The question whether the government actions in this case were legal or not is up to the court for decide. But if you accept the premise that some voluntary contracts can be not OK despite their being voluntary, you can not object to AIG's claim that they were wronged by saying "but it was voluntary!". You know already being voluntary is not enough - either you have to abandon this notion or you have to abandon your objections to AIG.
>>>> Legality aside, the actual advantage the US government had was that no one else wanted to loan AIG money. That's a pretty good reason to give them tough terms.
Do you always accept this premise? Say, nobody would be willing to lend you money - because of recent bankruptcy. Would it be OK for some shady outfit to offer you a 30% a day loan, and have you agree that if you don't return it all they get to beat you up at their heart's content? If you're hungry enough you may voluntarily agree, would it make you OK? Would it make it OK if you were sick and nobody would agree to treat you without upfront payment, but one establishment would agree if you promise to give them 95% of all your future income - would it be fine then? Or is it fine only when done to other people, especially ones investing in an evil corporation?
>>>> The US would just be making a sweetheart deal with AIG otherwise.
There's a lot of way between unfair deal and sweetheart deal. Most deals fall into the spectrum between them.
>>>> Legality aside, the actual advantage the US government had was that no one else wanted to loan AIG money. That's a pretty good reason to give them tough terms.
Do you always accept this premise? Say, nobody would be willing to lend you money - because of recent bankruptcy. Would it be OK for some shady outfit to offer you a 30% a day loan, and have you agree that if you don't return it all they get to beat you up at their heart's content? If you're hungry enough you may voluntarily agree, would it make you OK? Would it make it OK if you were sick and nobody would agree to treat you without upfront payment, but one establishment would agree if you promise to give them 95% of all your future income - would it be fine then? Or is it fine only when done to other people, especially ones investing in an evil corporation?
>>>> The US would just be making a sweetheart deal with AIG otherwise.
There's a lot of way between unfair deal and sweetheart deal. Most deals fall into the spectrum between them.