Citigroup's new wings

A jet would presumably be used at most for one trip in a day. It holds 12 passengers, so let's say a liberal average of eight would be on each flight. Flying commercial every day at $2,000 a ticket, those execs would spend less than $6 million. Flying only every business day, a little more than $4 million. Flying three days a week, less than $3 million. That's still a liberal estimate, and I don't see how it could be more cost effective to buy and maintain a $50 million jet, even with depreciation.

 

Then you weren't listening. I said I'm glad they did something. I don't know what the right thing to do about Detroit was, but we had to do something.

And there was much broader involvement in those discussions; not the White House making a phone call to Chrysler's president. You can't compare these two situations; they're apples and oranges, in my opinion.

 

I don't have a problem with them telling them not to do it. He's representative of us as the people, and it's his job to protect us. When they're using our money for personal indulgence, I think it's his job to say, "Uh, no you're not."

 

Citigroup could have very easily defied his order. Obama doesn't have the authority to restrict their actions. That's why I think your argument isn't applicable, tbf. But they chose, wisely I think, to cancel the plane order rather than look like total assholes.

 

I think we both agree that the government has some responsibility to get the best return on its investment. I believe it should be through some (legislative) oversight committee, not a phone call from the president. The president is the country's executive editor, not the copy desk chief.

 

I think that's what is behind my argument ... he shouldn't be doing it, even if he had the authority.

 

I have no problem with the president expressing a forceful opinion that reflects the feelings of his constituents.

 

Expressing an opinion is one thing. Picking up the phone and making business decisions from the White House is completely different.

 

He didn't make the decision. They did, after hearing what he thought about it. Like we agree, he doesn't have the authority. Only Citi could ultimately make the decision.

And just to add, every "business decision" doesn't have to do with the bottom line. There are political business decisions. When a popular president calls you out, you likely will decide that you're better off doing what he says.

 

When the president calls, the decision is already made.

 

This CEO ought to be fired pronto. Guy makes such a blatantly stupid decision like this one--well, I don't think that bodes well for the other decisions he's making affecting the banking business.

 

Sorry, I guess I was misunderstanding you. I agree with you that there should've been some strict guidelines and a group overseeing these bailouts in the first place. However, I do think Obama was compelled to act because no such guidelines or committee were in place.