JP Morgan Chase loses $2 billion

If it's news, but not politics, then it goes here.
rabble
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7500
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: JP Morgan Chase loses $2 billion

Postby rabble » Tue May 15, 2012 12:34 pm

I got your point. You missed mine.

pjbogart
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6507
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:57 pm

Re: JP Morgan Chase loses $2 billion

Postby pjbogart » Tue May 15, 2012 12:40 pm

Comrade wrote:I would stipulate that it is generally true that ones abilities get more proficient wilth practice. However, not in this case. Once one is removed from the realities of everyday living, they lose their perspective over time and therefore their effectiveness in how to legislate for the good of the general public.


Imposing term limits without overhauling our campaign finance laws would likely make the problem worse, not better. Term limits would not reduce the amount of money needed to win an election, therefore the only people who could win would be people with vast personal wealth or people who are in the pockets of their big money donors. That's true now, but it would become even more true under a term limit scheme because it would prevent "well known good guy politician" from using his name recognition and record of service to convince people to continue voting for him.

The other problem I have with term limits is that they are fundamentally anti-democratic. If people keep putting bad politicians in office, the problem is more with the voters than the politicians. You risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater if your solution to bad politicians is to get rid of the good ones too.

ArturoBandini
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2256
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:54 pm
Location: near west

Re: JP Morgan Chase loses $2 billion

Postby ArturoBandini » Tue May 15, 2012 12:47 pm

rabble wrote:Get rid of the Money is Speech laws, throw out lobbying, limit campaign spending and contributions, and maybe I'll think about it.
So, get rid of the First Amendment? Throw out lobbying by whom? Can the Sierra Club still lobby? How do you define (and then prohibit) lobbying in a way that culls the bad behaviors while still preserving the First Amendment right to petition the government?

pjbogart
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6507
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:57 pm

Re: JP Morgan Chase loses $2 billion

Postby pjbogart » Tue May 15, 2012 1:04 pm

ArturoBandini wrote:
rabble wrote:Get rid of the Money is Speech laws, throw out lobbying, limit campaign spending and contributions, and maybe I'll think about it.
So, get rid of the First Amendment? Throw out lobbying by whom? Can the Sierra Club still lobby? How do you define (and then prohibit) lobbying in a way that culls the bad behaviors while still preserving the First Amendment right to petition the government?


I think usually when people say "get rid of lobbying" what they're really talking about is the corrupting influence of lobbyist money. Arturo's suggestion that not all lobbying is bad, nor corrupting, is correct. I think even in a case like the tobacco industry, lobbyists certainly have the right to point out that laws and policies affecting their industry also affect the broader economy and secondary groups such as farmers, manufacturers and retailers. The problem isn't the lobbying, it's when they start passing out checks on the House floor.

ArturoBandini
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2256
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:54 pm
Location: near west

Re: JP Morgan Chase loses $2 billion

Postby ArturoBandini » Tue May 15, 2012 1:11 pm

pjbogart wrote:I think usually when people say "get rid of lobbying" what they're really talking about is the corrupting influence of lobbyist money. Arturo's suggestion that not all lobbying is bad, nor corrupting, is correct. I think even in a case like the tobacco industry, lobbyists certainly have the right to point out that laws and policies affecting their industry also affect the broader economy and secondary groups such as farmers, manufacturers and retailers. The problem isn't the lobbying, it's when they start passing out checks on the House floor.
Good assessment. I don't know how to craft a policy to accomplish the laudable goal you've outlined. What types of money transactions do you ban? What types do you allow? Will the law have any flexibility to account for types of transactions that you can't measure or haven't foreseen? Are such laws to be applied universally to all people/corporations/associations, or will there need to be exceptions?

ArturoBandini
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2256
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:54 pm
Location: near west

Re: JP Morgan Chase loses $2 billion

Postby ArturoBandini » Tue May 15, 2012 1:21 pm

pjbogart wrote:That's true now, but it would become even more true under a term limit scheme because it would prevent "well known good guy politician" from using his name recognition and record of service to convince people to continue voting for him.
I dunno. Given today's incumbency rates, it seems that the vast majority of representatives are perceived as being that "well known good guy (gal) politician". However, if you look at Congress as a whole, one concludes by inference that many more of them must be corrupt or puppets of industry and interest groups. Name recognition helps re-elect terrible representatives just as well as it does good ones.

Also, for many districts, it's easy for a representative to twist what is actually their own corruption and inside-dealing into positive things that make people want to vote for them. "Who got that fighter-jet turbine plant built in our district? Mr. Corruption. Who got those crop subsidies raised another 5% this year for all the hard-working farmers in our district? Mr. Corruption."

pjbogart
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6507
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:57 pm

Re: JP Morgan Chase loses $2 billion

Postby pjbogart » Tue May 15, 2012 1:41 pm

ArturoBandini wrote:I don't know how to craft a policy to accomplish the laudable goal you've outlined. What types of money transactions do you ban?


All of them.

ArturoBandini wrote:What types do you allow?


None of them.

ArturoBandini wrote:Will the law have any flexibility to account for types of transactions that you can't measure or haven't foreseen?


You can measure any transaction. Ask the IRS.

ArturoBandini wrote:Are such laws to be applied universally to all people/corporations/associations, or will there need to be exceptions?


No exceptions. Unions, corporations, special interest groups... none of them would be allowed to give money to politicians of any level, and it would be a felony to offer such a donation and a felony to accept such a donation. In a perfect system you could go to jail just for giving a politician a pen with your name on it. Absolutely nothing of value. You could fund campaigns with strict personal donation limits along with FCC mandated airtime for all candidates who manage to get on the ballot, or simply switch to an all publicly funded system. Yeah, I'm sure there would be lots of wrinkles to iron out, but I have faith that we'd manage.

If you think about it, the current pay to play system is pretty bizarre anyway. If the Sierra Club wants you to support restrictions on logging in Northern California, why do they need to give you $10,000 and a trip to Northern California? I had a history professor who told me all about William Howard Taft without giving me a single dollar or flying me to Cincinnati. Can you believe that?

Shorty
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1849
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2003 12:53 pm

Re: JP Morgan Chase loses $2 billion

Postby Shorty » Tue May 15, 2012 9:07 pm

Now I see why Obama isn't criticizing JP Morgan.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obam ... 19081.html
Obama financial forms show big JP Morgan account

"Maybe it's a case of putting your mouth where your money is.
President Barack Obama praised JP Morgan Chase in an interview recorded Monday as "one of the best managed banks there is" and its CEO, Jamie Dimon, as "one of the smartest bankers we got." On Tuesday, the White House made public financial disclosure forms showing the president and First Lady Michelle Obama had between $500,001 and $1,000,000 in a "JP Morgan Chase Private Client Asset Management Checking Account."

Stella_Guru
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1216
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 7:08 pm

Re: JP Morgan Chase loses $2 billion

Postby Stella_Guru » Wed May 16, 2012 6:42 am

Shorty wrote:President Barack Obama praised JP Morgan Chase in an interview recorded Monday as "one of the best managed banks there is" and its CEO, Jamie Dimon, as "one of the smartest bankers we got."

JP is one of the prime perpetrators in the financial fraud that has wrecked the economy and are big time launderers of drug money, but I guess it is easy to be on audacity overload when no one challenges your lies and bullshit and you cant do no wrong. Has there ever been a better flunkie to the rich? Look for Dimon to have a position on Obama's cabinet in 2013.

bdog
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3348
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 5:26 am

Re: JP Morgan Chase loses $2 billion

Postby bdog » Wed May 16, 2012 6:53 am

They're all lackeys for the rich. What we need is the first homeless President.

Image

Comrade
Forum Addict
Posts: 327
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 10:53 am
Contact:

Re: JP Morgan Chase loses $2 billion

Postby Comrade » Wed May 16, 2012 10:25 am

rabble wrote:I got your point. You missed mine.


I did not miss your point. Since it was self contradictory, it required not rebuttal.

Comrade
Forum Addict
Posts: 327
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 10:53 am
Contact:

Re: JP Morgan Chase loses $2 billion

Postby Comrade » Wed May 16, 2012 10:27 am

pjbogart wrote:
Comrade wrote:I would stipulate that it is generally true that ones abilities get more proficient wilth practice. However, not in this case. Once one is removed from the realities of everyday living, they lose their perspective over time and therefore their effectiveness in how to legislate for the good of the general public.


Imposing term limits without overhauling our campaign finance laws would likely make the problem worse, not better. Term limits would not reduce the amount of money needed to win an election, therefore the only people who could win would be people with vast personal wealth or people who are in the pockets of their big money donors. That's true now, but it would become even more true under a term limit scheme because it would prevent "well known good guy politician" from using his name recognition and record of service to convince people to continue voting for him.

The other problem I have with term limits is that they are fundamentally anti-democratic. If people keep putting bad politicians in office, the problem is more with the voters than the politicians. You risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater if your solution to bad politicians is to get rid of the good ones too.

How is it antidemocratic since we already impose term limits on the president? I submit that term limits for Congress are equally as acceptable as for the President in our "democracy".

Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3421
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: JP Morgan Chase loses $2 billion

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Wed May 16, 2012 10:37 am

Comrade wrote:
pjbogart wrote:
Comrade wrote:I would stipulate that it is generally true that ones abilities get more proficient wilth practice. However, not in this case. Once one is removed from the realities of everyday living, they lose their perspective over time and therefore their effectiveness in how to legislate for the good of the general public.


Imposing term limits without overhauling our campaign finance laws would likely make the problem worse, not better. Term limits would not reduce the amount of money needed to win an election, therefore the only people who could win would be people with vast personal wealth or people who are in the pockets of their big money donors. That's true now, but it would become even more true under a term limit scheme because it would prevent "well known good guy politician" from using his name recognition and record of service to convince people to continue voting for him.

The other problem I have with term limits is that they are fundamentally anti-democratic. If people keep putting bad politicians in office, the problem is more with the voters than the politicians. You risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater if your solution to bad politicians is to get rid of the good ones too.

How is it antidemocratic since we already impose term limits on the president? I submit that term limits for Congress are equally as acceptable as for the President in our "democracy".


Your question presumes that limiting the president's term is democratic. Since a democratic election would by it's nature allow the electorate to select whomever the majority wanted to hold office, limiting their choices artificially is of course undemocratic.

Term limits just mean those with money would have to find new people to say "How high" every few years. PJ is right, the real solution is getting smarter voters. Then we would have democratic term limits.

Stella_Guru
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1216
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 7:08 pm

Re: JP Morgan Chase loses $2 billion

Postby Stella_Guru » Thu May 17, 2012 6:51 am

Francis Di Domizio wrote: PJ is right, the real solution is getting smarter voters.

Which celebrities did you say support gay marriage?

pjbogart
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6507
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:57 pm

Re: JP Morgan Chase loses $2 billion

Postby pjbogart » Thu May 17, 2012 8:44 am

I think we need to reassess the First Amendment, personally. The general theory behind sacrosanct freedom of speech in the political realm is that voters will not vote for someone who is lying to them, so you lie at your own peril. What we now know is that if you have enough money you can convince people of things that are patently false. There was a story in the news about Skechers agreeing to a $45 million fine for making false health claims about their shoes. If we were to apply those kinds of limitations to all of industry and politics we may end up with a "smarter" voter (and consumer) because their head won't be filled with so much nonsense.

Now, running around and suing (or even arresting) people who lie is pretty impractical, but if it were illegal to conspire to spread disinformation it would have a chilling effect in all the right ways. FoxNews could no longer run "Mosque at Ground Zero" stories, oil companies couldn't organize malicious campaigns against wind and solar industries and we'd never see another "swiftboat" campaign. Whatever upside we once saw to complete freedom of speech in political campaigns has been outweighed by the reality that money often buys the truth, even if the truth is demonstrably false.


Return to “Headlines”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 3 guests