interview with AIG whistleblower that conects the dots

[NoSheep]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6546044203900048624&hl=en

I really can't believe I can't find discussion of this in this forum. Am I missing a thread already posted. Please discuss here. I'm very curious to know what this forum thinks of this. Isn't this just what we've been waiting for?

[seemslikeadream]

1. I'm half way through it

thanks for posting

[salvorhardin]

2. Maybe because Richard Grove is nuttier than a Clark Bar.

I really can't believe I can't find discussion of this in this forum.

Maybe because Richard Grove is nuttier than a Clark Bar. Just a few of the many, many nutty things Richard Grove believes in:

• Abiogenic oil
• Hundreds of billions of dollars worth of gold bricks were surreptitiously liberated from their safety deposit vaults under the World Trade Center
• That the firemen and rescue vehicles were complicit in the stealing of this gold bricks
• DynCorp is engaged in the international sex-slave trade and the production of snuff films
• Software companies literally print their own money
• He claims to have had information that man-made disasters were being engineered so he sent the information to the actor Harrison Ford
• He believes HAARP is being used to create man-made disasters
• He then sent his information to Larry Flynt (Hustler Magazine) who had his attorneys draft a cease and desist letter
• Loose Change
• Construction of the World Trade Center towers started on September 11, 1971 (construction actually started in 1966 and was finished in 1972)
• A remote controlled plane was crashed into the White House on September 11, 1995

You can get the full dose of concentrated craziness here: http://www.freewebs.com/abigsecret/grove.html

[seemslikeadream]

3. but is he trying to steal 700,000 billion dollars from the American people?

like these guys

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Realityhack]

8. WTF?!?

"Clearly you don't know anyone in the software business. And I'm not surprised. To try to discredit Richard Grove on that count plainly shows you don't know how the world operates. By duplicating software and being able to charge whatever the market will bear, from market to market, you do, quite literally, print your own money."

LITERALLY printing your own money would involve a printing press... printing fucking money. What you *think* you are talking about is VIRTUALLY printing your own money. And you are so far off it isn't even funny.

A software company works in much the way a photographer, author, etc. etc. work. They put huge investment costs into developing software. Then they sell that software. Exactly the same as selling a music CD except the cost for producing the original product are through the roof in comparison. Typically they then continue to support the software with periodic patches etc. (ie. they continue to employ developers to work on the same version of the software).

If you think software companies are somehow special in '...charge whatever the market will bear, from market to market..." then you are fucking retarded.

[NoSheep]

9. You must have taken the SAT AFTER they got rid of the analogies section

Definition:

analogy: Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.

If YOU think Grove "literally" is saying software companies are "printing" their on paper money then YOU are the one far of field. (They are actually duplicating it in the form of plastic cds hawked by salesmen like Richard Grove)

Also: This seems so obvious to me but I'll elaborate:

Having worked in business for 28 yrs, I know a bit about selling a widget. Most products sold in the marketplace can easily be created and sold by any other startup who has the capital to make it and sell it. Look around you: canned tomatoes, pens & pencils, sex toys, greeting cards, dishes, monitor risers, pocket books, nail polish, etc.

Software is different. It lives on a disc. You can't see it. And it is VERY powerful stuff. You know this right? Clever software makers can make or break another company. I'm not trying to talk down to you, you really don't seem to have thought this out so I'm stating what I feel is the obvious by necessity.
My friend programs for a medical software company. Her company basically owns the hospitals (that's an analogy, okay?) who purchase their product. If the software has a bug, she's up all night saving lives (literally...since the patients care in an emergency situation often depends upon the software she writes to report accurate data) The power behind a software product is hard to harness, duplicate and sell under your own brand. How many entrepreneurs do you know who can read or write code? Have you ever audited a software company's books to see if they are charging every single client the same amount for their product the way Mt Olive charges everyone in the Kroger store the same amount for a jar of pickled jalapenos? Unless you know someone that works for a software company or owns one, you probably think the company sells their product the same way every other product is sold. Not so. And it is due to the relatively unique nature of it.

Here you have the business equivalent of heroin (analogy) You sell your software to company x, they configure their operations behind it and you basically own them because your experts are the ones who know the code. I'm sure they don't call it "code" for nothing! You also have the business equivalent of uranium. TONS of power in a small package. THAT's what makes software totally different from a music cd. It's powerful enough you can demand whatever price you want. This is a lot like printing money...get it yet? I have a piece of paper in my hand that's worth $5 (it's a 5 dollar bill) and I can take it down the street and exchange it for a croissant and a cup of coffee if I want. But, what if by my cunning and logic, and the power my transactions are worth to people, allow me to change the number on that piece of paper...let's say to 20,000. I can get alot more than a piece of bread and a cup of coffee with that. I've just in essence "printed" 19,995 dollars. Of course software sales occur in numbers much different than these. However the price one day for one company can be dramatically altered on the next day for the 2nd company. DEPENDING on the amount of "power" behind the transaction. What will company x do with the power of the code on the software? Will they use it to process pickles, or will they use it to defraud tax payers? Don't you see how the "value" is now different?
When I go buy a jar of pickles, I know that good pickles sell for between $2-3. A business that makes pickles is really bound by the price people expect to pay. There's too much competition because it's so easy to copy. (Not so with software) Not a lot of money laundering going on in the pickling industry.

Don't you see how a product that has variable power from benign to "deadly"; and "addictive" (another analogy) can demand prices that faaaaaaar exceed the ROI depending upon the use of the product? Don't you see how easy it would be to launder money through a company that sells such a product?


Oh nevermind

[Realityhack]

30. Sorry but you lose on just about every count.

Yes I know about how the software business works. I can throw a foam ball from my desk and hit a developer from here.

I have three main issues aside form your talking down to me.
1. It turns out that words have meaning. The word LITERALLY does NOT indicate an analogy. That would be what terms such as 'virtually' or 'like' indicate. As in selling software is like printing your own money. Saying it is literally printing money is just wrong even if you buy into the idea that they are virtually printing their own money.

2. You conveniently ignored my examples of somewhat similar business models. Charging what the market can bear for a service is not exactly novel or exclusive to software. And we are only talking about a subset of the software industry. Plenty of software IS priced relatively universally.
As for your statement:
"You sell your software to company x, they configure their operations behind it and you basically own them because your experts are the ones who know the code."
This is an exaggeration that to the extent it is true is not exclusive to software. Yes the switching cost of software can be higher than some other products and services, but their are plenty of things that can have very high switching cost that are not software.

3. You say:
"When I go buy a jar of pickles, I know that good pickles sell for between $2-3. A business that makes pickles is really bound by the price people expect to pay. There's too much competition because it's so easy to copy. (Not so with software) Not a lot of money laundering going on in the pickling industry."
Again even a cursory examination will reveal that this both an exaggeration and hardly exclusive to the software industry. What you are essentially saying is that:
software is a 'blind' item. Which is not actually true.
developing software has a higher initial cost than any other industry. Also not true.
ergo their is barely any competition. Also not true.
The cost of developing software to compete with an existing company is high. So is building a new car design. This is not exclusive, nor is it impossible to overcome. Their are plenty of new software companies each year that have repeatedly shown the ability to topple giants in the industry.

Obviously software can far exceed the tipping point of ROI. So can a lot of other things. Selling software that cost you $10,000 to produce to a company for $10,000,000 isn't 'printing your own money' it is just charging highly for the software. If the software isn't worth $10 Million to the buyer they won't buy. and you can babble all you want about being addicted to one supplier and switching costs etc. Those are NOT exclusive to software.

[wildbilln864]

32. "I have three main issues aside form your talking down to me. "

Now that's funny coming from you. :rofl:

[NoSheep]

35. Once again, in your first assertion, you make an absolute fool of yourself

Boy, have you tried to make this more complicated than it really is!

"The word LITERALLY does NOT indicate an analogy"

You must be VERY young. 'Round these shere parts, tha common folk have been mis-using the term "literally" for years.
Kind of like when they say "irregardless" or "I'll be honest with you".

I can't much blame you for misunderstanding what Grove meant and for misunderstanding my explanation of it. Until you start paying me tuition, I'll cease to try to educate you, since I have larger responsibilities.

I've given you all the info you need to understand this point. But perhaps only time and experience can lead you to truly understanding it.

PS: A "DEVELOPER" of software can only enlighten you to a certain point. It's the salesman of software that will show you the true value. How many of those can you hit with a foam ball? And how many of those know jack shit about what they are really selling?

PSS: I don't expect you to understand this either.

[NoSheep]

6. If I come to understand independently, that Grove is not credible,

I'll happily apologize to you right here. until then, in light of the fact that AIG has just been bailed out to the tune of more money than I can count, right before the November election (that I suspect will be stolen)I'll keep listening to his story and looking into what he has to say.

[seemslikeadream]

7. AIG at its origins was linked to the OSS (Office of Strategic Services) the forerunner of the CIA.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11657aig

American International Group

Hank Greenberg runs the world's second largest financial conglomerate and the largest underwriter of commercial and industrial insurance. Last year, AIG reported net income of $10 billion. It has $648 billion in assets, a market value of $195 billion, $77 billion in sales and $6.5 billion in annual profits. It has operations in 130 countries and nearly 77,000 employees. It ranks third on Forbes' list of the world’s biggest companies, after Citigroup, and General Electric.

AIG is a public company. Its largest single shareholder with 13.62 percent of AIG stock is Starr International Company (SICO), a private company headquartered in the tax haven of Bermuda. Greenberg owns 21.86 percent of SICO. Forbes says Greenberg has a net-worth of $3.6 billion, making him the world’s 132nd richest man. Greenberg was elected AIG president in 1962, CEO in 1967 and chairman in 1989.

Though it is an American company listed on the New York Stock Exchange, AIG makes extensive use of offshore jurisdictions such as Barbados, Bermuda and Luxembourg that are immune from U.S. regulatory and tax scrutiny. They help the company launder profits to evade U.S. taxes and hide insider connections in supposedly "arms-length" deals. This is especially important as the company has moved into financial services and asset management, handling the wealth of “high net-worth” clients -- the mega-rich.

Greenberg has enviable political clout, never so much in evidence as when, with the help of Henry Kissinger -- chair of AIG's international advisory committee and a paid consultant via Kissinger Associates – AIG became in 1995, the first company licensed to sell insurance in China. AIG was the only foreign firm that owned 100 percent of its license there.

The American International Group at its origins was linked to the OSS (Office of Strategic Services) the forerunner of the CIA. It grew from the Asia Life/C. V. Starr companies founded by Cornelius Starr who started his insurance empire in Shanghai in 1919, the first westerner to market insurance in China.

Starr served with the OSS during World War II, and the Starr Corporation, located in the same building as the OSS in New York, provided intelligence on shipping, manufacturing and industrial bombing targets in Asia and Germany. The companies' biggest shareholder was Starr International Company (SICO), a private holding company incorporated in offshore Panama and with principal executive offices in offshore Bermuda, to avoid U.S. regulation and taxes. Starr left Greenberg a large block of Starr International stock.

[salvorhardin]

10. Care to do it on a point for point basis?

Start with Grove's supposition that billions in gold bars were removed from the safety deposit vaults of the WTC basements.

Grove's actual nutty claim:

As we all continue to learn more about this topic, we start to comprehend the grandiosity of the thefts and fraudulent transactions that took place under the umbrella of 9-11- specifically hundreds of billions of dollars worth of gold bricks which were surreptitiously liberated from their safety deposit vaults under the World Trade Center.
http://www.freewebs.com/abigsecret/grove.html

The first thing you might ask yourself is, "Is this really possible?" To answer that, we might first calculate how much $2 billion of gold would weigh. Remember, Grove himself said billions so we'll give him the benefit of the doubt and go with the least amount of billions possible.

To get a rough calculation of how much $2 billion of gold would weigh we first need to know the value of gold in September of 2001. Because I'm lazy I'm going to use this table:
http://www.usagold.com/reference/prices/2001.html

Which tells us that gold on September 11, 2001 was at $287/ounce. The table doesn't say whether that's troy or avoirdupois ounces but troy ounces are the standard so I'll use that.

$2 billion dollars worth of gold would thus be $2 billion / ($287/ounce) = just over 6,968,641 troy ounces or 477,850 pounds or 239 short tons.

Do you really think there were 239 tons of gold in the World Trade Center safety deposit boxes? Do you really think that much gold could be loaded and moved, all in secret, during the mayhem after the collision of the planes into the towers? Think carefully.

Would you like to apologize on this point?

[seemslikeadream]

11. These guys made some outrageous claims too, shall we go point to point on some of them?

I'd say maybe $700.000 billion points as a matter of fact

[salvorhardin]

12. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Really SLAD, do you honestly think that because the U.S. financial industry is full of incompetent crooks that somehow absolves Richard Grove, or those who report and support him, of responsibility for his crazed conspiracy theories? Grove's delusional fantasies are demonstrably insane and pointing that out doesn't detract from the enormity of the economic problems in the U.S. anymore than pointing out that nutbar conspiracy theories about FDR are wrong detract from the enormity of the horror of the holocaust. Honestly, I think we need to coin a corollary of Godwin's Law just for you.

Please stay on topic.

[seemslikeadream]

14. Excuse me this is the topic

do I have to remind you of the OP??

interview with AIG whistleblower that conects the dots






and yes the U.S. financial industry is full of COMPETENT crooks!! AND they bother me WAY more that Grove does


Please sal don't be so condescending, unbecoming, don't cha no?

[salvorhardin]

15. Exactly. And who is this so-called whistle-blower?

Richard Grove. Assessing the credibility of Grove is tantamount to the topic. We can't know whether to believe Grove unless we know how credible he is. Given Grove's long list of lunacies I would say that Grove is either spinning delusional yarns or outright lying. It doesn't matter which. Grove is simply not trustworthy.

[seemslikeadream]

16. I see you've listed one point, got more?

$700.000 billion more

[Realityhack]

38. He doesn't need 700 billion points.

Calling your whistle blowers credibility into question is enough in this case to require more evidence.

[salvorhardin]

13. Correction

I just noticed that Grove actually said:

hundreds of billions of dollars worth of gold bricks

The minimum number of hundreds would be 200 so we're actually talking about approximately 23,892 tons of gold at minimum. Again, I put it to you, do you really think that much gold could be loaded and moved, all in secret, during the mayhem after the collision of the planes into the towers?

Still waiting for your apology on this point.


Calculation: $200 billion / ($287/ounce) = 696,864,112 troy ounces = 47,784,967 pounds = 23,892 tons.

[NoSheep]

19. This statement is made on the site where the Richard Grove rebuttals appear

"Risk and insurance companies were victims, not perpetrators, of 9/11."

Now I'd like to remind you: We know these claims are false now, correct? The proposed bailout of AIG and the millions of dollars in pay to crooked CEO's should be proof enough of that. Now, am I to assume everything on that site is false and delusional? According to the statement below, found on that same site, I guess I should:

"Since Grove's claim to have witnessed a gold haul from the WTC was clearly a deliberate lie, the remainder of his testimony cannot be trusted. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus..."

No. I'm not ready to apologize at this point. Are you?

[salvorhardin]

20. Can Grove's claim of hundreds of billions of dollars of gold in the WTC towers' basements be true?

As I already demonstrated, for that statement to be true, there would have had to have been at least almost 24,000 tons of gold. And even assuming there was that much gold, then could it be transported, in secret, in the mayhem in the immediate aftermath of the WTC attacks? Do you think this is likely?

Grove also speaks of an abandoned dump truck full of gold. So they were moving the gold with dump trucks? How many dump trucks would that take? Let's assume a fairly substantial dump truck that can carry 65 tons at a time. That would necessitate 368 dump trucks, or ten dump trucks making 37 trips each.

Another way of looking at it is how much storage space would be required to store 23892 tons of gold. Well, gold has a density of 19.3 per cubic centimeter. 23892 tons = 2.16744578 × 10^10 grams, thus 23892 tons of gold would require 2.16744578 × 10^10 cubic centimeters of space to store. That translates to 765,426 cubic feet. That means you would need a cube about 92 feet on a side to store that much gold. That's 92 feet wide, 92 feet deep and 92 feet tall. A cube of gold ten stories tall!? In the basement of the World Trade Center towers!?

No matter how one looks at Grove's story is just fantastically implausible. Come on. Get real. You can't be this stupid.

[NoSheep]

23. I didn't say I believe that point, did I? What I believe is that there is a great deal of Grove's

story that is important and likely factual. That point has not been disproven. But what I find amazing, is that you use as evidence to support your assertion that Grove is crazy, a document which states if a person is found in error on one point, the whole of what they say has to be false. Then I show how the document you cited had a false statement in it and ask you to understand we have the pot calling the kettle black here. You've thrown the baby out with the bathwater AND you are using your own simple-minded logic against your own arguments!

You know what that means, don't you? Get real, indeed.


You certainly won't be the person who changes my mind about Grove especially since you use a non-sensical web document to do your thinking for you.

[salvorhardin]

24. Crazy document?

But what I find amazing, is that you use as evidence to support your assertion that Grove is crazy..

Umm... You do realize that crazy web document is a transcript of Richard Grove's own words?

9/11 Whistleblower: Richard Andrew Grove (Transcript)
Audio Published via the Meria Heller Show Newsletter May 28th, 2006
http://www.freewebs.com/abigsecret/grove.html

[NoSheep]

25. I'm referring to this one:

http://www.takeourworldback.com/short/grove.htm

If I have misunderstood a document you were referring to then so be it. But the above document, the one REBUTTING the claims, is the one I am referencing.

[salvorhardin]

27. How can you misunderstand what I'm linking to?

I repeatedly posted the link to the transcript at http://www.freewebs.com/abigsecret/grove.html. Those are Groves own words, and yes they are crazy.

Although I see the author of the anti-semitic web page you linked to took a similar tact in debunking the "hundreds of billions" of dollars of gold point, it does not address any of the other issues I took directly from the transcript. This is the first time however that you've linked to the other anti-semitic web page.

[NoSheep]

28. Because I googled the subject and came up with info that was basically

the exact same as your argument. I just assumed that's where you were getting your information from.

No big mystery there.

I'd also like to add that whether a page is pro Zionist or not is not something that I am involved with in this discussion. I don't consider that issue when I think about 9/11 because I don't think it was about Israel. I think it was about money.

[wildbilln864]

29. spot on! don't fall for it. nt

[Realityhack]

31. "whether a page is pro Zionist or not is not something that I am involved"

It is however against the forum rules to link to such a page IIRC.

[NoSheep]

33. I had no idea.

[NoSheep]

34. Specifically: I had no idea the page had a negative association

with something forbidden on DU.

First of all I have not had sufficient time to check out the guy's creds and his prejudices to the degree I would prefer since I've been trying to make a living by day and respond to your aggressive bullshit by night. You must be very pleased to have been so successful having diverted my attention from learning all I can about this person. Which suggests, I might add, that you don't have the TRUTH at heart but rather you prefer diversions and stroking your own fragile ego on a message board.

You see, I feel personally that I would be the first to smell anti-semetism (given half a chance) since I have lived with Jews, in every room of my house including my bed for the past 35 years. They seem to think I'm just fine. They seem to think I have a fairly good sniffer when it comes to things like this. Perhaps in some cases, anti-semetism is SUBJECTIVE! You think Jimmy Carter is anti-semetic? If you do, then we'll never get on the same page.

It may not be the first thing a person looking for the truth considers when they believe they are being ripped off. YOU seem to be the one who is self-conscious about being defrauded somehow by a plot linked to Jews. Interesting isn't it?

[Realityhack]

37. My aggressive bullshit? n/t

[NoSheep]

39. My apologies, Realityhack, you were not the poster I was intending to respond to.

[Realityhack]

40. No problem.

things can get confusing on the boards sometimes.

[wildbilln864]

21. salvordardin, how many trucks do you calculate would be required...

to haul it away? That'd be a shitload of gold for sure.

[salvorhardin]

22. I already mentioned my best guess

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=224165&mesg_id=224212

FWIW: I based my 65 ton capacity on a real dump truck manufactured in 2000 that was intended for hauling away rock from quarries. Not too big that it couldn't fit in NY streets, but substantially heftier than your average 10 ton standard dump truck.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3095/is_6_93/ai_n27564820

[NoSheep]

18. I still have a lot of information to sift through before I'm buying any negativity

about this person.

[seemslikeadream]

4. Another Greenberg Swindle Scam at CIA AIG ?

Another Greenberg Swindle Scam at AIG? fACILIATED by offshore Panama investors?

AIG BANKRUPTCY- WHATS THE CHANCES THAT THE ONE MAJOR COMPANY TO GO DOWN, IS ALSO THE MOST FOEIGN INTELLIGENCE TIED COMPANY ON THE PLANET?the

former ceo, an alleged criminal, by Spitzer, and we know what happened to him.

Interaction with Mahmoud AhmadinejadOn September 20, 2006,
the Council on Foreign Relations hosted a small meeting of select council members with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. While giving his speech, President Ahmadinejad expressed doubt that the holocaust had occurred. Greenberg responded: "Listen, I went through Dachau during the war. To suggest it didn't occur is simply a lie." To which President Ahmadinejad then asked if Greenberg was old enough to have participated in the liberation of Dachau. <2>

Fraud allegations

On March 15, 2005, AIG's board forced Greenberg to resign from his post as Chairman and CEO under the shadow of criticism from Eliot Spitzer, attorney general of New York State. On May 26, 2005, as part of a series of actions against leaders of large corporations, Spitzer filed a complaint against Greenberg, AIG, and Howard I. Smith (ex-CFO of AIG) alleging fraudulent business practice, securities fraud, common law fraud, and other violations of insurance and securities laws. After a subsequent investigation, however, all criminal charges were dropped, and Greenberg was not held responsible for any crimes. The State Attorney General's office however is still pursuing Mr. Greenberg in civil court for many of these same criminal allegation

board has a lot of interesting political types

http://www.nndb.com/company/807/000120447/

and an interesting story
Greenberg has enviable political clout, never so much in evidence as when, with the help of Henry Kissinger -- chair of AIG's international advisory committee and a paid consultant via Kissinger Associates – AIG became in 1995, the first company licensed to sell insurance in China. AIG was the only foreign firm that owned 100 percent of its license there. The

American International Group at its origins was linked to the OSS (Office of Strategic Services) the forerunner of the CIA. It grew from the Asia Life/C. V. Starr companies founded by Cornelius Starr who started his insurance empire in Shanghai in 1919, the first westerner to market insurance in China. Starr served with the OSS during World War II, and the Starr Corporation, located in the same building as the OSS in New York, provided intelligence on shipping, manufacturing and industrial bombing targets in Asia and Germany. The companies' biggest shareholder was Starr International Company (SICO), a private holding company incorporated in offshore Panama and with principal executive offices in offshore Bermuda, to avoid U.S. regulation and taxes. Starr left Greenberg a large block of Starr International stock.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11657aig

bankruptcy, another S&L type scam of the stupid american taxpayers?Who owned aig?

MAJOR DIRECT HOLDERS (FORMS 3 & 4)HolderSharesReportedSTARR INTERNATIONAL CO INC227,937,03515-Jul-08GREENBERG MAURICE R12,891,97722-May-08C V STARR & CO INC12,352,2467-Dec-07C.V. STARR & CO., INC. TRUST9,288,15812-Oct-07UNIVERSAL FOUNDATION INC2,115,70213-Mar-07

and was greenberg selling his shares secretly through Cayman accounts to fmr?
And who stands behind the 3 Billion owned by fmr , fidelity, now an llc which protects its shareholders against lawsuits?including British Barclays, tied to the aig company history, dubious affiliations?

TOP INSTITUTIONAL HOLDERS FMR LLC 160,817,6765.98$4,255,235,70630-Jun-08AXA132,593,8714.93$3,508,433,82630-Jun-08DODGE & COX INC114,148,9724.25$3,020,381,79930-Jun-08STATE STREET CORPORATION96,320,9523.58$2,548,652,38930-Jun-08 Barclays Global Investors UK Holdings Ltd94,039,4963.50$2,488,285,06430-Jun-08Capital Research Global Investors90,182,6003.35$2,386,231,59630-Jun-08VANGUARD GROUP, INC. (THE)78,906,1312.93$2,087,856,22630-Jun-08DAVIS SELECTED ADVISERS, LP73,991,7122.75$1,957,820,69930-Jun-08FRANKLIN RESOURCES, INC45,658,9431.70$1,208,135,63130-Jun-08WELLINGTON MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLP
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=aig

[seemslikeadream]

17. Reuters reports today that "The incoming Treasury secretary, Paulson was awarded $18.7 mill bonus

[NoSheep]

26. Pretty amazing for a complete failure.

[scholarsOrAcademics]

36. Maurice Hank Greenburg

may be mentioned in a recent article by Peter Dale Scott. The article does mention AIG. The plot is thickening.