JP Morgan - the Fallout
puremagic
Posts: 1,907
Could this be another Leason/Baring Bank event? or another Too Big to Fail scenario?
Weren’t derivatives one of the major issues Barney Franks tried to get in his financial bill after the Bailout crisis that got written out of the Bill?
This is something I'd like to hear from Romney (who has these private capital funds and private investment firms).
I'd like to hear President Obama on the how do we protect the taxpayer from these Banks and private capital and investment firms?
Weren’t derivatives one of the major issues Barney Franks tried to get in his financial bill after the Bailout crisis that got written out of the Bill?
This is something I'd like to hear from Romney (who has these private capital funds and private investment firms).
I'd like to hear President Obama on the how do we protect the taxpayer from these Banks and private capital and investment firms?
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Matt Taibbi
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/bl ... z1urLPwUDz
I'd vote for Taibbi for president right now.
this whole system needs to be reworked. they gamble with everybody else's money and when they lose it all they do not learn. they go back to the bailout tit, get bailed out, and then they do the same thing over and over again.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I agree to an extent but how the hell do you let a depository bank fail? Especially like JP Morgan, millions would lose everything.
Depository and investment banks cannot be the same thing.
Yep. "Inside Job" should be required viewing for everyone. I re-watch it every time this shit happens again.
Read "Too Big to Fail" too. Sorkin did a great job.
I watched the movie but I heard the book is much better. It's on my list.
Your politics is so confusing. You complain about government being tied into markets through special interests, then you also advocate more of it.
This isn't a problem of too little government regulation and government involvement, it's a problem of too much. If these companies failed, that would be that. That's real "regulation". That's market driven regulation. Let them lose money and don't help them if they do. That's the only thing they actually care about.
It's not the companies doing the bailing out and creating the perpetual moral hazard. That's the government. The government is the organization mandating what banks can and can't do. Ironically, Jamie Dimon advises the New York FED. You want more of that? You fucking kidding me?
The government is setting the rules here, they create the environment. Everyone just casts a blind eye to that FACT and act surprised when companies continue to seek profits and take excessive risks knowing the rules and the environment - which is: there's no such thing as excessive risk. Why? Because they live in a moral hazard environment. As is - they can always count on the good ol' us taxpayer to bail us out, if the risk it too large. That is, until we can't anymore. Than we're all going to be in the toilet... literally.
Who would you rather flush, them or all of us? I say them. Stupidity should never be rewarded.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
part of that is that you have your belief system and i have mine ... you think gov't is responsible for all the problems ... i think bad gov't under the influence of corporations is ... big difference ...
My lack of understanding comes from your push to tie government to corporations via regulations/intervention. Yet, also knowing of your desire to separate the two because you believe many problems stem from their unity.
It seems counterintuitive. So, I'm saying - Why not cut the tie? If government removed itself, there would be no path for influence.
Profit-seekers, by their very nature will continue to do everything in their power to make money - regardless of the environment created by regulators. In fact, many times the boards of the regulators will be overtaken by the profit-seekers themselves (see our boy from JP Morgan). I am not one to believe government doesn't try to help... I am one to say, they make things worse with their compassion.
The only thing that will really "regulate them" is allowing failure and loss. Allow markets to work and weed out the crap.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Yeah but "going back" is going to tank the stock market, won't it?
I don't give two shits either way, thought I think you are right about this separation being PART of a solution.
I think Inlet is ultimately right that unless the Fed is divorced from offering bailouts to investment banks, then we will never have a real market-checked economy. Unfortunately it is the same people who ultimate run\control both the Fed and the Banks (in a very real sense the banks OWN the Fed, by definition of membership in the system \ Fed Reserve Stock Ownership rules ... sure the board of governors is appointed by Prez. but c'mon, haha) ... and they will not reduce the totality of control on their own system to please you or me.
If anything they will continue to drive us further in to crisis and social instability in the name of FURTHER CONSOLIDATING their power\control (never let a good crisis go to waste).
:(
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Deposits are always gambled on. Look up fractional reserve banking.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
True, but the repeal of Glass-Steagal, and the conglomeration of the investment banking sector with the commercial banking sector IS a big problem, in any event.
Big enough that the BoE Governor just made a speech condemning it and saying that Britain must reinstate the divide between the two in order to save itself.
Shit, if the BoE is now pushing this, you know it must be bad.
Desperate times ...
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I'm not saying it is or isn't a problem. To me - the problem is government involvement in banking (period). That's why I find it ironic when people believe the solution is more government.
I just keep coming back to many thinking that banks (pre- or post- Glass-Steagal) don't make risks. I mean anyone who doesn't consider debt (including loans) risky, has issues. People aren't putting two and two together, tho.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
because you tie everything together as if they are inherently linked ... i don't ... i believe in gov't ... i believe in regulation ... i think the two can help form the foundation of strong economic system ... you don't ...
and the reason not to cut the tie? ... is deregulation ... the consequences and results ...
The one regulation, proposed by the Obama administration for the Dodd/Frank Bill– the Volcker Rule – could have prevented this JP Morgan mess.
… Announced earlier this year by the Obama administration, the so-called Volcker Rule was devised to prohibit banks from owning, operating or sponsoring hedge funds or private equity operations. The aim of the Volcker Rule is to prevent the nation's largest banks from using taxpayer-provided financing -- from the Fed's discount window, for one -- to fund trades for their own accounts.
The one bank that is a player in this mess Citibank successfully opposed the Volcker Rule which has still not been enacted upon by Congress as are many of the other regulations of the Dodd/Frank bill.
Yes, but instead of loaning the money (responsibly), which carries less risk and could help the economy, JP Morgan gambled like a hedge fund. I really don't think you can compare the risk of the two.
The risk is dependent on the investment. Loans can be very risky - see housing crash for proof. MBS were packaged mortgages, afterall.
But, regardless, both are risky. I won't say one can't be more risky than the other - it can. I'm simply saying acting like there's no risk involved in one of the two is simply false.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/irony-101-or-how-fed-blew-jpmorgans-hedge-22-tweets
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="