Skip to comments.Dimon’s Déjà Vu Debacle
Posted on 05/21/2012 6:53:00 PM PDT by Beave Meister
Sometimes its hard to explain why we need strong financial regulation especially in an era saturated with pro-business, pro-market propaganda. So we should always be grateful when someone makes the case for regulation more compelling and easier to understand. And this week, that means offering a special shout-out to two men: Jamie Dimon and Mitt Romney.
Ill come back shortly to the troubles at JPMorgan Chase, the bank Mr. Dimon runs. First, however, let me talk about Mr. Romney, whose remarks about those troubles were so off-point that they constitute a teachable moment.
Heres what the presumptive Republican presidential nominee said about JPMorgans $2 billion loss (which may actually have been $3 billion, or $5 billion, or more, but whos counting?): This was a loss to shareholders and owners of JPMorgan and thats the way America works. Some people experienced a loss in this case because of a bad decision. By the way, there was someone who made a gain.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
has paul krugman ever had so much as a paper route?
The financial and banking sector are regulated up the ying yang. Problem number one.
Problem number two is the regulators don’t do their job anyway, or at best selectively regulate (eg., why isn’t Corzine behind bars, while Madoff is rotting in prison?).
Problem number three is the Fed. If interest rates were at market levels there would be no need to overdo it on the derivatives or other interbank trading.
Krugman has rocks in his head.
If people like Krugman believe that JPMorgan's one-time loss of $2 billion is unacceptable, why would he propose that the federal government get involved?
The federal government operates their business at a daily loss of $2.5 billion. Everyday. Even weekends.
In the history of the world, there has never been an entity that has better made the case that it is uniquely unqualified to tell any other entity how to run a business than the United States federal government.
True, the NY Times could also make the case for their own organization on a percentage of income to loss basis, but they are going broke on a much smaller scale.