AIG reports record $61.7bn loss

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by edesignuk, Mar 2, 2009.

  1. Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #1
    BBC.

    Really and truly boggles the mind. How to you wave goodbye to $61bn in 3 months???

    Although I realise they're in different industries, these guys make RBS look good :eek:
     
  2. macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2005
    #2
    Jeeezus.
    I think I will have to dig up our whole back garden and turn it into an allotment the way things are going.

    :eek:
     
  3. macrumors G4

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #3
    **** 'em, I say. I wish I was considered "too big to fail". :mad:
     
  4. macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #4
    spending this much money... on one company alone...
    we might as well wipe everyone's debt and start over. would probably be more efficient at saving the economy.
     
  5. macrumors G4

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #5
    Especially if by doing so we could rid ourselves of AIG and dump all of its execs out on the street.
     
  6. macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2007
    Location:
    Denver Colorado
    #6
    So when this company goes through the money we send them again, in a month or two, do we send them more?
     
  7. macrumors G4

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #7
    There's something truly disgusting about the way that all these business tycoons have no scruple about going to Washington and groveling in front of the world for money - money is everything to these people and they will do anything it takes to maintain their wealth - that's all they care about. On top of that, the "business" they run is of dubious value to society - what do they do that makes such a massive contribution to the world? They are filthy for-profit money handlers, nothing more.

    Reminds me of the old biblical parable about the moneylenders in the temple. I'm no religious fundamentalist, but the story has a certain appeal at the moment. I wouldn't mind if the the big J showed up right now and planted his superhuman, sandal-clad foot up some of these rich bastards' asses right now. :mad:

    It is shameful and base...can you tell this ticks me off? :eek:
     
  8. macrumors 68030

    joepunk

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    a profane existence
    #8
    So I'm guessing this might affect shirt sponsoring of Manchester United, eh?
     
  9. macrumors G4

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #9
    Yeah, right now they are sponsored by the US Treasury Department. :eek:
     
  10. macrumors 68040

    miniConvert

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    Location:
    Kent, UK - the 'Garden of England'.
    #10
    Love that. And I sort-of agree, there has to be a better way... no 'business' should be propped up by the state. Anything that's so essential should be in the public sector anyway, IMHO.

    That sentiment goes for banking, too. I'm increasingly in favour of banking being a 'public service'. Then I look at Royal Mail, who these days are only capable of delivering cards that ask for more money before you receive your letter, and the Met Office, who would've had more chance forecasting the economic crises correctly than tomorrow's weather, and reconsider.
     
  11. macrumors G4

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #11
    I'm more a capitalist than a socialist, don't get me wrong. But for a bank, which made certain people a lot of money, to earn a big bailout just because they did a horrible job as a bank is, well, simply wrong. We may be compelled to help them for various reasons - but we should make them pay for their mistakes as well.
     
  12. macrumors 68040

    tigres

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2007
    Location:
    Land of the Free-Waiting for Term Limits
    #12
    Of course we do, the Gov't gave them 30b more to squander away. WTF.

    You watch, they will be falling down before the end of this year.
     
  13. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #13
    This won't be allowed to happen, and you'd better hope it doesn't, unless standing in a soup line sounds good to you.
     
  14. macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2007
    Location:
    Denver Colorado
    #14
    Well we can't just keep handing them $30 billion every two months. This madness has to stop. If they fail, they fail.
     
  15. macrumors 68000

    GSMiller

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2006
    Location:
    Kentucky
    #15
    Probably.
     
  16. macrumors 68030

    iPhil

    #16
    AIG was losing $84K or £1,645 per second.... (in that record loss quarter) :mad: :confused:
     
  17. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #17
    Unfortunately they are far too big and far too integrated into the financial system to be allowed to fail. If they go, what's left of the banking system goes with them, and all the rest of us over the cliff right after. When all of this is over, the taxpayers will own probably half of the nation's banking and financial companies. We have no choice. It's tragic but true.
     
  18. macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #18
    So AIG had to pay the banks for all the failed loans that were insured. Now the government is bailing out AIG. So why not just skip the middle man and just bail out all the mortgages.

    So AIG was insuring the banks who supplied the mortgages, the money didn't exist in the first place because the mortgages were bad to begin with. So what is there to insure. Someone is making out with money that didn't exist in the first place.
     
  19. macrumors 68040

    tigres

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2007
    Location:
    Land of the Free-Waiting for Term Limits
    #19
    Don't miss interpret my post by thinking I want this to happen. Simply put, I think the term for this in ENABLING.

    Sometimes when you’re bleeding out, the influx of transfusions cannot save the patient. I hope for all our sakes they survive; however just answer me this...

    At what point do we stop giving blood?
     
  20. macrumors G4

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #20
    The upside (if there is one) is that, after we do stabilize the economy (assuming we can), we can take steps against companies like AIG to (hopefully) prevent them from getting us into this kind of trouble again.

    I hope I haven't over-qualified that statement, but I'm cynical. :rolleyes:
     
  21. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #21
    That's quite a mixed metaphor. All I know is what I've been hearing and reading. If AIG goes, the dominos fall straight through what's left of the banking system. When that's done, we can all crouch around fires in our caves and congratulate ourselves for not being "enablers."

    The government is going to own AIG, but even the rest of the surviving banking system will be fairly begging for new regulations. I heard last night that the division of AIG that caused the company to fail so spectacularly was only 350 employees in size, in a company of tens of thousands. This small division exposed the company to enough risk through credit default swaps to bring the entire enterprise down. Amazing. It could not have been any more destructive if the operation was planned by terrorists.
     
  22. macrumors G4

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #22
    That's interesting, as well as terrifying. The GOP is crying bloody murder over the Dems' plans for regulation, but I can't see any alternative to regulation when a small number of people can bring the world economy to its knees...and not even go to jail for it. :mad:
     
  23. macrumors 68020

    Willis

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Location:
    What feels like the middle of nowhere
    #23
    On what grounds are you able to say Royal Mail can only deliver cards stating that a letter has the insufficient postage?! It's called revenue protection. Royal Mail's issues are with its management higher up. Us posties get the grieve from it!

    /rant
     

Share This Page