90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
G-20 to the Rescue?
U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner talks at a press conference at the G20 Finance Ministers meeting at a hotel near Horsham, England, Saturday, March 14, 2009. Finance officials from the world's richest and leading developing countries pledged a "sustained effort" to restore the global economy to growth after meeting here Saturday, attempting to patch over divisions about how to tackle the financial crisis. (AP)

U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner talks at a press conference at the G-20 Finance Ministers meeting near Horsham, England, on March 14, 2009. Finance officials from the world's richest and leading developing countries pledged a "sustained effort" to restore the global economy to growth. (AP)

While Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner was south of London over the weekend at a G-20 meeting to brace up global finance, things exploded back in the USA over news that bailout giant AIG was ready to ship nearly half a billion dollars out the door in fat bonuses — after raking in public billions to stay afloat.

It’s a minefield out there in the worlds of banking and finance, and the mines are not cleared yet. From global summits, to rage over Wall Street, to toxic assets and the bank next door, the race to repair and rethink is still on.

This hour, On Point: From the G-20 to AIG, the unfinished turmoil in global banking and finance.

You can join the conversation. Will America’s cowboy capitalism survive the global meltdown? Will European-style regulation let the economy come back? And what about those bonuses at AIG?

Guests:

Chris Giles, economics editor of The Financial Times. He covered the meeting of G-20 finance ministers at Horsham, England, this weekend.

Kenneth Rogoff, professor of economics and public policy at Harvard University. He was chief economist and director of research at the International Monetary Fund from 2001 to 2003.

Eswar Prasad, senior professor of trade policy at Cornell University and former head of the China Division and the Financial Studies Division at the International Monetary Fund. He is also a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research. He wrote recently for Brookings about the G-20 stimulus plans.

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • Mike

    they should talk about changing rules on how banks can be leveraged,maybe something like a lower ratio would be good.

    or how to go about breaking companies that are to big to fail, so we dont have a economy based on a house of cards(where one falls the whole deck goes down).

    also creating rules to curve speculation,especially for oil futures which will sky rocket once the economy is back on track.

  • jeffe

    Geithner and Summers have proven they are not up to this job. They are in bed with the banks and will be party to the largest give away of money to the banks in history.

    The article linked below is by Michael Hudson is a former Wall Street economist. A Distinguished Research Professor at University of Missouri, Kansas City; while I don’t agree with everything Mr. Hudson is saying here he brings up some valid points that seem to make a lot of sense to me as well. It is a take on this mess that we are not hearing much in the media.

    http://www.counterpunch.com/hudson02122009.html

  • George Perides

    The assertion that we have to pay the AIG or any of these companies’ executives bonuses or even high salaries is ridiculous. Any of us with or without and MBA can drive any company to the ground for a mere $100,000…..

  • David

    What gets me is the outrage expressed by the Democrats over all these bonuses. Obama is outraged; Barney Frank is outraged. Aren’t they responsible? Or are they on the payroll too? I’ve always been a democrat but now am wavering. Where does the buck stop?

  • Peter Kurland

    The AIG executive bonuses are deplorable, but are a red herring. They represent only a tenth of a percent of the bailout funds. On the other hand, the 13.9 Billion given by AIG to Bear Sterns is almost TEN percent. The resembles nothing more than the no-bid contracts to Halliburton for shoddy work in Iraq, awarded by friends of Cheney to Cheney’s former employer. Now it’s Henry Paulson, formerly of Bear Sterns passing his own company billions of taxpayer dollars. And Geithner’s playing along.

  • Tom Nugent

    AIG mirrors America’s deplorable behavior for at least the last thirty years. AIG might as well stand for

    America’s Insatiable Greed

  • Peter Kurland

    Sorry, meant Goldman Sachs.

  • Nate

    David, I agree and to let you know I met face-to-face with my Congressman Barney Frank about both the financial and auto industry bailouts. I am not sure who he is listening to but it is not the business owners here in Newton!

    The sad thing is that nothing that is happening comes as a surprise to those of us who met with him. It makes me question representative government… Yes, in my mind Barney Frank is responsible! He did not and is still not listening to the right voices.

  • Leo Mc Kiernan

    I understand that the reason stated for AIG being required to pay the bonuses was due to contract agreements.

    Two questions:
    1. Were there no performance expectations/requirements listed in those contracts?

    2. Are the top leaders of AIG, especially those involved in the division(s) that lost the most, subject to suit for malfeasance of duties?

    Leo

  • Phil Newton

    Tom-
    With all due respect, you are talking to the wrong people today. You should be interviewing forensic accountants, lawyers, and investigators who specialize in bringing to justice white collar criminals. Your discussion should be on just what can be done to find applicable laws to obtain a shred of justice from these crooks, and recover what can be recovered from them.

    I suggest a task force headed by Patrick Fitzgerald and Harry Markopolos.

  • Lilya Lopekha

    Geithner has to go. He was part of the plan that got 66 cents to the dollar when they were giving away the TARP money in exchange with prefered shares.

    Normally when investment is coming to rescue troubled institutions, you get about $2.00 worth of preffered or warrants in exchange with throwing a life-line.

    Christina Romer has to go. She has always been aligned with Bush’s economic pattern and the transfer of wealth from us to the money guys. As soon as she was tapped by her friends (mostly Larry Summers, Bernanke) to be on the White House economic council, she kind of turned around. This is fake!!! Her best friends are still from AEI and Brookings. She has to go. We are much better off without an economist like that.

    We “have to” pay the AIG bonuses – my Toto!!!!
    Whenever a company in Detroit is in trouble Employee “Contracts” are out the door. Whenever, any company is in trouble, 401 Employer compensation is cut.

    If these AIG “Bonuses” are part of their compensation, regardless of the financial success, that means there is serious and systematic “tax-evation” going on here.
    IRS should lock them up before they say “bonus”.

  • http://onpoint Sylvia

    We’ve heard a lot about the legal obligation to pay out these bonuses. Has anyone asked the question: Where is the moral obligation for those execs. to voluntarily return the bonuses?

  • Tammie Gardner

    We are, supposedly, a nation of law. So we shouldn’t break the contracts in an illegal way. If, however, the contracts can’t be broken, then all those who’ve taken them should not be allowed to work in the financial industry for at least 10 years. Also, this should apply to ALL those who have been involved in causing this problem – both the financial people and the so-called “regulators”. We are a nation of law and those who have broken trust with the citizens of this nation and of the world should be banned from jobs in their related field.

  • Tammie Gardner

    We are, supposedly, a nation of law. So we shouldn’t break the contracts in an illegal way. If, however, the contracts can’t be broken, then all those who’ve taken them should not be allowed to work in the financial industry for at least 10 years. Also, this should apply to ALL those who have been involved in causing this problem – both the financial people and the so-called “regulators”. We are a nation of law and those who have broken trust with the citizens of this nation and of the world should be banned from jobs in their related field.

  • Alex

    The American taxpayer has no legal obligation to pay AIG’s bonuses. AIG should pay it from its own funds. Of course, they have no money of their own anymore. So this legal, obligation is meaningless. It is called insolvency.

  • jeffe

    The problem with Frank and Schumer and all of these democrat’s is that they took money from wall street
    Schumer is a wall street democrat and is part of the problem with this mess.

    I voted for Obama and change, right now it seems that for American’s like myself who voted for him the only change we will get is the spare change we will end up begging for when we are on the street.

  • http://janggolan.blogspot.com teg
  • James Bullard

    We’re being told that the bonuses have to be paid because this is a country of laws and these people have contracts that entitle them to the bonuses. Tell that to the auto workers who have contracts that are having to be negotiated so their employers don’t go broke. Tell that to the public employees in NYS (and probably many other states) who have union contracts but are having benefits and pay reduced because the state or municipalities can’t pay the amounts that they previously agreed to. If AIG does not have the money without the taxpayer bailout then those executives should not get the bonuses. Instead they should say “thank you” to the taxpayers that they still have a job when their actions have put so many others out of work. To demand and accept a bonus for what they have done is beyond outrageous, it is unconscionable.

  • Alex

    The contracts are legally broken everyday with the endorsement of the US government. Just visit your local bankruptcy court. Federal government is allowed by the US Constitution to impair the obligations of contracts. States may not do that, but feds may. So it is all baloney.

  • Ellen Dibble

    In moving an IRA to a Roth, choosing a fund, I ask about a fund for the future, investing in research, windmills, things one might hope the government would help too. No, they can direct my money to the dinosaurs, like GE, which one would hope would be already cranking out profits — instead of in hope. For that, I have to find the companies myself, tell them, and pay a lot extra.

  • Mike

    People cringe when we talk about temporary nationalization, but as long as we continue to allow the people who created this problem to have access to capital, our capital now, they will continue to operate in their customary manner. Medicine tells us some parasites are necessary and good, and some are destructive. We need to deal with these “executives” the same way we would deal with negative parasites. Possibly a system of gulags…

  • Nate

    Yes we are a nation of laws so lets simply manipulate the situation within the bounds of the law to move towards a desired outcome.

    Do not pay the bonuses which will force these immoral executives to bring suit, in OPEN court, where they will have to plead their case in front of the entire country. Force them to stand in a public forum and explain it. Yes, maybe the bonuses would still need to be paid BUT the public spectacle and humiliation that these people would receive would undoubtedly teach them a lesson that Washington can’t seem to do…

  • Molly Hardy

    If time permits, please address or explain the Reinsurance
    topic raised earlier today by the caller who worked for AIU in Europe. Thank you.

  • Mike

    The bonuses would NOT have to be paid. Fines could be levied to negate them. But the fines would need to be deducted prior to the bonuses being paid.

    “Nation of Laws”. Nation of marks is more like it.

  • Paulann Sheets

    My corporate lawyer daughter told me that the credit debt swaps were contracts which guaranteed a payment when a condition was met (repayment not made) and was NOT “insurance”, which would have required AIG to build up reserves for bad bets. Is that a meaingful distinction? legal? moral?

  • Mike

    The American middle class is not more prosperous. We work to much to have any real quality of life on the whole. We’ve been sold a false prosperity by the social criminals who control the capital, and until we wake up and declare we’re o.k. with the lessened “prosperity” strong, independent regulation brings, we’re going to continue to be eaten alive, and have our children eaten alive, but these vicious, amoral, destructive social parasites who control OUR capital.

  • Lisa

    If we have to pay the bonuses to AIG employees because they have an ironclad contract which rewards them despite causing a global financial crisis, fine, let’s do it, but then we should fire them. I think everyone would feel better about that.

  • David Paine

    If AIG signed these contracts at a time when the directors knew or should have known that the company would seek and get tax dollars for their financial bailout, I would make the case that the contracts can be voided. If they were designed to sidestep requirements the directors anticipated being imposed by the government, isn’t that collusion to commit fraud?

  • Peter

    What, if anything is being done by AIG mgmt, board, the regulators, Congress…etc to make sure that the “contracts” that are in place allowing these insane bonuses are recinded so that the we are not just going to be writing the same checks to the same crooks and incompetents next quarter?

    –Pete

  • Schlott

    The wealth of any nation resides in the hearts and minds of its people. The bailouts, TARP funding and policy implementations which favor these elite executives continue to undermine our true wealth.

    I doubt that any nation will voluntarily accept US government dollars and ultimate control of the world financial system in the coming financial realignment. We have now demonstrated clearly we as a nation are incapable of managing the task honorably.

    Real and sustained recovery can only occur when citizens, executives, companies and nations – are rewarded for honorable behavior. Such is not now the case.

    Schlott

  • Mike

    Next quarter? What about last quarter and the quarter before?? Nothing is going to happen to stop this because the politicians are all in bed with these people.

  • Mike

    Breaking these contracts is not going do anything about confidence in America. As long as the government pays it’s debts, we are fine.

    We should should nationalize these companies, break all the contracts with executives, fine them, make laws to incarcerate them, and start fresh.

    These people are laughing and drinking our blood.

  • Mike

    I don’t think my rhetoric is strong. If anything, I am tempering it. Out of respect for NPR, I am not saying what a lot of us are probably really thinking about what should be done with these executives ;-)

  • Mike

    These executives are not necessary, they are easily replaceable, and their contracts do not need to be honored.

  • Mike

    “We are a nation of laws.”

    These people operate by manipulating laws and undermining regulations.

    People who have worked and saved responsibly all of their lives can now no longer retire. They can’t send their kids to college. They are losing their livelihoods.

    And you say “We are a nation of laws. These contracts need to be honored.”

    Am I the only one who sees the problem here?

  • suz carter

    In reading the EDMUND L. ANDREWS and PETER BAKER piece in the NY Times, the following amused me:

    “We cannot attract and retain the best and the brightest talent to lead and staff the A.I.G. businesses — which are now being operated principally on behalf of American taxpayers — if employees believe their compensation is subject to continued and arbitrary adjustment by the U.S. Treasury,” he wrote Mr. Geithner on Saturday.”

    Attract and retain the best and brightest, hm? That argument is a little weaker these days, given the talent pool continues to increase (esp. in the financial sector). The quit index is the lowest ever, is it now?

  • Peter Diamond

    I heard only part of the show. Tom was raising the question of whether an expectation of a government bailout was behind the willingness to take on the large risks that triggered the economic collapse. The acceptability of the risk position, to the extent it was understood, was decided at the highest levels – top executives and boards of directors. As reported in the press many of these people lost vast amounts of money as the stock price crashed and many lost their jobs when the firm was bailed out, including AIG top executives. The thought that they would risk such losses because they thought the government would bail out the firm seems improbable.
    Far more likely is that they did not understand the nature of the risks, and neither did the regulators. And neither did most analysts.

  • Mike

    Well put!

    We live in a culture where willful ignorance that leads to devastating consequences is not prosecutable.

    Iraq War #1. Financial collapse #2.

    Essentially, you can say “I didn’t know” and there are no repercussions.

    But really, based on the impact, these things should be understood as criminal negligence, and prosecuted forcefully.

  • Will

    Although the federal government may not be able to legally ignore contractual obligations, both parties can choose to not enforce any part of a contract. As a member of a small union, we regularly work with management and bend the rules both ways in order to do the best possible job.

    I feel that as a high-level worker at AIG, you should voluntarily forfeit your bonus – there is nothing illegal about this.

  • I.Kiraly

    The straw is being trashed.
    The gurus of gangsterism still are followed.
    (They even named an airport after their Great Clown).
    And while everybody cries and trashes,
    the gangsters laugh their head off all the way to their banks.
    Stef

  • Martyn Strong

    Capital markets are unstable. In the past there was no way to make them stable. But today we have computer power that can be used to make them stable. By using the greater computer power of today we can have a much higher turn over of capital in the capital market. This higher turnover will make the market harder to game or control and the market will no longer have the unstable run ups or declines. Who can change or control the market when say 20% of the capital is trading each day? So now that we have the compute power to provide for all these transactions that will smooth out the market how do we force people to turn over at a rate of 20% a day? Easy, put a cap gains tax of 0% (zero) on all gains of 7 days or less and put a cap gains tax of 90% of all gains of more than 7 days. The likes of Yahoo, Micosoft and/or Sun Micro Systems will give us the systems that will provide automated software agents to support turning over one’s investments every 7 days (based on the specs you give the agent). A system like this will make the financial markets work as smoothly as the local fruit market.

  • Mike

    no, but seriously.

    the “in-between the lines” of what you rational, law-abiding folk are saying is that’s it’s o.k. that they did what they did.

    you may not think that’s what you’re saying, but the result is that there is no repercussion for collapsing the world economy.

    people will die because of this, not in america, but in places where existence is subsistence level.

    if we’re not going to start calling this criminal negligence, and creating laws if necessary to prosecute these people, then we shouldn’t complain at all.

    because this entire discussion is pointless. they’re stolen our money and they are going to keep it, and in this case, the law is there to protect and secure the guilty.

  • jeffe

    Everything is wrong with this picture. Summers and Geithner are the problem. I always thought these two were bad choices. Obama and his team are in a very dangerous position and now, instead of being the leader of our country he sends out these so called economic advisers and cabinet members to spin like tops. This nothing more than SOS. Message to the president, we voted for change, not SOS with the same SOB’s. Right now our government is involved with the biggest transfer of wealth in our country since it’s founding. The government can invade Iraq and Afghanistan and tell manipulate those countries but they can’t tell a bunch of employees at AIG that buck is stopping here.

    Enough is enough, screw their contracts they have brought down the entire world economy and they want their bonuses? If it was up to me I would give these SOB’s a good kick in their butts and tell them there lucky we don’t make them eat horse dung on national TV.

    They are no better than the terrorist that cause 9/11 in my opinion, all of these people who are involved in this are economic terrorist.

  • Joe Morton

    The root of this problem is that the politicians that control the oversight are all owned by business and specifically big banks.

    So we should not look to anyone associated with banks to solve this. And we should not LOOK TO THE FUTURE to “Make sure this doesn’t happen again”. We should fix THIS PROBLEM, NOW, by procecuting the people responsible. It is obvious conspiracy and fraud on a massive scale.

    I am already OUT of the market, and so is everyone I know. The damage done to our legal and economic system is incalculable because it is causing a total loss of trust.

    We should be placing ALL of the executive management and bank board members into PRISON until we can sort out where the money went and who is responsible. They are FINANCIAL TERRORISTS and this is WAR. It is simply TOO RISKY to have them walking around free where they can continue their conspiracy and fraud.

    The damage they have done is 1000 times worse than 9/11. Lets treat it that way. Arrest and procecute… now. And it probably goes all the way to to the top, Bush and Cheney.

  • jeffe

    The other reason that Summers is wrong on the contract issue is that the Obama government is all into forcing the banks to rewrite the mortgages for a huge amount of Americans, at least in theory. Well how is that they can tell one financial branch to rewrite the contracts and not another?

  • jeffe

    Not only to Bush, it goes to Robert Rubin and Summers and Clinton. I’m not a republican, but I think there is plenty of blame to go around for the deregulation of the financial industries for both parties. They are all corrupt practitioners in some way or another.

    Repeal the present harsh creditor-oriented bankruptcy law sponsored by the banks and credit-card companies which were pushed through by then-Senator Joe Biden.

    The other amazing thing is that AIG kept paying a million dollars a month to the clown who brought them down, Joe Cassano even after he was caught! This is what we are dealing with. This is the kind of mentality we have here.

    The whole thing is insane, really.

  • John

    If terrorists created the kind of havoc that AIG and others in the financial sector have we would have declared it the most devastating attack ever experienced by the U.S. So, then how should the payment of bonuses be understood when the payments have been made by the taxpayers that took the hit of this devastation?

  • Peter

    Now that we, the taxpayers, own AIG why don’t we file for bankruptcy. Under bankruptcy protection, we (AIG) can renegotiate our contracts. We can void out & redo the contracts that say we must pay $165M in in-house bonuses. We can redo the credit-default contacts of any bank that pays its staff bonuses in excess of $X. Etc.

  • Suleyken

    I think it is critical that we are told who these people are that chose to accept the bonuses! What do they tell themselves? I applaud efforts to improve regulation and oversight, and maybe the contracts are iron-clad (which I really really doubt), but we deserve to know who is walking off with our money.

  • Ellen Dibble

    A reason I keep money in the market for retirement funds, such as they are, is a determination that the millions who have such funds should have an honorable option, and it pains me, multiplied in scope by the Entire Baby Boom at least, to see no obvious such option. It is hard to get the president and Congress to invest responsibly in our future. But can’t I, solo? The reason I bring it up here is that I suspect AIG is at the root of my investment difficulties. They know how to insure established businesses, what I referred to as “dinosaurs,” which may be edging toward a 21st-century orientation but not too well. And apparently they know how to capitalize on the kind of risk that drove us all to the side of a cliff. But they don’t know how to lend our capital with vision and care. I won’t do it for them. My 2 cents aren’t worth it. Together we can, though. It was a nice rallying cry.
    Someone might say retirement funds invest in banks, which in turn invest in forward-looking ventures.
    What can I say. The plot thickens.

  • http://hfhplanning.com Hank Hanau, CFP (R)

    Fortunately for me and unfortunately for my making comments to your show, I live in NY.
    The problem’s occurance is quite simple to understand. In the old days private bankers were paid huge bonuses and that money stayed within the firm to add to the firms capital and ability to trade. The individual did not see that money for years. Traders and the firms they worked for did whatever they could to make money. The risk was tempered by human psychology that says it is less good to make gains than to have losses. When the private banks went public (in addition to growing by buying commercial banks) they were now not playing with there money. Gains were rewarded the year following the gains and went home with the trader. Losses, if they ever occurred were someone else’s problem. The trader already had the money and the money nor the trader could be touched. So, an answer lies in bonuses being put into a defined benefit plan and paid out 6 or 7 years after the profit was made and subject to attachment if the trader lost money. That would be self regulation.

  • David

    The scam goes on and the American public has not idea what goes on behind closed doors. Where is the America I grew up in as a young boy. Greed, Greed, Greed, Power, Power, Power and dog eat dog is all I see today. We have become a spineless nation of people who complain, yet instead of making things happen for the good, we turn it over to the guys who caused the trouble, the government. Do you not think that they have known all this before hand. Yet! our leaders are only a reflection of us. America, we need to get back to what made this country so great. If we don’t, we are headed down a realy bad stink hole. When nations decay they give off an unbearable odor. This whole mess stinks to high heaven with crooks and we the American taxpayer are FORCED to help clean it up! They get bonuses and the others get re-elected.

  • Betty B.

    The AIG executives receiving the ‘contracted’ bonus in the midst of their company tanking and getting bailed out through the taxpayers have the capability of refusing the money. If they choose not to, I think it would be wonderful to publicly announce and publicize their names and the amount of their bonus alongside the amount of money that the government gave to them. I also think it would behoove the IRS to carefully, and thoroughly, audit each of these individual’s 2008, 2009, 2010, 20XX… income tax submittals!

  • rick

    I keep hearing from ceo’s of major institutions that they have to reward their executives with bonuses to maintain them and keep them incented. If these are the same top executives who pushed these companies to the brink of financial disaster, why then are you holding on to them, as well as attempting to pay them these huge bonuses?

  • jeffe

    While I have been mad as hell with all of this the more I have been reading about the AIG bonus debacle it seems more complicated. The contracts were written before the bailouts so legally I don’t think there is much the government can do as these were made before AIG became a ward of the state. Second and this an interesting point made by a few of the business journalist that a fair amount of these people in AIG are still needed to sort out this mess. Firing them is not an option right now.

    Third it also seems that to mess with these contracts could backfire the other way, in that business would start to find ways to void contracts that they deemed not to their liking.

    Seems we all have to eat this bitter herb.

  • gabrielle

    not exactly G-20 related but a great article on The FED from The Nation magazine http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090330/greider?rel=hp_picks

ONPOINT
TODAY
Aug 29, 2014
Ukrainian forces guard a checkpoint in the town of Mariupol, eastern Ukraine, Thursday, Aug. 28, 2014. Ukraine's president Petro Poroshenko called an emergency meeting of the nation's security council and canceled a foreign trip Thursday, declaring that "Russian forces have entered Ukraine," as concerns grew about the opening of a new front in the conflict.  (AP)

War moves over Syria, Ukraine. Burger King moves to Canada. Nine-year-olds and Uzis. Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

Aug 29, 2014
Beyoncé performs at the 2014 MTV Music Video Awards on Sunday, August 24, 2014 in Inglewood, California. (Getty)

Sex, power and Beyoncé’s feminism. The message to young women.

RECENT
SHOWS
Aug 29, 2014
Beyoncé performs at the 2014 MTV Music Video Awards on Sunday, August 24, 2014 in Inglewood, California. (Getty)

Sex, power and Beyoncé’s feminism. The message to young women.

 
Aug 29, 2014
Ukrainian forces guard a checkpoint in the town of Mariupol, eastern Ukraine, Thursday, Aug. 28, 2014. Ukraine's president Petro Poroshenko called an emergency meeting of the nation's security council and canceled a foreign trip Thursday, declaring that "Russian forces have entered Ukraine," as concerns grew about the opening of a new front in the conflict.  (AP)

War moves over Syria, Ukraine. Burger King moves to Canada. Nine-year-olds and Uzis. Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

On Point Blog
On Point Blog
Our Week In The Web: August 29, 2014
Friday, Aug 29, 2014

On hypothetical questions, Beyoncé and the unending flow of social media.

More »
Comment
 
Drew Bledsoe Is Scoring Touchdowns (In The Vineyards)
Thursday, Aug 28, 2014

Football great — and vineyard owner — Drew Bledsoe talks wine, onions and the weird way they intersect sometimes in Walla Walla, Washington.

More »
Comment
 
Poutine Whoppers? Why Burger King Is Bailing Out For Canada
Tuesday, Aug 26, 2014

Why is Burger King buying a Canadian coffee and doughnut chain? (We’ll give you a hint: tax rates).

More »
1 Comment