If I think of it, I will add some latin for E Hewett. OK! I've done it. Find the Latin, everybody. When you do, its actually a different maxim. Its says "Equity Follows the Law"
Oh and A Chen-- If Henry tells you that equity has been abolished
"Unless displaced by the particular provisions of [the Uniform Commercial Code], the principles of law and equity, including the law merchant and the law relative to capacity to contract, principal and agent, estoppel, fraud, misrepresentation, duress, coercion, mistake, bankruptcy, and other validating or invalidating cause supplement its provisions."
UCC § 1-103(b)
Ok on to the post-in-chief
So maybe its because I am blogging as a form of snooze bar instead of
getting up and starting the day, but let me state the obvious:
This peace offering by the AIG CEO to ask bonus recipients to return half their bonus will so nothing to slake the publics thirst for blood. What has happened here is that we have a business man unable to think with a public policy hat and politicians unable to think like business people. I may be Master of the Nearly Obvious (MONO!) but this is exactly the reason why this sort of involement by goverment in private
business can be bad for both capitalsm and democracy. Do other countries have state owned and run businesses? Sure. I said "can be" and not "is always". Our execution has been bad with a capital b. (Why didn't I just write Bad? Stop stalling you have to get up)
Why the bonuses (AIG): Whatever rationale that they are now giving is post hoc. The reason probably was a sloppy cocktail of different things that the new guy recognized as necessary to keep the organization in tact and/or keep certain clients on board and/or make other people go quietly. In business they call this an "incentivationalismistical" approach. Because business people don't know that "incentivize" is not a word. Moreover they don't careivate whatism wordificants they bastardize and the laughificate at peopleoidees who do.
Why the bonuses (Geithner): No matter how inequitable the conduct of AIG's employees were, their inequitable conduct was not the source of their legal right to the bonus. That was created by a contract, presumably negotiated at arms length. Simply because we don't like the outcome, the government cannot simply disregard a legal right, not even in equity because aequitas sequitur legem. Therefore, the government can not just say "F U! I don't care what the contract says, I hold all the cards and if you
want that money, you'll have to sue. I dare you to try" but knowing
that, we should have never allowed our ceo appointee to cut that deal. It should have been a regulation: can't use tarp money give bonuses to anyone for any reason. Sorry not cuts no butts no coconuts. But we didn't and we are in deep now.
So back to this "half" back business. The fact that Liddy thinks this is even a solutions shows no understanding of the public mood at all. The public mood is the first scene of "Dantons Death" (the Buchner play) where the French Revolutionaries have gotten so outta hand that the angry mob has taken to killing people with hankerchief because having a snot rag make you "a gentlemen" which had become pejorative.
>So what has to happen? Its a real crisis pitting the thrive(ificationismitis) of the economy versus the survival of democracy. I will always pick democracy. I swore an oath to that effect.
--
