Comments on: Jamie Dimon v. Larry Summers

By: Base

Base — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 18:33:26 +0000

And how can the banks be in great shape and still have 2 trillion of toxic assets on their books? This is such a giant scam that it boggles the mind.

The question I have is why Obama is continuing on with this course. He seems like a very intelligent man, yet these actions just make you wonder.

By: Katharine

Katharine — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:25:41 +0000

vilify – 1. To make vile; debase; degrade….
(Webster’s 2nd International)

No, bankers should not be vilified, yet they have done this to themselves for a long time now and show no sign of stopping, hence the need for external restraints.

By: Michael M Thomas

Michael M Thomas — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:24:31 +0000

For once, Summers & I agree:http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/17/wall-street-goldman-sachs-bailout-opinions-columnists-taxpayer.html

By: Kung.Fu.Panda

Kung.Fu.Panda — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 05:09:25 +0000

I agree. I think the Republican party has disintegrated intellectually and demographically. As you say, it’s unlikely that a coherent alternative can emerge either within the GOP or outside it by 2010.

By: bayardwaterbury

bayardwaterbury — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 05:07:31 +0000

You know, there has been much rhetoric justifying the continuation of “business as usual” in Financial America (e.g. profits, bonuses, etc.). When Larry pretends to talk tough, we all get the idea. He has to feign concern. He has to defuse criticism (from all sides) relating to the result of such massive government intervention. I, of course, don’t buy any of it, UNLESS he puts some teeth in it: make the banks offer top dollar for the now valuable warrants, and, if the old practices continue, threatan to pull all government guarantees (since the industry is now riding on the good faith of the American govenment to profitability — although recent analysis makes those profits look like a one-time financial sleight of hand).

Tough talk to the Plutarchs seems such a waste of breath. But the tragic ballet is entertaining!!

By: Ed Beaugard

Ed Beaugard — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 03:15:32 +0000

I’m not an economist either, and the math used by quants is pretty esoteric, I think based in partial differential equations and stochastic calculus, stats and probability. BUT, the math and economics always have to be justified by the ideas supporting them and there we’ve all got a lot to say. And really, Taleb and others have said for a long time that the math and financial economics are useless anyway. Which the current crisis proves.
There was a book written about 1995 by an ex-Morgan Stanley lawyer who worked in derivatives and he describes very well the worldview of these idiots. For example, all the traders in MBS and other stuff like that, NEVER invested in what they traded. Their money was always safely tucked away in T-bills, government bonds, etc.

Anyway, fancy a cup of coffee?

By: Ted K

Ted K — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 01:39:57 +0000

I got a D on a University exam because I refused to put the textbook answer on how to choose stocks. The textbook answer at that time (paraphrasing) was you should choose 15 stocks from different industries, then after 15 there wasn’t much more advantage you could get out of diversifying. I wrote on my essay answer that I read an iconic investor had written diversification was really “diWORSEification” and that you should only choose stocks based on fundamental analysis and book value. My professor nailed my ass to the wall for about 20% points for that one question on the exam.

By: paul94611

paul94611 — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 01:26:05 +0000

Whatever Diamon or Blankfein want, they get. It is these two bankers who run America, not the president or anyone else. If these two do not want consumer protections, true regulation of derivatives or an audit of the Fed then these thing will not happen. Or, not happen in any way that will actually accomplish anything but to transfer risk from the banks to the government for failures to act in the future. Everyone already knows that Larry Summers is just another Washington water boy so why listen to, or print anything he has to say?

By: Charles Chagrined

Charles Chagrined — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 01:09:42 +0000

Count me in, guys. I’m beyond disappointment and anger and to the point of resignation. Obama has receded into the Presidential bubble and surrounded himself with his “friends of Barack” never to emerge. This crisis played out so differently from the way it played out in the Roosevelt administration…

Can we learn anything from our own history?

By: Mr Furious

Mr Furious — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 23:51:53 +0000

Sounds about right to me. And it’s incredibly disappointing for me to say that.

I’m not looking forward to the similar level of disappointment with health care reform I now expect.

By: Tippy Golden

Tippy Golden — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 22:53:23 +0000

You might be right there.

By: Uncle Billy vs. Mont Pelerin

Uncle Billy vs. Mont Pelerin — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 22:21:42 +0000

I have sneaking suspicion that the key to the success of the human race is *not* finance, micro or otherwise.

By: Tippy Golden

Tippy Golden — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 22:11:00 +0000

Uncle Billy, I have an inquiring mind. But I never knew what Mont Pelerin was until today. (Chalk it up to being Canadian) I used to be confused by your link to that hospital. So I am learning. As for my blog. I added a link to Kiva. How’s that for progressive financing!

By: Uncle Billy vs. Mont Pelerin

Uncle Billy vs. Mont Pelerin — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 21:17:06 +0000

I wasn’t being tough. It was more in the spirit of: “Inquiring minds want to know.”

By: anne

anne — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 21:15:16 +0000

You see, I am not an economist, nor do I dabble in math very often.

But I find it absolutely astonishing that they could know the amount of debt on their books, yet push around numbers in a way that made it seem “healthy” – or not risky. That just boggles the mind, quite frankly.

That we’re seeing such profit still emerging from the “shadow” (unregulated) sector – and such push back from the banks with regard to regulating that sector – makes it seem that they’ve known all along that the risks of being unregulated are quite profitable for them – and that the bigger they get (i.e. the more consolidation the government forces on them), the less likely they’ll ever be held accountable for any “modeling error” that they make.

No matter what, they’ll be raking in the dough…