Glenn, this is a good post, and I agree with what you've written. Journalists have abdicated their responsibilities, are being sycophantic, etc.

But to be honest, I'm getting a bit weary of it. Don't get me wrong - it's your blog, you can do what you want with it. I'm just offering my opinion here. I hope you'll focus a bit more on Obama's civil liberties abuses, or even on some refreshing tangents like the drug issue or the inability of homosexuals to get visas for their partners. I learn a lot more, and find the discussions more enjoyable/educational on those other topics.

You are failing to understand the difference

between honoring a contract for work already performed, and honoring a contract for future work.

Two points:

1) We're talking about bonus payments, not salary. I don't know what the employment contract states, but usually bonuses are based on company performance and are paid at the discretion of management. It doesn't matter that the work has already been performed, because they were paid (a salary) for that work already.

And the performance was, well, less than stellar. Basically management at AIG is giving out taxpayer money as bonuses. That should not be allowed.

2) I think clawback of prior years is warranted in this instance, at least for the top executives. The level of risk they took with the entire economy was morally criminal, if not legally so.

Taleb explains this whole thing very well in the article I posted earlier. When you play a losing game, but the time scale over which the failure occurs (decades) is much longer than the time over which bonuses are given (annual), then clawback makes perfect sense, because the money was never really "earned" in the first place. There was only the appearance of profit. There is no reason why the Citibank CEO should be able to keep the multi-millions he's got in the bank.

Admittedly, I'm not sure where the appropriate place to draw the line is in this case, or in other words which levels of management would be subject to clawback and which would not. Clearly you want to get clawback only from those responsible, not for secretaries and the like who didn't play a part in setting company policy or making the financial decisions.

That didn't seem to apply to union contracts.

You got me there.

It's just a game of the rich get richer (and the powerful do what they want).

Perhaps this is what Summers really means?

Laws can be broken, but contracts are sacrosanct.

Of course this whole AIG thing is ridiculous - of course the governement should get the bonuses back, and not just for this year, but for previous years too.

Here is a very good article on the subject:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fa89be08-02aa-11de-b58b-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1

Brief synopsis - if financial wizards follow a strategy that will provide profits most years, but risk a catastrophic blowout like the one we're seeing every 10-20 years, then the public has every right to demand repayment of paid bonuses over the entire period.

He is absolutely right - we should go after not just this year's bonus payments, but bonus payments made over the last decade, and not just at AIG, but also at the other troubled financial institutions that all played such a large role in creating the current mess.

LOL!

I say that I would support policies that discourage people from having scads of kids, and you instantly think I support Chinese style Communism. That's quite a leap.

You've got one thing right - it's easier to win arguments when you make incorrect assumptions about the other person and then attack those presumed positions, instead of those he or she actually holds.

See you around. Maybe if you challenge yourself a bit and read up on ecology and peak oil we can have a more productive conversation next time.

Your fear is without any basis in reality external to your self-limiting consciousness.

Sorry to have misjudged you then, I'm glad to hear that you are aware of the need to conserve.

I and millions of others around the world are acutely conscious of the need to conserve energy and for years have taken every measure available to us to do so, including encouraging yet others to do so, as well.

Every measure? That's a stretch. Then why has energy use been rising? Maybe because the billions who don't card continue their profligate use of energy.

You force me to conclude that at this stage in the evolution of your general awareness, you are simply too emotionally dependent on external, coercive authority to see that human beings are perfectly capable of acting in ways that benefit themselves and everyone else, if they are provided the relevant information and are shown the means by which they can act on that information.

So, go ahead and make excuses for your need to be forced by external agency to do something that you claim to be of the greatest importance, but not important enough for you to act on without your being forced to.

Whatever. We'll just agree to disagree.

Why don't you advocate for governmental intervention in your sex life, while you're at it? Doesn't your animal brain make you think enough dirty thoughts that you'd benefit from some regular interventions by the Federal Sex Police?

Two reaons:

1) There is nothing wrong with my sex life - LOL

and

2) Sex, in and of itself, does not threaten the planet.*

*Full disclosure - overpopulation does threaten the planet, however, and measures to discourage people from having scads of kids is something I would support.