I've kind of been thinking this already: Provoking the AIG Walk of Shame:
What would happen if those names were made public? The populist rage that's bubbling in this country is not something to be toyed with. The very prospect of having their names publicized should be enough to scare the pants off these people.
The only way to break these employment contracts is for the recipients to agree to it, and if fear is what it takes to make that happen, then so be it. If we can shame bank CEOs into taking $1 salaries and forgoing bonuses, surely we can get these yahoos at AIG to do the country a favor and continue unwinding their mess for a respectable salary instead of an outrageous, unjustified bonus.
People have short memories and attention spans, so I don't know if this will really work in the long term. But, social media is supposedly powerful. Someone should quickly put a YouTube with names & headshots of AIG executives who are getting these bonuses (AIG is a nationalized company, so surely the name will come out). It isn't difficult to find out where people live once you know their names. It wouldn't be surprising if flashmobs start picketing the mansions of the AIG executives. Legally they're supposedly due the bonus money. Ethically, perhaps not. The best leverage then is to start cranking at basic social psychology. Additionally, the public opprobrium that would be hurled at the executives and their families might serve as a way to correct for the unfortunate moral hazard these bailouts are probably engendering.
Related: Jim Manzi offers some perspective.
- Log in to post comments
i was thinking the same thing this morning. you are probably already aware of this, but the chinese already do this with some interesting results.
Know the last joke you? It parried that there are... fewer multimillionaires in the world (!!!!). Ooooop!
Fewer multimillionaires who make know, ouais!
Or it might end up with some dead executives. Such mobs, once provoked, are hard to contain. I'm not sure if we want to go down this path, but I understand the sentiment.
Didn't the GM/Ford/Chrysler workers have a legally binding (labor) contract? And what happened to that? Apparently contracts made by upper management are more revision-proof. Isn't our legal system great? Perhaps it would have been better to menace AIG and Merill-Lynch with explicit bankruptcy, as the latter allows the bankruptcy court to change legal obligations of the company.
As Anatole France said, "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread. "
Believe it or not, I agree with Orac. This is a country that used to do lots of lynchings. Violence is a lot closer to the surface than many people realize.
Or it might end up with some dead executives. Such mobs, once provoked, are hard to contain. I'm not sure if we want to go down this path, but I understand the sentiment
That's the problem with this poorly conceived idea of publishing the names and addresses of these execs (and why it was a poorly conceived idea to publish names and addresses of abortion doctors on a website years ago). Add to that the fact that imbeciles who are prone to violence usually act without all the facts on the ground, and you might very well have a situation where an exec or his/her family is targeted even after they concede to the promised violence of an angry mob.
This idea is positively moronic, but I understand the sentiment.
That's the problem with this poorly conceived idea of publishing the names and addresses of these execs (and why it was a poorly conceived idea to publish names and addresses of abortion doctors on a website years ago)
this really isn't too hard. if someone wanted to they could probably adduce the possible executives with a high degree of certitude, and then their addresses are an intelius away. it would cost anywhere from $2-10. the names of relatives and where they've lived is free.
i'm a little perplexed that people are talking as if this would be a major project.
These people are simply part of a system. I think although their behaviour might change if they were threatened with a mob, the underlying culture would not.
Not to mention it's a really ugly way of impacting upon things. So very easy to do as well.
At the height of a tabloid instigated paedophile witch-hunt/frenzy in the UK a while ago a paediatrician's office was targeted by a bunch of imbeciles. A tangent, certainly, but remember what you're doing when you threaten with mobs!
[scott, you're an asshole way too often. stop commenting on my blogs, as i'm not going to let you go through moderation anymore. if you change your handle you might be able to get through, but your distinctive dickish tone inevitably bursts through periodically so i'm not too worried that you'll last long]
I dunno. Public listing doesn't seem to produce much shame among these guys.
That approach doesn't seem to be working in the UK
http://news.google.co.uk/news?pz=1&ned=uk&ncl=1313961021
Hmmmm? Is it really productive to engage in a two minutes hate against AIG?
AIG should just have been allowed to go bankrupt. It's going to happen anyway -- the only question is how many billions we waste en route. Right now we're stuck in a bizarre situation -- if the company can't pay its employees competitive wages, they'll just leave. If they do pay them, then people get angry. Unsustainable situation -- senior management doesn't deserve bonuses *or* mob violence, they just deserve bankruptcy.
The real villains here are Bush, ACORN, the NAACP, Barney Frank, and all the rest who caused this crisis by pushing reduced lending standards.
Inciting violence against executives is just going to spill over into a generalized anti-business animus, which is exactly what America does *not* need at this point in time.
> if someone wanted to they could probably adduce the
> possible executives with a high degree of certitude
So the posse could put the noose around someone's neck, whose guilt has been asserted with a high degree of certitude?
> this really isn't too hard
You may well overestimate the intelligence and intellectual dedication of many netizens. Opportunity makes a thief: if the offender is a neighbour, and you happen to stumble over the fact slurping your morning coffee (or PBR), why don't pay a visit? Even mere aggregation of data puts power into the hands of the dumb or intellectually indolent, which might be the most likely to act irresponsibly. Then again, there's Razib K., qualified sharp thinker--though hopefully not sharp shooter...
> the public opprobrium that would be hurled
> at ... their families
At their families??
Bailing out is wrong in the first place; if you feel you have to anyway, at least try to bargain with the execs first: you forfeit your bonuses (say, at least partially), we bail out. Puts moral pressure on them in an ethically more viable way. Anyway, as things happened already, I'm not completely opposed to your idea: the data is public (sort of), so these consequences of one's doings might belong to the risks of living in a free society. Seems to be a dilemma.
Why is the outrage directed at the recipients? Why not the representatives, senators and president that are giving away our money?
Shame isn't going to do it. Given the choice between (a) having vast sacks of cash, or (b) having some plebeian losers think badly of you, I think I know which option they're likely to go for. A few mil in the bank can buy you a lot of heavily-guarded seclusion. I suspect the reaction would be something along these lines.
Plus, yeah, I'm not too keen on inciting Hammer-style torch-wielding mobs, no matter what the provocation. If we're going to go down that route, we're going to run out of lampposts sooner than you think.
total AIG bailout: ~$170.000 Billion
AIG bonus payments: $000.165 Billion
A man on the street clubs you over the head and steals $100 from you. You shrug it off, without minding too much. He spends 10 cents on a stick of gum and your blood boils with rage.
Inciting violence against executives is just going to spill over into a generalized anti-business animus, which is exactly what America does *not* need at this point in time.
you're just asserting. i assume most americans do make a distinction between business and the subset which are corporations since a large fraction of americans have worked in both *small businesses* and *corporations* and so intuitively understand the "cultural" distinction between the two organizational structures (e.g., principal agent problems are less of an issue in a small businesses). but perhaps you're right, in which case we're kinda fucked.
Inciting violence against executives is just going to spill over into a generalized anti-business animus, which is exactly what America does *not* need at this point in time.
a real analogy would be that 1,000 people mug you for a 1 penny vs. 1 person mugging you for $10. i assume that a 1 penny goes below a threshold trigger.
Why is the outrage directed at the recipients? Why not the representatives, senators and president that are giving away our money?
1) presumably because you can vote these people out? i presume you intend to?
2) this offered as a black and white choice; give money or don't give money. many people want to bailout AIG and clamp down on the renumeration structure
the lynch mob has come out. apparently this could be a problem b/c the ppl who were trying to unwind the contracts are leaving or are too scared to go to work.
The Banality of Greed.
Over a year ago the AIG board voted on a "retention" bonus package benefiting their top 1 percenters going forward into 2008, REGARDLESS of whether the company actually earned any profit. This is not Capitalism, this is a country club of crooks who were soaking their stockholders, and are now soaking taxpayers. We should all go to the Hamptons and demand that we be put up in the mansions that we all paid with through our depleted 401Ks that these Masters of the Universe snorted up their noses.
While we're on the topic of returning money spent by AIG, anyone want to estimate the probability that Barry Obama will return the $107332 he received in campaign contributions from said financial institution? How about Chuckie Schumer's $111875? Or Max Baucus's $90000? Or Hillary's $59515? And let's not forget the $15750 given to AGW crusader and self-proclaimed internet creator Al Gore.
Anyone?
Lest you think I'm picking on Democrats, I'll also point out that George W. Bush received $200560, John Sununu $69049 and Rudy Giuliani $50250, among many others.
Any wonder this company was bailed out?