I'll be honest. If I see Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan Chase, on television one more time telling us how super duper he and his bank were in 2008, I'm going to freak out. Every time he says, 'we didn't need the money,' referring to the 730 bank bail out with a total purchase price of $204,808,576,320, I wonder if he could be serious.
JP Morgan Chase received $25 billion of the bailout. I concede during those critical weeks in 2008 when it looked like many companies were 'at risk' of failing, Chase was in better financial shape than most other banks. So what? That's like being the least used piece of toilet paper before being flushed.
I don't want to spend one second going over the names of the products or particular schemes each of these financial institutions were dishonestly engaged in. Simply, all the top executives knew their companies were selling to the public things that were worth much less than what they told investors. For some, it was overstating their own corporate positions. For others, it was packaging up garbage and selling it as gold. Either way, the entire financial industry, including Chase, participated to one degree or another.
If the hundreds of billions of the public's tax dollars did not support AIG, Merrill Lynch, Citibank, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo, GM, and others, many of these large corporations and industries were insolvent, and all would have failed within weeks. Without the American public bailout, 'at risk' turns into 'out of business' before you can say the word capitalism. JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and thousands of other companies would also have failed because of their connectivity to other large, failed institutions. These corporate executives would all be notions of a better past when corporate socialism was alive and well, and today would be looking for work like everyone else. I think Mr. Dimon thought if all the competition went out of business, he would make up the difference in new consumers. Let's keep in mind that zero multiplied by anything equals 'out of business.'
As a recent article by Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone magazine outlines, the regulators, the courts, and the thieves all move from position-to-position within these three groups, creating a safety valve for all future illegal activities. When the assistant to the accused used to be the boss of the present prosecutor - and they know this dichotomy can change at any moment - there is no incentive to pursue your future boss, i.e. your next paycheck.
The reason we don't hear about this in the mainstream media is because the reporters and news outlets that know better, like CNBC and Bloomberg, wouldn't dare rock the boat, and are hiring these same financial wusses - I mean wizzes. Their jobs depend on the current system being preserved. The rest don't know enough to really challenge these arrogant CEOs in interviews. Although the real issues are not that complicated, when described by Harvard-educated executives clinging to their jobs, things can swiftly become very complex and muddy. Michele Caruso-Cabrera, a Wellesley College-educated CNBC host, was on Bill Maher's show making broad statements about why we should keep lowering taxes, and stop regulating the financial industry, backed by batting her eyelashes and making cutesy faces. Could she be serious? She actually said healthcare would be more affordable to poor people if the government would stay out of it. Really? Is that what they teach at Wellesley? Who's gonna pay for it? Jamie Dimon? Lloyd Blankfein? I always thought Bill was the high one.
Although today's tea drinkers make the most political noise, and American local governments mixing up everyone's birth certificate subvert the truth, it is impossible to overlook the fact that all of these problems happened at the very end of President Bush's second term. Remember, the one screaming from the bell tower, 'capitalism is about to fail,' was Secretary Paulson. The same Hank Paulson who ran Goldman Sachs for many years.
This is why our Constitution is so great. When push comes to shove, and it did, even though there are huge political pressures and big money lobbies, our elected leaders must be accountable. You could see the agony written all over Paulson's face. He wasn't going to let the world come to an end, even if it meant the lead capitalist acting to socialize the financial superstructure by bailing out the other lead capitalists. Incredible really. But the most incredible part was the lack of republican support for the financial industry bailout, whose need for which was created on their watch, and who led the demands for the two hundred billion dollars in taxpayer money. It was the perfect storm with President Bush as lame duck, the entire financial framework coming apart, and an incoming democratic President who needed to save the day. They must have peed in their pants. The corporate machine that funds the Republican Party got a socialist bailout, and the elected republicans get to point the finger at the new incoming president, and at the democrats for being socialists.
Does anyone believe if the situation were not as I just described, that President Bush and Hank Paulson wouldn't have received the vote of almost every republican? Is there someone on the planet who truly thought, or thinks now in hindsight, that 'laissez-faire' was the right approach, letting thousands of companies and entire industries fail? Leaving millions of American employees out of work, and crippling our economy, and the economy of other countries for decades? This was political maneuvering at our country's deepest darkest hour.
Here's the thing. Socialism has always been a fundamental part of American society and our social norms. It is particularly true when it comes to the citizenry. If you don't have a job, the government will help. If you are sick and don't have insurance or enough money, the government mandates you receive appropriate emergency healthcare. The poorest, disabled and the elderly in America all have healthcare through Medicare and Medicaid. One politician recently said these government programs are losing money. Um, of course they are. Providing medical care for the neediest citizens is expensive and getting more expensive with every sentence I write.
I think poor people should have the same access to medical care and higher education as rich people. If the poor and uninsured will stop threatening the rich and insured with riots if they keep pushing healthcare on them, we might set the stage for a rational dialogue that accounts for the 30 percent insurance companies take right off the top. That's correct - 30 cents of every dollar spent on healthcare in America goes into the pocket of an insurance company.
I love the idea of insurance, and have no problem with companies that are willing to sell protection for a price 'just in case' something happens. But healthcare is not a 'just in case' type of deal. Everyone will get sick. Everyone will need the care of doctors and hospitals and, I think, this should not be a luxury of the rich, but an entitlement of everyone living in a civil society. That's right, entitlement! My mother always said, 'if you don't have your health, what do you have?' The answer is sick or dead. If you think a representative, democratically-elected government is for you for any reason, it would seem the health and safety of the people ought to be their number one priority and activity. Because if you don't have your health, you're dead.
I'm not one of those Cuckoos who doesn't understand that free markets and competition have created the tremendous growth in business, technology and knowledge. It surely has, and without a robustly competitive economy, things will stagnate and draw in a status quo that propagates conformity and intolerance. I'm not pleading with conservatives to become radical socialists. I'm begging them to consider reality and stop denying what socialism is, and how it has enhanced their lives and the central tenets of America's founding ideologies such as freedom, equality, and liberty.
A great society takes good care of the most needy, as they are as important as those who are the most well off. This doesn't mean I don't want free markets and competitive, innovative entrepreneurs. It means the great wealth that accumulates should care for all its citizens; not just the rich, the strong, the smartest, the most manipulative, the best looking, or the quickest draw.
The only reason capitalism has lasted this long is because it's being implemented by a bunch of socialists.
Joseph Charles Kanner
Joseph Charles Kanner
What is the best bank to work at as a teller?
I want to work as a part-time teller while attending college. Would you recommend Chase, Citibank, Capital One, Bank of American, or any other bank you can think of?
Answer
Any bank is good if you know what you are looking for! (Read about what I mean at the end.)
Citi is in the middle of a scandal of firing women and keeping men who were less qualified for the job.
Bank of America is probably one of the poorest places to work. You must be East Coast. I worked for Wells Fargo as a teller, it was great.
The best part of the job is looking at the money and making money off of the money! I found a 2004 basically uncirculated $10 with serial number 00001041 and a star at the end. I took this beautiful note and placed it on ebay starting at .99. At the end of the auction it sold for over $84.00. Spent $10 to get $80+. Not bad!
Posted in 
Tags: 