Conor Clarke looks at why AIG says it needs to provide bonuses to retain workers:

...the complicated contracts that resulted in huge losses in AIG are being used as a reason why the the people who wrote the contracts can't be fired. (They understand the belly of the beast!) I don't really know if this should be convincing. But I do find it interesting that this argument takes almost the same form as the claim that certain institutions are "too big to fail." Size isn't a question of merit, and neither is complexity. But both size and complexity are now being used as a defense of the status quo.

Josh Marshall notes:

Contracts don't easily withstand credible allegations of illegal behavior. And the executives in question need to have their attention focused on the calculus of levels of cooperation and legal vulnerability rather than compensation packages.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.