Who got de dough? Seventy-five thousand million dollars of your and my personal contribution went to “trading partners of AIG Financial Products, the small subsidiary whose exotic derivatives brought AIG to the edge of collapse.”
But AIG’s total exposure is 30 times that much–nearly a $trillion and a half. Which insiders, do you suppose, were best able to belly up to the bar? Read on . . .
AIG Discloses $75 Billion in Bailout Payments
Insurer Reveals List of Taxpayer Funds Doled Out to Settle Debts With Companies, Municipalities
By Brady Dennis
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 16, 2009; A01
the six months since the government’s bailout of insurance giant
American International Group, a rescue that has become increasingly
costly and contentious, one question has loomed above all others: Where
did the money go?
answer became a little clearer yesterday when AIG unexpectedly released
the names of dozens of trading partners it has paid using billions in
taxpayer dollars. The disclosure, which the company said was made after
consulting the Federal Reserve, revealed that AIG paid more than $75
billion in the final months of 2008 to numerous domestic and foreign
banks, as well as to various U.S. municipalities.
funds were paid from the government’s initial $85 billion emergency
loan in September and included major firms such as Goldman Sachs,
Societe Generale, Deutsche Bank, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Bank of
America and Barclays.
The payments were made between Sept. 16 — the date that government assistance began — and Dec. 31.
shines a whole new light on who will serve and who will eat in this
newly manufactured financial society. Unsurprisingly, Henry Paulson’s
old firm, Goldman Sachs sat at the head of the table, wiping its chin
with other people’s money.
Bank of America got a plateful and (through
their acquisition of Merrill Lynch) went back for a second helping.
are a lot of terrible things that have happened in the last 18 months,
but what’s happened at AIG is the most outrageous,” Lawrence H.
Summers, chairman of the White House National Economic Council, said
yesterday during an appearance on ABC’s “This Week.” “What that company
did, the way it was not regulated, the way no one was watching, what’s
proved necessary, it is outrageous.”
staple of that law we so revere and to which we pay homage, depends
upon those in the game recusing themselves from cases in which they
have an interest. An interest
might include being a friend of the defendant, making a buck from one
or both of the litigants, having done business with either the
prosecution or defense–you know the kind of thing, from jury duty or
watching Boston Legal.