But AIG should retain the right to award bonuses in the future (I think it's appropriate to tie them to performance, though, not blank checks for nonperformance or malfeasance.) We really do need the best and brightest to be motivated to take the reins.

The problem is that our politicians either didn't anticipate this or they did but didn't care because it serves them just as well to have the companies award the bonuses and then attract populist wrath. Either way it demonstrates why we shouldn't allow our political class to take over the management of corporations- because they're either ignorant or self serving.

And, as suggested above, today isn't like five years ago or even a year ago. It's a buyers' market for talent in the financial services business right now and he should be taking advantage of it by purchasing labor at the best price.

From the NY TImes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/16/business/16ai…

“Mr. Liddy wrote that A.I.G. hoped to reduce its retention bonuses for 2009 by 30 percent. He said the top 25 executives at the financial products division had also agreed to reduce their salary for the rest of 2009 to $1.”

Earlier the same article said that some executives received up to $6.5 million in bonuses.

I'm sure that 99% of Americans would gladly work for a $1 salary if they got $6.5 million in bonuses. Particularly if they didn't have to perform very well (or at all) or understand the business. Even a high school drop out janitor has those qualifications.

If AIG has gone bankrupt and failed, which is what would have happened if the government had not stepped in, those people would not have received bonuses. They should be happy that they continue to have jobs. But no…. To them it's business as usual, though they probably don't feel that way… I'm sure there are some changes, and stress, but certainly no fundamental changes.