Who wrote a stunningly idiotic and dishonest article today explaining why we should let AIG execs keep their bonuses, because if we don't, they'll leave their hellish jobs and we'll have to do without their irreplaceable brilliance, and the economy may never recover as a result:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/business/17sorkin.html

The Case for Paying Out Bonuses at A.I.G.

By ANDREW ROSS SORKIN

Published: March 16, 2009

Do we really have to foot the bill for those bonuses at the American International Group?

It sure does sting. A staggering $165 million — for employees of a company that nearly took down the financial system. And heck, we, the taxpayers, own nearly 80 percent of A.I.G.

It doesn’t seem fair.

So here is a sobering thought: Maybe we have to swallow hard and pay up, partly for our own good. I can hear the howls already, so let me explain.

...

But from their point of view, the "fundamental value" in question here is the sanctity of contracts.

That may strike many people as a bit of convenient legalese, but maybe there is something to it. If you think this economy is a mess now, imagine what it would look like if the business community started to worry that the government would start abrogating contracts left and right.

...

But what about the commitment to taxpayers? Here is the second, perhaps more sobering thought: A.I.G. built this bomb, and it may be the only outfit that really knows how to defuse it.

A.I.G. employees concocted complex derivatives that then wormed their way through the global financial system. If they leave — the buzz on Wall Street is that some have, and more are ready to — they might simply turn around and trade against A.I.G.’s book. Why not? They know how bad it is. They built it.

So as unpalatable as it seems, taxpayers need to keep some of these brainiacs in their seats, if only to prevent them from turning against the company. In the end, we may actually be better off if they can figure out how to unwind these tricky investments.

...

"We cannot attract and retain the best and brightest talent to lead and staff" the company "if employees believe that their compensation is subject to continued and arbitrary adjustment by the U.S. Treasury," he said.

There’s some truth to what Mr. Liddy is saying. Would you want to work at A.I.G.? Sure, maybe for $3 million. But not if you could go somewhere else for even more — or even much less.

"The jobs are terrible," said Robert M. Sedgwick, an executive compensation lawyer at Morrison Cohen who represents a number of employees of banks that have taken government money. "You have to read about yourself in the paper every day. These people are leaving as soon as they can."

Let them leave, you say. Where would they go, given the troubles in the financial industry? But the fact is, the real moneymakers in finance always have a place to go. You can bet that someone would scoop up the talent from A.I.G. and, quite possibly, put it to work — against taxpayers’ interests.

"The word on the street is that A.I.G. employees are being heavily recruited," Ms. Meyer says.

The "sanctity" of contracts indeed! Either pay off these "brainiacs'" ransom, or they'll shoot the economy. Hey, even totally unbiased compensation experts said so!

In a fair world, Sorkin would be called in by his editor and told that he's been reassigned to write a ten part series of articles on the growing number of shantytowns springing up across the country, to be followed by a thirteen part series on the health care crisis. And his salary reduced the the industry average. Of course, with the newspaper business booming these days, he can always find a better offer somewhere else. It must be hell writing for the Times.

The ghost of Haloscan haunting Salon?

One of them--a statistician no less--refuses to believe that the 2000 election was stolen, that BushCo deliberately lied to get us into the Iraq war, or that the NY Times knowingly helped spread these lies. It's basically cognitive dissonance from what I can tell. He's extremely smart, and liberal, but comes from a culturally sheltered suburban background, and now with a family, mortgage, serious career track, etc., has become slightly more conservative over the years, both ideologically and behaviorally, as many people do in life. But the main thing is that he's not very politically sophisticated or curious, and is clearly comfortable knowing less rather than more. The less one knows, the easier it is to plausibly deny what's actually been going on.

I imagine that this is true of millions of reasonably well-educated and intelligent people. They don't know, they don't want to know, and they don't want to be told. Ignorance is bliss, and what you don't know can't depress you. Denial is a lot easier to manage. I think that the right to it was in an early draft of the constitution. Life, liberty and the willful denial of reality...

Ponies for everybody--on me!