The Saga of AIG: Objectivism vs. Existentialism

I just finished reading another headline news on NY Times web. This was titled "Ex-AIG Chief is Back, Luring Talent from Rescued Firm". Now I know as much about objectivism and existentialism as Mary Williams Walsh knows about me. OK, may be a little more but not much. Somehow New York Times continues to find a way of getting on my nerves. The One Trillion Dollar Stimulus bill crowd is back in action. This time lambasting Maurice Greenberg, ex-CEO of AIG, for having this incredible chutzpah to start another firm, C.V. Starr & Co., and trying to make that successful by competing against the government run AIG. Mary Williams Walsh is an expert in adding subtle innuendos in her articles without suffering the burden of having to provide any evidence.

In the beginning this "economic stimulus" and bailout crowd wanted the treasury to throw tons of US tax payers' money at insolvent institutions, like AIG, to save them from bankruptcy. Once bankruptcy was avoided with billions of tax payers dollars to pay off liabilities, this same stimulus crowd is working overtime to bankrupt AIG by capping executive salaries. Unfortunately, now US government owned AIG has to compete with Maurice Greenberg's C.V. Starr & Co. When did legitimate competition and existential "freedom of choice" turn into "siphoning off" of business?

Is it a surprise that now AIG's executive talent has a major incentive to join Maurice Greenberg's C.V. Starr & Co. with better salaries and working environment than government run AIG. Mary Williams Walsh was quite worried about legitimate bonuses to AIG executives. Now she is worried about executives leaving AIG and joining Maurice Greenberg. She would like government to put some restrictions on AIG executives so that they are unable to leave AIG even after their salaries and bonuses have been drastically reduced. Since this country is not eastern Europe or China, it is hard for the government to force AIG executives to work at lower salaries. Of course, she does not say it but after reading her language, which is riddled with loaded terms like "raiding", "poaching", "siphoning off" and "success at the expense of tax payers", one is hard pressed not to have the notion that she is questioning the legitimacy of capital markets and our incentives-based economic system.

Is existentialism a leftist philosophy? That should explain it. If existence is essentially meaningless and a pure coincidence, then rationality is irrational. In that case, I would rather stay with objectivism.