He makes many good points and it is fairly obvious that he really had nothing to do with why AIG failed.

However, like many executives, he really is a few levels removed from normal people:

What the heck does that mean?

I think that's the reason people are suspicious of executives like him. When I ask a plumber what he does for a living, he tells me something about pipes and shit. When I ask a programmer, he tries to explain that he writes subroutines for some sort of program I might not understand. But when I ask an executive from one of those large companies, I get an answer like "I was an integral player in the RDC commodity supervision extrafinance UBS business clause contracting". What the heck...

I think it is wrong for the government to threaten to release the names of executives who might or might not have anything to do with the problem while we know that people might track them down and attack them. It is also wrong to stop all those bonusses.

But it is equally wrong to make up compensation systems that include bonusses (rather than just salaries) when those bonusses are due to be paid even if the company is not doing well. And it is wrong to be unable to explain what one actually does for a living. This is what got people angry, I am sure. People see the big banks failing and then we find out that they paid "bonusses" while losing billions and have executives who do work that nobody can explain to normal people.

This has nothing to do with those jobs being complicated. Chip designers do more complicated work, but almost everyone will understand thet a chip designer designes computer chips. They are not "integral players in the facilitation of the design of IC" but "computer chip designers". (There are "integral players in the facilitation" of the things, but they are the executives of Intel, AMD and IBM. But still everyone knows what the heck it is those people are actually doing, in general.

The sad thing is CS... these people are also being targeted with the "hate rich" crimes I think I saw a clip last night about some AIG peoples houses getting vadilazed.

Why is there no outrage at the politicians who PUT THIS INTO THE BILL?

I may be wrong, but it looks like you're doing what you object to in others, Leauki - generalizing on the basis of insufficient information and not fully learning/understanding something before criticizing it.  And engaging in a little class warfare on the side.  The nature of the 'bonuses' has been explained elsewhere and in his resignation letter, which was hardly an exposition on the nature of his job so to say he 'can't explain what he does' is disingenuous at best.

I also don't have a good understanding of what skills one must have to be an effective executive in the financial industry, or what those skills are worth in the open market - I just know I don't have them.  On the other hand, I have a good understanding of the skills needed to be a professional quarterback - and I know I don't have those, either.  The markets for quarterbacks and financial executives can hardly be dissimilar in terms of supply and demand.  I have a hard time understanding how a professional quarterback contributes value to an organization comensurate with his salary (and bonuses) - it's so far removed from what I do & what I make that I can't get my arms around it - but it's not for me to decide, it's for his employer to decide.  The same goes for that finance exec.

Furthermore, any individual accepts employment on agreed terms, which by definition are beneficial to both parties.  To have those terms abrogated arbitrarily while being publicly castigated for things for which one is not responsible is a bit of a tough pill to swallow, no matter the compensation involved.  The size of the compensation alone doesn't justify our willingness to let that happen to anyone - that is situational ethics at its worst.

The downsizing of the financial industry currently taking place will place downward pressure on executive compensation by becoming a buyer's market, unless public aprobation drives a disporportionate number of capable individuals away & into other lines of work.  That's how we should let those who did well during the good times reach 'equilibrium,' if you will, apart from appropriate criminal prosecution of any who engaged in illegal activity.  We shouldn't destroy the principle of contracts, and the economic certainty associated with them, on the basis of uninformed class anger, stoked by unprincipled politicians.

A quarterback plays Football, right?

There, problem solved. That's what he does. I don't know anything about Football or what exactly a quarterback does, but the explanation "plays Football" makes sense to me. That's what he makes his money for. No problem.

But what does an "integral player" do in an insurance company? Does he sell insurances? Does he manage people who do? And why the heck do they have bonusses that have to be paid instead of just offering higher salaries?

That's a subject worthy of discussion at the board level of any company.  I'm sure the decision is made based on knowledge of the 'market' in insurance executives.  But once that decision is made (to offer a retention bonus) it shouldn't be subject to second-guessing or retroactive cancelation absent violation of the terms.

I'm sure Dilbert can find hundreds of thousands of people whose jobs 'make no sense.'  You want Dilbert setting everyone's compensation?

Is that really a question you want to ask me given the situation?

Thousands of rich executives (not the one quoted here) have received large bonusses after running their companies into the ground (and SOMEONE has done that).

Do you really want to ask me if I think whether Dilbert or those managers ought to set everyone's compensation?

And I would say he did.  That portions of that letter (which was the letter that went to Liddy) were couched in terms the significance of which only the addressee might fully comprehend does not render the letter unworthy of publication or invalidate the remainder.

I don't understand. Why does anyone care about how much someone gets paid (salary or bonuses or both) if the money these people get does not come, in any way, from those complainning? Sure, in this case AIG got money from Taxpayers, but in the end they were contracts. And why does anyone feel they have the right to decide how much someone deserves to be paid, especially when they don't have any knowledge as to what the person does and whether their skills are worthy of any specific amount?

Interesting how people cry about "they don't deserve the money" just because the company is going down but how would these same people feel if the manufacturers of the cars they own that are still under warranty were to go out of business and told these people "we are breaking the warranty contracts"?

Working for a company does not necessarily make you responsible for the companies failure and therefor you should not be punished just because you were an employee. It seems there is a double standard here, if you get fired you are innocent of any wrong doing in the company and were screwed but if you still have your job you are partially responsible and deserve to be punished.

The irony (and hypocrisy) here is priceless.

The funny thing is, just basic reading between the lines ehre... "plan to pay more than 210$ million in incentives for 7600 to not quit!"

Now that you remove the negative tone and think about it... if they want to quit, and it takes that much money for them not to quit... why is that? probably because its now a shit job where their money can be retroactively taken away (and has been already), where everyone hates them, where their amounts of money is reported in the news in examples of evil and to encourage people to push congress to take it away.

End result? they quit and fannie collapses, that is a probably because fannie is:

How is it expected to exist or operate without employees?

Is the next step court orders FORCING those people to remain on the job? Thats plain slavery.

Why are these salaries called "bonusses" if they don't depend on how well the company or the employee was doing?

If everything had just been a very high salary, rather than compensation and bonus, we wouldn't have this discussion.

...unless the company doesn't get a government bail-out and doesn't have the money.

Why can they not let executives sign a contract not to leave?