Dimon: "I don't know what the Volcker rule is. It hasn't been written yet."

Well, it goes into effect next month as Section 619 of the Dodd Frank Act, assuming the regulators are ready to enforce it, so obviously his second sentence isn't true. But maybe he really doesn't know what it is. Check out this video from February with Bill Moyers interviewing Paul Volcker. It has a clip with Dimon spouting BS completely unrelated to the Volcker rule, then Moyers and Volcker skewer him.
Link

I mean, if you want to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he was talking about the regulatory enforcement procedures relating to Section 619, sure those are still in flux, but the Volcker Rule has definitely been written, and clearly prohibits banks from engaging in speculative proprietary trading, so it smells like bullshiat to me.

Here's the text of the rule:
Link

Jamie Dimon should be prosecuted. The fact he isn't being shows how deeply corrupt most of our government has become, on all sides. Obama pretty much left running the banks up to these same punks who drove the economy into the ditch. We might as well have elected a Republican.

Obama's got 6 months to grow a pair and do something meaningful with these bankers and other criminals on Wall Street, or I'm out.

They won't spit.
They'll swallow.

Generation_D: Obama's got 6 months to grow a pair and do something meaningful with these bankers and other criminals on Wall Street, or I'm out.

Yeah, you can use the Love Tester.

FTA: "And nobody asked Dimon whether he thought his seat on the board of the New York Federal Reserve, a key financial regulatory arm, is a conflict of interest."

/Right, 'cause they would allow Peyton Manning to sit on the NFL officiating committee

FlashHarry: i loved de mint's line about how we shouldn't worry about jpmorgan losing $2 billion because the federal government loses that every day.

You know, if Obama said "we're blowing $2 billion a day but eh, no big deal" there would be expedited impeachment hearings by the end of the day.

Farking hypocrites.

Ambivalence: Yah but private enterprise is suposed to be, like, more efficient and less wasteful than the government.

That's what republicans keep telling me when they want to privatize something.

Difference being that if you don't like the way they waste their money you can stop doing business with them almost immediately. not so much with the government.

I'm still confused why this loss is any of Congress' business.

Comment self deleted.
(In an effort to tone it down)

And if you are outraged by this, then you'll simply have to vote for Romney. Thats the only way the democrats will learn.

pedrop357: I'm still confused why this loss is any of Congress' business.

You see nothing wrong with gambling addicts bankers throwing money at red 23 using taxpayer-guaranteed deposits?

pedrop357: I'm still confused why this loss is any of Congress' business.

They have 25,000,000,000 reasons. Maybe they don't want to bail them out again?

/yes they paid it back - I'd like a loan on those terms after farking up

You'd think that they'd at least have the courtesy to pull his pants down first.

FlashHarry: i wonder how his teabagger worshippers feel about him fellating a wall st. banker in the US senate.

I'm gonna go with "jealous".

It's a show trial so that Congress can claim they did their job when all this comes back on the taxpayer.

pedrop357: "if you don't like the way they waste their money you can stop doing business with them almost immediately."

That would be true. In a world without bailouts. But this ain't that world. Primarily, because of the regulatory capture that causes congress to one-up each other in effusively kissing this guy's ass.

They were harder on the MLB juice-squad and they had a far less legitimate interest in that.

They didn't "lose" 2billion in a couch or a fire, they gave it to someone else. This is what markets are about. If they lost 2 billion, someone else made 2 billion (or at least avoided losing it).

If I buy a stock at 100 and it falls to 50, I've "lost" 50. The other guy gained 50 (or avoided losing it). If it goes to 150, he loses 50, but I gain it.

/Insurance works this way too. Everything in the financial system does.

FlashHarry: i wonder how his teabagger worshippers feel about him fellating a wall st. banker in the US senate.

*puts on derp hat*

It's not Dimon's fault. JP Morgan Chase is just another small business having problems because of socialism and too many regulations. Dimon is a rich man who came from nothing and worked hard to found this small business all by himself. We should be giving him some tax cuts.

Generation_D: Jamie Dimon should be prosecuted. The fact he isn't being shows how deeply corrupt most of our government has become, on all sides. Obama pretty much left running the banks up to these same punks who drove the economy into the ditch. We might as well have elected a Republican.

Obama's got 6 months to grow a pair and do something meaningful with these bankers and other criminals on Wall Street, or I'm out.

Rmoney will be worse.

Wall Street has learned nothing. Its only a matter of time before we see another "one-off" since its a systemic problem.

Big Deal, they lost 2% on a investment, cry me a river you Occupiers.

Weaver95: I wish I could say I was surprised....but no.

Is that all i get out of you. Quitbeing a wank aboutthis and get mad. For fark sake, who on here is going to give a long john thompson if not you?

Well, to their credit, the Senators are willing to show respect to America's leaders.

whats worse is that the Huffington post was the info source

TofuTheAlmighty: You see nothing wrong with gambling addicts bankers throwing money at red 23 using taxpayer-guaranteed deposits?

Any proof the money came from FDIC insured accounts?

That's typically a big no-no as I understand it.

alex10294: They didn't "lose" 2billion in a couch or a fire, they gave it to someone else. This is what markets are about. If they lost 2 billion, someone else made 2 billion (or at least avoided losing it).

I thought markets were mostly about speculating on money that doesn't exist, to drive the price up for the benefit of a select few. Whole markets can crash and then everyone loses.

FlashHarry: i loved de mint's line about how we shouldn't worry about jpmorgan losing $2 billion because the federal government loses that every day. what a farking sycophantic scumbag. i wonder how his teabagger worshippers feel about him fellating a wall st. banker in the US senate.

-----------------------

$2B loss at JP Morgan - no big deal
$500M loss at Solyndra - OMG IMPEACH! THE GOVERNMENT farkS UP EVERYTHING IT TOUCHES!

AliceBToklasLives: They have 25,000,000,000 reasons. Maybe they don't want to bail them out again?

/yes they paid it back - I'd like a loan on those terms after farking up


Where is it written that any bank has to be bailed out? If I loan you money, even on sweetheart terms, and you pay it back, that's it. I don't gain a right or power to tell you what to do moving forward on the pretense that you might screw up and need a loan.

EnderX: Big Deal, they lost 2% on a investment, cry me a river you Occupiers.

"[...] a investment" was a subtle touch. You might get bites. The "Occupiers" thing might have gone far enough to tip some people off though.

balloot: $2B loss at JP Morgan - no big deal
$500M loss at Solyndra - OMG IMPEACH! THE GOVERNMENT farkS UP EVERYTHING IT TOUCHES!


Depends on who's money you're losing. Company's money? Company's problem. Taxpayer's money? Taxpayer's problem.

pedrop357: Ambivalence: Yah but private enterprise is suposed to be, like, more efficient and less wasteful than the government.

That's what republicans keep telling me when they want to privatize something.

Difference being that if you don't like the way they waste their money you can stop doing business with them almost immediately. not so much with the government.

I'm still confused why this loss is any of Congress' business.

Probably because .P. Morgan Chase is a federally-insured institution that has been, and will almost assuredly continue to be, the recipient of massive amounts of taxpayer public assistance since they're openly gambling with federally insured assets?

alex10294: They didn't "lose" 2billion in a couch or a fire, they gave it to someone else. This is what markets are about. If they lost 2 billion, someone else made 2 billion (or at least avoided losing it).

If I buy a stock at 100 and it falls to 50, I've "lost" 50. The other guy gained 50 (or avoided losing it). If it goes to 150, he loses 50, but I gain it.

/Insurance works this way too. Everything in the financial system does.

Except it doesn't, you are completely ignoring how price is set in something like the stock market. It is very much determined by volume. Here is a very simple scenario that happens all of the time:

- 100m shares of stock A are outstanding at $10 a share. This is $1b outstanding.
- Stock A normally trades around 1m shares a day
- Whale made some bad decision, needs to liquidate his 4m shares to cover. He cannot really wait many days over many trades to do this. He doubles volume of shares available a day and is willing to go down to $4/share to do so. His position essentially controls the volume of any trading, even if nobody else wants to sell at $4/share he can fill all orders for at least four days.
- Stock drops to $4/share, $400m is now outstanding for all remaining shareholders.

Now, in a rational world where everyone knows everything, the current shareholders would wait for price to go back to its natural $10/share price by refusing to sell until the market meets them. In the real world, when the stock hits $8 a bunch of limit order get triggered and when it hits $6 a bunch more get triggered, then Joe Jerkoff sees this and panic sells his 401k and pretty soon everyone is out of all of their money because nobody wants to buy a stock that is cratering even if the day before they thought it was worth $10/share.

Hand him a nice big gubbermint job making regulations. How can we not? HE SAID HE'S SORRY. He is a CAPTAIN OF INDUSTRY. He is a job creator. LEAVE HIM ALONE!!!!

InmanRoshi: Probably because .P. Morgan Chase is a federally-insured institution that has been, and will almost assuredly continue to be, the recipient of massive amounts of taxpayer public assistance since they're openly gambling with federally insured assets?

Proof?

Not everything a bank does involves FDIC insured funds. If the bank was using money from its FDIC insured deposit accounts and lost that, it wouldn't be Congress asking the questions, it would be the FDIC.

What assistance do they receive, and WHY are they receiving "taxpayer public assistance" (whatever that is)?

16 of 22 senators in the room got contributions from the bank in question. So. What did people expect?

foo monkey:

Rmoney will be worse.

He won't be any different because the same people will be in charge.

balloot: FlashHarry: i loved de mint's line about how we shouldn't worry about jpmorgan losing $2 billion because the federal government loses that every day. what a farking sycophantic scumbag. i wonder how his teabagger worshippers feel about him fellating a wall st. banker in the US senate.

-----------------------

$2B loss at JP Morgan - no big deal
$500M loss at Solyndra - OMG IMPEACH! THE GOVERNMENT farkS UP EVERYTHING IT TOUCHES!

JP morgan: Will absorb this loss easily and still make a big profit this year. Operates in a market in which it can make money without government support. Was never bailed out and, in fact, helped bail out other banks. Lost IT'S OWN money and isn't crying about it or asking for federal assistance.

Solyndra: Would never exist in any meaningful way without direct government investment. Even with this, it needs price protections, cost subsidies, protection from foreign markets, AND direct subsidies on the consumer side from federal, state, and local governments. With all this in place, STILL can't stay in business because they don't sell a product people want at the price point that they can produce at. Operates in a market that cannot exist without huge subsidies. Only exists because of government intervention.

/I'm for helping out the solar R&D side, but the comparison is meaningless to the point of being ridiculous.