Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

"Dear A.I.G., I Quit!"

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

That's depressing, but the most depressing thing was that this guy berates Libby for not standing up to Congress and then flods like a cheap suit saying he'll donate all his hard earned pay to charity.

He should have given the whole lot a single finger salute and moved himself and his entire family to some Caribbean tax haven till the US comes back to it's senses, capitalism, the constitution and the rule of law.

Link to post
Share on other sites
He should have given the whole lot a single finger salute and moved himself and his entire family to some Caribbean tax haven till the US comes back to it's senses, capitalism, the constitution and the rule of law.

Ah,but you forget. There is nowhere left to run.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/ma...haven-crackdown

Link to post
Share on other sites
That's depressing, but the most depressing thing was that this guy berates Libby for not standing up to Congress and then flods like a cheap suit saying he'll donate all his hard earned pay to charity.

He should have given the whole lot a single finger salute and moved himself and his entire family to some Caribbean tax haven till the US comes back to it's senses, capitalism, the constitution and the rule of law.

I don't see how donating to charity is a bad thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see how donating to charity is a bad thing.

The bad thing is that he felt he was forced to do so. Do you think he really wanted to donate a years pay in its entirety to charity?

Altruism at the point of a gun, that's what this is.

Did you read the article? He even makes reference in the article to the fact that the AG of NY said he was going to "name and shame" those execs who didn't return the payments.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see any evidence that he felt compelled or guilted into giving his money to those affected by the economy.

So I guess the answer is no... you didn't read the article

The only real motivation that anyone at A.I.G.-F.P. now has is fear. Mr. Cuomo has threatened to “name and shame,” and his counterpart in Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, has made similar threats — even though attorneys general are supposed to stand for due process, to conduct trials in courts and not the press.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see any evidence that he felt compelled or guilted into giving his money to those affected by the economy.
Do you think this guy would probably have given the money to charity anyway?

Activists had started doing bus-tours of AIG executives homes, to show people where the "guilty" lived. The New York AG, Cuomo, had asked for names of executives. He had said that he would not reveal names of executives who returned the bonuses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, this is a very strong, very well written letter, and I see no significant problems with it. Mr. DeSantis is a good man.

He isn't doing the charity thing out of guilt or choice, but because he is threatened. The part about having no guilt he made clear.

He also mentioned the threats, but he didn't attribute giving it away to them, instead he said he wants to give it to this charity because it gives him a degree of control as to where the money is going. I assume this is out of a sense of pride, and I don't blame him for doing it this way.

Probably the only thing I would've done differently is name the reason why I'm giving the money away (because I-a student of Objectivism, unlike this guy- am able to identify the source and nature of the evil more clearly), but giving it away was definitely the right thing to do. Otherwise, these savages would've never left him alone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see any evidence that he felt compelled or guilted into giving his money to those affected by the economy.

Despite the reasons he said he was giving, I think there is also more two. It's like saying "If this is going to cause so many problems, I'll give it away, but the government sure as hell isn't going to get it's hands on it" I think that's admirable and within his self-interest, but as Zip pointed out -- not the only option. As sNerd and Jake Ellison pointed out, he was and feels threatned. It's a self-defensive measure too, so the mob and their pitchforks don't come banging on your door... but the mob still doesn't get the money, they just don't have any reason to bother this man and his family anymore.

I think this is an incredibly well-written letter and I'm very proud of this man for taking the time to write it and the New York Times for being objective just enough to run this and get the truth out on the situation.

If anyone is in New York, see if you can catch this guy leaving work and slip him a copy of Atlas Shrugged.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to make clear that I applaud this man as far as he goes, but I think his capitulation and his decision only adds to the perception that his success and his money are the property of others.

He is sanctioning this betrayal by doing exactly what the betrayers outwardly intended*.

How many times through this fiasco have you heard people say that "with so many people suffering or loosing their jobs for these bonuses to be given is an insult" or words to that effect?

*none of the money would have made it to those poor souls but that is the lie oft told in this situation...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is this the letter in which he says that AIG is as blameless as he is for the Credit Default Swap losses?

Hell of an indirect way to accept blame...

Let CDS = Credit Default Swap Losses

Let X = AIG Blame for CDS

Let Y = Jake Desantis blame for CDS

Let Y = X (AIG as blaimless as Jake)

AIG participated in Credit Default Swaps

Therefore X > 0

Therefore Y > 0

The only logical conclusion is that Jake DeSantis is not blameless for the CDS losses.

Tool.

In a world without time or delineated responsibilities that might be true.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see anything spectacular or worth applauding about this letter. Yes, he's obviously taking a shot at Liddy and AIG concerning the witch hunt over the bonuses, but there is just too much capitulation in the letter to make it worthy of praise. One of the first examples, occurring in the beginning of the letter, is when DeSantis lifts the actions taken by himself and Liddy, working for a salary of $1, out of duty and obligation to the government, to be the moral ideal of the letter. That pretty much takes the sting out of anything else he has to say concerning the bonus.

Just curious, but how did NYT get this letter; did DeSantis or Liddy send it, or was it leaked?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think it's good to know the facts. How many of us knew some of the executives were only working for a dollar, for example? The media and D.C. have worked up the general public into a mob-frenzy over this, so I appreciate the truth coming out.

In addition, this guy is on the right track, but he could use a push in the right direction...that's why I think he needs a copy of AS.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I just think it's good to know the facts. How many of us knew some of the executives were only working for a dollar, for example?

Anyone who watched parts of Liddy's testimony new that he was only getting a salary of $1.00; Liddy and many of the congressmen made it a point to mention the salary whenever possible. What I didn't know until reading the letter was that others in AIG were working for the same salary, not just Liddy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you really think as many people watched Libby's testimony as will read that letter? (Especially now that it's hit the email circuit...it was emailed to me this morning by a non-Objectivist CEO before I saw or heard of it anywhere else.) I work during the day and what little bit of his testimony I caught was reported by the crooked news media. Besides, not everyone in the rest of the country keeps up with things as much as the Objectivist community. The herd needs simple examples.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I want to make clear that I applaud this man as far as he goes, but I think his capitulation and his decision only adds to the perception that his success and his money are the property of others.

He is sanctioning this betrayal by doing exactly what the betrayers outwardly intended*.

How many times through this fiasco have you heard people say that "with so many people suffering or loosing their jobs for these bonuses to be given is an insult" or words to that effect?

*none of the money would have made it to those poor souls but that is the lie oft told in this situation...

I read this letter not as a (flawed) statement of philosophy, but as the lesson learned by a non-Objectivist, discovering the fallacies of the altruist ideology. His gift to charities is a valid and explicit declaration that charity is proper only as a volitional individual action, and not as a forced, collective action. His discovery that duty is false concept underlines the difference between what duty is, i.e., a one-way commitment to the collective; vs. what he expected it to be, i.e., one half of a voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. Mr. DeSantis has discovered, by direct observation of concretes, key principles of economics and politics that most of us learn only by the hard work of conceptual abstraction, or by exposition from a great mind (e.g., Rand).

Editors at the NYT probably can't recognize the conceptual content of this letter. They probably saw it simply as an indictment of a big business owner, and stopped thinking once they reached that comfortable notion.

(Edit underlined)

Edited by agrippa1
Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.businessweek.com/careers/manage...ws+%2B+analysis

This is a article criticizing the letter. I'd post my thoughts, but I'm out the door and I'm shutting this thing down. I'll get back to it in a couple hours.

Great example of the anti-conceptual mentality. Here's the "money" quote from Ms. Brady (following her quote of DeSantis):

“I know that because of hard work I have benefited more than most during the economic boom.” If there was a correlation between hard work and pay, then many people in this country would be far richer than those on Wall Street.

The rest of the "critique" pretty much falls in line with this sloppy reasoning.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I read this letter not as a (flawed) statement of philosophy, but as the lesson learned by a non-Objectivist, discovering the fallacies of the altruist ideology. His gift to charities is a valid and explicit declaration that charity is proper only as a volitional individual action, and not as a forced, collective action.

And just like earlier in this thread I will ask why you think that this was in any way voluntary?

His discovery that duty is false concept underlines the difference between what duty is, i.e., a one-way commitment to the collective; vs. what he expected it to be, i.e., one half of a voluntary exchange to mutual benefit.

I absolutely disagree that duty as such is a false concept. (I know, it's a shocker eh? :)) The fallacy this man is exposed to is a direct result that he applied the concept of duty to a situation where it was not warranted, required or deserved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...