Comments on: The Rise and Rise of Jamie Dimon

By: bob

bob — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 21:29:23 +0000

Jimmy J,
The simple answer to your reasonable questions about why the government didn’t bail out the too-big-to-fail banks on terms more favorable to taxpayers is that the bailouts were designed by too-big-to-fail bankers on temporary loan to the Treasury and the Fed and the White House. Seeing unguarded piles of money and taking as large a portion as they can for their firms is what these guys dream of. Most of them still had much of their net worth tied up in their banks. For years, Wall Street has had an informal veto over appointments to the Fed or the Treasury. These guys don’t even see anything wrong with this arrangement. To them, what is good for Wall Street is good for the rest of us, and it would be scandalous to appoint someone to these positions who didn’t share their views and loyalties. The only solution for taxpayers or consumers would be to elect leaders who see through this, but this won’t happen in our political system. Some might have hoped that Obama would be different, but he, like Clinton, appears to enjoy being “advised” by these brilliant, powerful, and wealthy guys as much as the Republicans. It won’t stop until all the money is gone.

By: J Dimon

J Dimon — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 05:35:46 +0000

Jamie Dimon is a CROOK

By: angry liberal

angry liberal — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 02:46:02 +0000

What about the 2005-2006ish Financial Emergency Preparedness Exercise that the Treasury Department ran, with participation by all the major banks, at SOCOM in Miami?

This crisis was foreseen and pre-played by at least a year.

By: DesolationRow

DesolationRow — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 05:09:07 +0000

I think there will still be some form of public option…Congress is balking at the price tag and some moderate Democrats are breaking ranks. I don’t think anyone knows how things will shake out but this one I don’t put at the president’s feet…plus I think he’s learned the lesson about shoving a health plan down Congress’ throat. The fact that he’s trying so hard for what is probably the signature Democratic initiative of the past 20 years leads me to believe he’s not deeply conservative. As the bailouts go, yes he took W’s playbook and ran with it (let Wall St figure it out). I also find shameful his abandonment of the gay rights movement. However, if he lets the estate tax expire, apologizes to Israel, snubs his next invitation to speak to the NAACP opting instead to speak to the NRA and starts a war with any oil-producing nation, then I too will call him deeply conservative (among other things).

By: Agoraphobic Kleptomaniac

Agoraphobic Kleptomaniac — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 20:27:24 +0000

“The actions of Paulson-Bernanke-Bush ended any chance McCain might ever have had of defeating Obama.”

Uh, what? (citation needed)

I think McCain did that to himself when he said he didn’t know that much about the economy, and a major advisor of his, Phil Gramm, called us all a “nation of whiners.”

Ahh, those were the days…

By: Agoraphobic Kleptomaniac

Agoraphobic Kleptomaniac — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 20:21:22 +0000

“”Obama is a “deeply conservative person” in philosophy?? How is his stance on healthcare deeply conservative?”"
The fact that he’s willing to allow the public option fall by the wayside says alot. Kathleen Sabelius was on The Daily show last week, and every answer she gave was “we are working on a free-market solution to health care” or some derivation of it. She didn’t want to control cost or shut out the existing insurance companies.

I’d argue that Obama is more right than center on health care (76% of americans want a public option), enemy detention (aruging for preventative detention and detention AFTER someone is aquitted), surveillance, and a few other areas.

And the fact that he’d turn to Jamie for policy? Deplorable.

By: Lex Wadelski

Lex Wadelski — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:51:38 +0000

I have been closely following Jamie Dimon since his bank was gifted with the takeover of Bear Stearns by the Gaithner and the Fed.

Dimon displays an arrogance that apparently is a requisite of the JP Morgan legacy.

Even the Wall Street Journal has commented on it.

To call Dimon a Democrat…is to demean the party…and reduce it to its bluest… and meanest… junk-yard dog element.

By: anne

anne — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 13:12:47 +0000

Jimmy J – I think that the banks have already remade our society into something other than a capitalistic democracy. They’ve established an invidious corporate welfare state that threatens the future of our country.

Since this is the situation we find ourselves in today, I heartily agree with you that the government has failed to reap the benefits of being the lender of last resort. That is my biggest issue with the crisis – that the financial companies that failed so dramatically last fall are reaping such astronomical profits while the rest of the nation is being counseled to wait patiently for the recovery.

Paulson told us the government needed to prop up the financial sector (the sector filled with the best and brightest capitalists in the world!) to avoid a deep recession. His initial plan was to remove toxic debt from their books.

Well, that toxic debt is still stinking up the system; we’ve seen dramatic consolidation of a sector that was already “too-big-to-fail” and meanwhile, outside of Wall Street, the very deep recession we landed in after the bailout continues unabated.

And the sector that exists solely because of a government bailout is the only sector seeing astronomical profits. We’ve moved far, far away from the capitalist democracy you describe.

By: Kirk Tofte

Kirk Tofte — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:20:32 +0000

Why has NO person posting comments here so far mentioned that the bailour of banks was initiated SOLEY by Republicans. It was Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke that first went to George W. Bush and said that they had been wrong for over two years–the subprime mortgage crisis was NOT contained and BIG action was needed IMMEDIATELY.
Even the American Bankers’ Association later saithat THEY had never asked for the bailouts. Paulson-Bernanke-Bush scared the heck out of Congress and the American people. As a partial result, the economy came to a complete standstill. The costs of that “freeze” haven’t been calculated, unless you consider two consecutive quarters of five percent (plus) declines in GDP to be costly beyond measure.
And one more thing. The actions of Paulson-Bernanke-Bush ended any chance McCain might ever have had of defeating Obama. So what has Obama done? Why, continue Paulson-Bernanke-Bush policies vis-a-vis the big banks, of course.

By: Russ

Russ — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 07:35:32 +0000

Perhaps some of us here want something other than a “capitalistic democracy”. Others would be content just to establish capitalistic democracy.

Either course would certainly be a huge improvement over feudal oligarchy embellished with show elections, which is what we have now.

By: DesolationRow

DesolationRow — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 05:28:31 +0000

Obama is a “deeply conservative person” in philosophy?? How is his stance on healthcare deeply conservative? Would you call Bill Clinton deeply conservative as well? Maybe but I’d guess not…and he had Rubin as his Treasury Secretary for a time. I agree with you that Washington has been sold to Wall Street but your speculation cheapens your argument. I very much doubt Michelle is the reason Obama is a Democrat. Clinton and Obama are both center Democrats…Clinton with his Caucasian wife and Obama with his African-American wife.

By: JimmyJ

JimmyJ — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 05:07:46 +0000

James,

While I agree in blog comments being free for anyone to post their thoughts, I think a number of commenters here seem to believe that the outcome of this crisis should have been the wholesale remaking of our banking, political, and fundamental economic structure – perhaps into something other than a capitalistic democracy. I’d like to ask a question that is much more basic and I think practical and since I regularly read this blog but rarely comment – I hope you and Simon can try to do it justice. If the bank bailouts were needed (and I tend to agree with Krugman that they were), why didn’t this assistance simply come with higher repayment costs? Forget new regulation, forget having greater say over pay, forget greater influence over who gets to stay and who has to go – wouldn’t the best end results be achieved by just requiring higher interest rates on the government loan facilities or better terms for redeeming warrants? If the government was the lender of last resort, essentially giving it the right to declare the terms of the loan, why didn’t it act like it. Why didn’t we just require that TARP funds have more warrants attached or higher costs associated with repayment? Why didn’t these loans come with more adjustments for quick repayment, i.e. so that if Goldman or any other institution wanted to repay more quickly, it could do so but with greater prepayment penalties – just like the banks do when they provide loans to you and I? IMHO – the failure of the government to change the ways of JPM or MS or GS or BofA/Merrill or Citi for that matter is not their failure to enact regulation or exercise political will or might, their failure has actually been poor financial management – their failure to get a good return on their investment.

By: bayardwaterbury

bayardwaterbury — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 04:58:40 +0000

The Obama relationship with the rich and powerful interests in Financial America (still developing, and largely because his top two Administration wonks, Tim and Larry have gotten his mind into their mindset), is still developing, but is such a tragic thing. It makes all campaign rhetoric about change meaningless. But, let’s face it, it is just American Plutocracy at it’s insideous best!! I wonder when something comes upon in JPM’s boardroom, if Dimon says, “well, let me call Barrack.”?

By: bayardwaterbury

bayardwaterbury — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 04:53:38 +0000

Your right that it’s not capitalism, or socialism, but corporatism is just another word for plutocracy, which, to describe it succinctly is “government for the greedy, by the greedy and of the greedy” to the perpetuation of inequality and catastrophe for the ordinary citizen, ad infinitum. If that sounds too cynical for you, please feel free to couch it in different terms. For me, we have been more abused than that strip-searched girl who finally got her day in the sun with the Supremes. We have all been sold to (or bought by) Wall Street (and to think that Lincoln technically ended slavery over 140 years ago — go fiure!!).

By: John F. McGowan

John F. McGowan — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 03:14:04 +0000

It is unlikely the crisis will recede. Consumption has and will drop sharply due to the wealth effect of the lost housing bubble wealth as well as some other effects, absent a larger and better focused fiscal stimulus.

Who now owns the once famous toxic assets? Until the bad mortgage loans are written off, they will drag down the economy.

More importantly, it is likely that China will pull the plug, perhaps tomorrow, perhaps later, and cease subsidizing the US economy. China will retool its factories to manufacture goods and services for the Chinese population and not the US. The dollar will probably crash and may cease to be “the reserve currency”.

Sincerely,

John