Comments on: Note to Jamie Dimon: Repeating Something Doesn’t Make It True

By: watt d farjk

watt d farjk — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:44:43 +0000

If any of you work for a big company, you understand the fallacies of efficiencies, synergies, economy of scale, etc., that the MBA types like to trot out. They just don’t materialize. The bigger a company gets, the more layers of management, the more meetings, the more garbled top-down messages, the more “process management”, the more business trends du jour, the more alienated the workers become…need I say more?

By: anti_fascist_freedom_fighter

anti_fascist_freedom_fighter — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:57:23 +0000

“Scale can create value for shareholders; for consumers, who are beneficiaries of better products, delivered more quickly and at less cost; for the businesses that are our customers; and for the economy as a whole.”

Let’s see, isn’t that MUTUALLY exclusive? I’m not a shareholder of Chase, but I have one of their credit cards, which recently readjusted to 29.99%.

Good for Chase shareholders. But for me, as a “consumer”, I got a worse product, delivered quickly at HIGHER cost. For the economy as a whole, nah… don’t believe emptying my pockets to pay Chase has helped keep anybody in business in my town…

By: monday1929

monday1929 — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 02:13:00 +0000

Why would anyone listen to the CEO of a Bankrupt bank?
Or a Tax cheat Treasury Head?
Or an always wrong Fed head?
Just wonderin’

By: anne

anne — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 22:41:45 +0000

Thus spoke Jamie Dimon, who, like Lloyd Blankfein, finds himself doing “god’s work” while a banker.

I’m waiting for the op-ed piece where Dimon explains the benefits consumers have reaped thanks to the big banks. I don’t know a consumer who feels they’ve gained anything by the consolidation of the banking system.

By: bk

bk — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 18:03:17 +0000

Once we agree that Too Big To Fail is a problem, how to we deal with it? I agree that an “arbitrary” limit on size is and anti-trust actions are inefficient. They also suffer from regulatory capture.

An interesting proposal was floated several months ago to deal with TBTF. Increase reserve requirements as banks get bigger. This makes large banks less likely to fail, and lowers their opportunities for profit as they get larger. I don’t know what happened to this idea.

By: Ted K

Ted K — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 05:34:55 +0000

My post could have been misunderstood. I meant Kwak when I said James. I was referring to what the Treasury had said to the bloggers who promised the Treasury their quotes would remain anonymous. One of the propaganda stunts was selling “interconnectedness” to the bloggers.

Of course Mr. Coffman’s views I respect.

By: Ted K

Ted K — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 05:19:14 +0000

No, that’s a piece of manure that’s tied to the value of another piece of manure. And if you have no capital you say “I’m to valuable to the economy, so you must pay for my manure”. Then when the government tells you you can’t sell manure the same way, you yell “socialism!!!”

By: 3-D

3-D — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 18:26:13 +0000

I don’t know that I agree James. A lot of marketing and sales folks will tell you that if you repeat the same thing enough times and loud enough, your audience will believe its true. Even if it ain’t true. Shout down your opponents, repeat repeat repeat, eventually the masses believe you and line up in your corner.

Sadly, they’re right, and that’s exactly what Dimon is thinking I wager.

By: 3-D

3-D — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 18:21:59 +0000

I know there’s some kind of market for horse manure, if that’s what you’re asking.

By: Ruthmarie

Ruthmarie — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 18:09:47 +0000

I think its hilarious – its a whole new tag for Google spiders to start ranking. There is certainly no lack of material for such a tag.

By: fwm

fwm — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 18:01:13 +0000

In a bailout, the “big banks’” position is strengthened knowing that the Federal Reserve is tasked with ensuring the stability of the financial system, has a blank cheque, and little accountability.

By: fwm

fwm — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 16:34:18 +0000

Banks that are too-big-to fail, because of the damage they would cause, can hold the government(taxpayer) hostage, and set the terms of bailouts.

By: hermanas

hermanas — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 11:30:58 +0000

Maybe,”Scale can create value….for the whole economy.” but did they? Or did they collapse the economy?

By: bungalowbill

bungalowbill — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 04:20:20 +0000

I don’t find it very dignified from James Kwak to LOL. It’s rather off-putting.

By: Uncle Billy Cunctator

Uncle Billy Cunctator — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 03:51:23 +0000

Speaking of the truth…

One of the big roots of our pre and current dicaments is capture — capture of industry and government. Most of this comes from the inability to vet people properly, and/or investigate them. Yves Smith posted a link that may be far more important than even she realizes. It talks about the state of electronic mind-reading. We are far far better at this than most people realize.

http://hplusmagazine.com/articles/neuro/mind-reading-neural-decoding-goes-mainstream

Watch the 60 minutes video. The Carnegie Mellon fellow puts the estimate for when we’re able to read complex thought by machine, at 5 years. Watch carefully the fellow who says “we can’t do that yet, but we’re working on it.” (Paul Wolpe, Director of the Center for Ethics – Run! – at Emory University.

http://ethics.emory.edu/people/Director.html

Watch his eyes carefully when he says “we’re not there yet.” Is he being truthful?)