, or all of them who had investments, experienced losses of between five and forty percent, averaging at about twenty. We'd ALL like to get well, and what I for one can't understand is, why the fat cats at Goldman get to be first in line AGAIN.

Christ, next you'll be issuing bromides about the value of the FREE MARKET and PRIVATE ENTERPRISE. You should, to be reasonable, save that crap for a better time, but you seem to lack the sense to do that.