dagblog - Comments for "Jamie Dimon as William Holden"

The NYT today: Editorial:

artappraiser — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 08:11:57 +0000

In reply to Jamie Dimon as William Holden

The NYT today:

Editorial: Mr. Dimon on the Hill

It's a new posting, only has 8 comments so far, but all of them are top-notch and obviously all respondents are following the story closely like you

Thanks, Artsy, hadn't seen

Oxy Mora — Sun, 10 Jun 2012 13:07:23 +0000

In reply to Krugman chose to use a

Thanks, Artsy, hadn't seen that.

Tangled with some wasps, but

arc400 — Sun, 10 Jun 2012 00:45:26 +0000

In reply to Well, thanks for asking.

Tangled with some wasps, but got it under control.

Oh good <sigh of relief>

I miss your writing.

Mutual. Glad you're back!

Krugman chose to use a

artappraiser — Sat, 09 Jun 2012 19:04:31 +0000

In reply to Jamie Dimon as William Holden

Krugman chose to use a different movie in his column Dimon’s Déjà Vu Debacle on May 20:

it goes without saying that Jamie Dimon is no Jimmy Stewart. But he has, in a way, been playing Jimmy Stewart on TV, posing as a responsible banker who knows how to manage risk

Note that there were 773 comments.

Well, thanks for asking.

Oxy Mora — Fri, 08 Jun 2012 16:34:53 +0000

In reply to prednisone... hey, are you

Well, thanks for asking. Tangled with some wasps, but got it under control. Maybe it's making me a little "out there".

I miss your writing.

prednisone... hey, are you

arc400 — Fri, 08 Jun 2012 14:30:32 +0000

In reply to Now I understand that I was

prednisone... hey, are you okay?

Such great descriptions,

Oxy Mora — Fri, 08 Jun 2012 11:47:54 +0000

In reply to I understand your interest, I

Such great descriptions, Artsy. So in tune with my state of mind, don't know what to respond to first. But the "there's no going back" theme relates to what's gnawing at me. My developing thesis, which I'm sure is not original idea is that this ability to amplify one's life with the use of credit, to "gamble" as you say, this force, which largely accompanied the rise and fall of the baby boomers, when coupled with the size of that demographic, has created an outcome which is unique in our history. The middle class is trapped, and partly by their own doing.

The question is whether as a corollary to the above, we set up part of the cycle of ratcheting down the middle class every time there was a business cycle downturn. Then when there was a true financial crisis, as opposed to an inventory cycle, the effects upon consumers and job seekers was truly devastating. All I was trying to do with the William Holden allegory was to highlight our own part in this play, in which venerating some character like Jamie Dimon is part of the process.

The problem with the high state of consumer household leverage is that when broader economic conditions deteriorate, the individual's choices are much more limited---i.e., how to hunker down without going even further into debt or having to make a lot of bad short range. Large companies and rich individuals have options in these circumstances, and in fact can profit handsomely by fire sale asset purchases. The question is how to unwind some of this without re-writing our entire economic system. Bernanke said yesterday, in regard to a question about wealth distribution---in effect, you can't just take people's money away, you have to provide a way for the middle class to catch up.

In summary, when you take out a Chase credit card, you buy a ticket to a one man show of Jamie Dimon waxing on how a bank needs to have a strategy for macro hedging---exciting stuff, can't wait to see the movie.

I understand your interest, I

artappraiser — Fri, 08 Jun 2012 04:44:06 +0000

In reply to Thanks for your comments,

I understand your interest, I do find the household leverage thing very interesting

I am old enough to have been aware of how restricted my parents financial life was like before there were credit cards (only revolving store credit, layaway and doctors and dentists would take payments;) i.e. Dad asking to borrow some of your babysitting money because he is out of money until payday and needs to pay for parking at work.

A life where there was no conceivable way to get a better standard of living (i.e. better than an old used car always breaking down, a color TV, a down payment on a house,) except by getting a raise or working part-time jobs until your kids no longer know you, and putting the extra in a passbook savings.

After credit cards, then I watched people like older aunts & uncles learn about making money with money getting some of those new fangled C.D.'s, they were buying em like candy and getting toasters to boot. And similarly everyone in the hood melting down any silver they could find, an introduction for the middle class to a commodity bubble they could get in on. Then I watched the frenzied rise of day trading that came with both computers and de-regulation of stock purchases so that ordinary people who no stockbroker would ever give a minute in the past could play. Followed by the invention of IRA's etc.

Though similar things have happened at other times in our history (lots of middle class people somehow managed to invest in the stock market of the 1920's, for example), I still think the opening of the world of finance to the middle class in the last quarter of the 20th century was a very historically important revolution. To me, it still seems that it really was the first time middle class people were enabled to "gamble" like the wealthy have always "gambled," and not merely live their whole lives as lowly wage/salary earners living paycheck to paycheck.

I probably am more sure of the "there's no going back" than you are. Once someone who has never had any opportunity to make anything more than an hourly wage (only so many hours in the day) has had a taste of successful house flipping in a real estate bubble, I just don't seem them giving that potential up for a safe wage that doesn't advance their status in life nor that of their kids. Sure, there is fear of risk right now, but they will remember once again when they didn't have it. (Not to mention that their children will inherit this way of thinking, rather than ye olde parental advice of save, save, save.)

Thanks for your comments,

Oxy Mora — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 17:14:56 +0000

In reply to Will not the Republican

Thanks for your comments, Artsy. I just listened to the entirety, egad, of the Bernanke testimony before the joint committee and I was surprised at the lack of harassment, compared to previous sessions, from the Right on the issue of Quantitative Easing. JPM and TBTF came up several times, and with the exception of Sanders, in pretty mild form. Whether this signals anything in tone for Dimon I don't know, but there is already a construct that the position JPM took is "macro-hedging" as opposed to "proprietary trading"---therefore acceptable. I take this as a signal that as Chief Actor for JPM, Dimon will skate easily.

It's stupid to generalize one's own experience, but as I look at the largest picture we have now with the jobs, the economy and the role of the banks, I think there are generational belief systems which are intimately involved, and may be changing, or put another way, may have to change. I look at my own perceptions of how o.k. I thought it was to take on household leverage, and how very dangerous that game became a few years ago when I was lucky enough to get out from under some properties before the bottom fell out.

I'm not sure how to button all these musings up, except to say I am seeing the last 35 years of financial risk taking, income consolidation, lowering of firewalls for banks, etc., as a kind of fantasy belief system in which I in many ways haplessly participated, and in which to some extent people like Dimon are role players by virtue of the power we give them with our acceptance of the game.

I don't have the handy facts to prove it but if you take the assets and expected income of the broad middle class at the moment, I doubt if, in material terms, they are any better off than they were 35 years ago. I'm not trying to place blame, rewrite my life, or call bankers big bad men. I'm simply trying to understand the game that has been played. I think it may be self deception to be looking for serious engineering changes to the financial system without factoring in our own behaviors and beliefs in the game of finance, in particular taking on household debt.

I am most likely a party of one in these particular musings.

Ha. I always know that you'll

Michael Wolraich — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 23:34:19 +0000

In reply to Don't worry about Genghis, I

Ha. I always know that you'll tie your threads together in the end, but I confess that I sometimes lose track along the way. I'm glad to hear that I'm not the only one. ;)

PS The voyage is always interesting and enlightening, even when I get lost.