This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Frontrunning: November 13
- Jamie Dimon Op-Ed: No more "Too big to fail" (WaPo)... riiiiight
- Big business tells Congress: "Frightening" new proposal could "destroy" Wall Street (The Hill)
- Yuan "straightjacket" risks inflating China bubbles (Bloomberg)
- Hedge funds can't mess up worse than Bob Rubin (Bloomberg)
- U.S. states sell $9.5 billion of bonds; Connecticut boosts deal (Bloomberg)
- Barofsky says TARP "almost certainly" will bring loses to U.S. (Bloomberg)
- Krugman on Stimulus 4 Eva: Free to lose (NYT)
- Kass: Market ignorance is bliss (The Street)
- The road to insolvency: The FHA is the next FDIC (NYT)
- Massive stimulus works in Europe too: Eurozone emerges from recession in 3rd quarter (AP)
- Madoff's "prisoner" Rolex sale won't calm Swiss time town's ire (Bloomberg)
- Robin Hood says "hell yeah" to recovery lead by Goldman bonuses (Bloomberg)
- At Boeing, dreamliner fix turns up new glitch (WSJ)
- Two views: hiring still poised to improve early 2010 (Morgan Stanley)
- And: Mish unemployment projections through 2020 - it looks grim (Mish)
»
- 2534 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Jamie Dimon's Op Ed is HILARIOUS.
"-if some unforeseen circumstance should put this firm at risk of collapse, I believe we should be allowed to fail."
That 25 Billion in TARP money you took is proof that you are a man of principle Jamie.
Jamie Dimon = HYPOCRITE.
either a hypocrite or a liar who thinks everyone is stupid.
dimon: a cap on size will not prevent risk.
well, if that's true then let's just ban the trading of derivatives with taxpayer backed funds.
Dimon = someone who should be hanging from a public lighting fixture.
I am Chumbawamba.
+1
Jamie Dimon's comments are aimed at the moron class... Some sheeple will believe anything.
"Barofsky says TARP "almost certainly" will bring loses to U.S."
"almost certainly" is an oxymoron. Take a stand one way or the other or don't even talk about it Barofsky.
"Barofsky says TARP "almost certainly" will bring loses to U.S."
"almost certainly" is an oxymoron. Take a stand one way or the other or don't even talk about it Barofsky.
front-run some derivatives.
this web site says they WON'T be regulated after all:
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/196640-Of-Bailouts-and-Swaps-The-Crafting-of-a-Loophole
Krugman: Should America be trying anything along these lines? In a recent interview, Lawrence Summers, the Obama administration’s highest-ranking economist, was dismissive: “It may be desirable to have a given amount of work shared among more people. But that’s not as desirable as expanding the total amount of work.”
Because becoming more labor inefficient will increase overall production. My head hurts. God, please don't let them figure out they can lower the work week from 40 to 32 hours.
Nothing to worry about here, it's not news, move along...
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a5_Z9rJM9Hy0&pos=4
Citigroup Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Wells Fargo & Co. will stop insuring checking accounts in the U.S. above the standard $250,000 limit, a year after the government set up the program to ease fears of deposit runs.
This is being played off as a money saving item, I wonder if they were actually charged anything for this in the first place.
Freddie + Fannie = FHA (coming soon to the taxpayer trough)
"But ending the era of "too big to fail" does not mean that we must somehow cap the size of financial-services firms. 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. Artificially limiting the size of an institution, regardless of the business implications, does not make sense."
Artificially limiting the size of an institution, regardless of the business implications, does not make sense.
Really? Regardless? Of implications? Really? I mean jeebus does anyone actually make it past the first paragraph and not get pissed?