All in the game

Dan Lett joins the chorus of righteous indignation against how the now semi-nationalized AIG took bailout money and spent it on executive bonuses.

I wonder: what did anyone think AIG was going to do with the bailout money? Purchase forbearance and moral reasoning? What makes money that was mooched any more virtuous than money created?

Both the U.S. government and AIG should not be upset with the other, since they knew what they were getting into. The U.S. government should not be upset, for when they provided them with the bailout money, they were saying to AIG "what you are doing is so good, we think you should be able to continue doing it (at the expense of your betters)."

When AIG accepted the money, they agreed to the game and shouldn't be surprised politicians like Democrat Senator Tom Udall say things like “Give the bonuses back, or we’ll find a way to take them back.” That is what they signed up for.

(But maybe the U.S. and AIG didn't know what they were getting into, and thus, according to prevailing reasoning, deserve another bailout...)

Anyway, AIG Chief Edward Liddy now seems to be figuring out how it's going to work.