Quote from intradaybill:
I keep listening to just one side of the story. The story has three sides. One leg is the banks lending money to people to buy homes, then investment banks packaging the loans and selling them to investors and AIG selling insurance to them through CDS derivative products.
Now, suppose AIG was not a part of the game. The investment banks would not have packaged the loans because of lack of insurance. Then the banks would have collapsed and experience a run. Not much would have happened to investment banks but the system would have been damaged much more seriously.
In essence and from another point of view, AIG stabilized the system although not perfectly at all by transferring the risk from the banks to speculators through the issue of CDS products that insured packaged loans.
Thus, from another point of view, AIG is a victim of all this. Remember that there are always two sides to a coin. To see both sides at the same time requires some kind of sight not available to the average person who dogmatically takes positions and wants to see heads taken and blood splattered all over the place.
And who are the taxpayers who are paying for the bonuses after all. There are the same people who got the money form the loans as construction workers, materials providers, and thousands of other professions and services that depend on home construction and sales.
Why don't we ask those taxpayers to pay some of the money back since the system failed? Actually they are doing this and reward AIG and others who assumed all the risk so their money was safe in the bank.
Just another point of view. Not necessarily a view that I adopt but a view that I can see since I can see both sides of the coin at once.