Patriotism is the Last Refuge of JPMorgan's Jamie Dimon
Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan (JPM), is sick and tired of foreigners telling Americans what they can do. He says new international banking regulations are "anti-American" -- and by America, he means JPMorgan.
Specifically, what Jamie objects to are those repressive Basel Accords, which require banks to do things like keep more capital on hand. Here's what our boy told the Financial Times:
I'm very close to thinking the United States shouldn't be in Basel any more. I would not have agreed to rules that are blatantly anti-American. Our regulators should go there and say: 'If it's not in the interests of the United States, we're not doing it.'What makes these rules an affront to the flag, mom and apple pie is that they don't give "us" enough credit for government-backed mortgage-backed securities and mortgage-servicing rights. For some reason them dang furriners don't think the securities can be turned into cash very quickly and that the right to collect mortgage fees isn't really useful for calculating bank reserves.
Color me appalled.
Dimon, like so many of the top 0.2 percent of income earners, is utterly convinced that his needs are what define the "interests of the United States." It never occurs to him that the long-term interests of the U.S. are more than whatever will give him and his crew the largest bonus or prop up their companies' stock prices.
You might think this is hyperbole on my part. It is not. His exact words:
I think any American president, secretary of Treasury, regulator or other leader would want strong, healthy global financial firms and not think that somehow we should give up that position in the world and that would be good for your country. If they think that's good for the country then we have a different view on how the economy operates, how the world operates.The Founding Fathers put a lot of stock in the idea of enlightened self-interest. They thought people would be willing to give up a little in order to promote the common good through things like schools because doing so benefits the entire society and promotes a healthier nation overall. It is an idea that has fallen out of favor -- so much so that when Warren Buffett said he and his buddies should pay more taxes, Fox News branded him a socialist.
Now strong, healthy financial firms are a good thing. As long as they don't come at the expense of the rest of the economy. This requires regulation. Regulation to make sure they have enough cash on hand that the taxpayers have to bail them out. Or to prevent them from doing things like creating garbage mortgage bonds and selling them to one another in order to generate commission fees.
Jamie, I pray that every American president, secretary of Treasury, regulator or other leader has "a different view on how the economy operates." If you had any interest in the long-term health of America and ultimately your company, you would too.
Related:
- Market Crash Exposes the Wishful U.S. Economic "Recovery"
- Capitalism Happens: Why Unemployment Shouldn't Be a Moral Issue
- London's Burning -- and the U.S. Can Look Forward to Riots, Too
- Revealed: Tim Geithner's Cover Letter to Goldman Sachs
- Why Does Tim Geithner Still Have a Job?
- Why Banks Think Their Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card Isn't Good Enough