Why Congress Won’t Touch Jamie Dimon: JPM Derivatives Prop Up US Debt

[sad sally]

June 20, 2012 - By Ellen Brown

When Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase Bank, appeared before the Senate Banking Committee on June 13, he was wearing cufflinks bearing the presidential seal. “Was Dimon trying to send any particular message by wearing the presidential cufflinks?” asked CNBC editor John Carney. “Was he . . . subtly hinting that he’s really the guy in charge?”

Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, testifies before the House Financial Services Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, on Tuesday, June 19, 2012. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

The groveling of the Senators was so obvious that Jon Stewart did a spoof news clip on it, featured in a Huffington Post piece titled “Jon Stewart Blasts Senate’s Coddling Of JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon,” and Matt Taibbi wrote an op-ed called “Senators Grovel, Embarrass Themselves at Dimon Hearing.” He said the whole thing was painful to watch.

“What is going on with this panel of senators?” asked Stewart. “They’re sucking up to Jamie Dimon like they’re on JPMorgan’s payroll.” The explanation in a news clip that followed was that JPMorgan Chase is the biggest campaign donor to many of the members of the Banking Committee.

That is one obvious answer, but financial analysts Jim Willie and Rob Kirby think it may be something far larger, deeper, and more ominous. They contend that the $3 billion-plus losses in London hedging transactions that were the subject of the hearing can be traced, not to European sovereign debt (as alleged), but to the record-low interest rates maintained on U.S. government bonds.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/06/20

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

Today the Federal Reserve voted to keep rates unchanged; Dimon sits on the board of the New York Fed - and we're to believe there's not even an appearance of a conflict of interest or that he has any influence over Fed decisions?

[dkf]

1. The board serves in an advisory role to help inform the Fed what they see.

Do we really NOT want Jamie Dimon's insights considered? Who are you going to add? Some pointy eared professor who has no real world transactions to inform them?

[sad sally]

2. Both Senator Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren seem to think Dimon should depart.

Elizabeth Warren, a Democratic candidate for the Senate in Massachusetts, said Mr. Dimon should resign from the board of the New York Fed. The recent spectacular trading losses at his company require a full investigation, which should include an examination of how the supervision process broke down. How can this be anything other than awkward for the New York Fed while Mr. Dimon – hardly known as a shrinking violet – sits on its board?

Senator Bernie Sanders, a Vermont Independent, would go further, proposing legislation that would remove any bankers from the boards of Federal Reserve banks. For more background, you may want to consult Page 65 and other parts of a report from the Government Accountability Office, which deal with potential conflicts of interest in the Federal Reserve System, or at least read Senator Sanders’s summary of the report.

Dimon has also been an outspoken opponent of financial reform of late – including the Volcker Rule (on proprietary trading) and attempts to strengthen capital requirements. He is an intensely political figure, despite the fact that an important footnote in the Board of Governors’ policy on political activity by Reserve Bank directors says:

In all instances, directors should avoid any political activity that would publicly identify the director as being associated with the Federal Reserve System or would embarrass the System or raise questions about the independence of the director or the ability to perform Federal Reserve duties.

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

Since Senator Sanders concerns deal with what's right for people not banks, I'm sure you'll get your wish and Mr. Dimon will remain the fox in the hen house.

[dkf]

4. The system is so enormously complicated you need someone in the thick of things.

I am not sure how you get that if you don't want any bankers.

[MrMickeysMom]

3. Man, that is pathetic...

"who are you going to add?? some pointy eared professor who has no read world transactions to inform them..??


Apparently your choice is not to opt for someone who might operate by the rule with real world understanding, but rather turn the other way while allowing banks to never cover their naked short selling and lying.

Yeah, that makes sense.

You like this criminal, so you can't be serious.

HA!

[dkf]

5. Again who would you pick?

[MrMickeysMom]

6. Someone who is not Jamie Dimon and represents one of the private banks...

of the "Fed"...

Someone without conflict of interest. An independent banking representative. Check the obscene salary as a partial guide to who these folks are.

First, audit the Federal Reserve for their hard assets, then replace every single one of them, guided by the criteria above.

[dkf]

7. This is a board that advises the Fed. Why would someone on the Fed advise themself?

What would be the point?

[MrMickeysMom]

8. Indeed... why would someone advise themselves?

Why would someone advise how banks can regulate themselves, indeed?

Particularly if you oversee one of the big boys you act to regulate, but then of course, act like you didn't see the "mistakes" coming...

Well, geez, Sparky, let's all think about that one.

Get back to me when you have an answer.