Jamie Dimon, Welfare Queen
When we last checked in with Jamie Dimon, he was getting a tongue bath from Jim DeMint (R-Jamie Dimon’s Butt) because Jamie Dimon is a Very Big Man in charge of a Very Big Bank that makes Very Big Profits for Very Big People. As Jim DeMint (R-Jamie Dimon's Butt) noted, not everyone can do what Jamie Dimon does: who among you, for example, could lose $2 billion dollars in one day and not even really miss it? And who among you could preside over a global economic crisis and escape with your job and pay intact? Hmm? And what if you were trying to do all of this on a shoestring, like Jamie Dimon, who only gets $14 billion per year in subsidies from taxpayers?
From Bloomberg:
JPMorgan receives a government subsidy worth about $14 billion a year, according to research published by the International Monetary Fund and our own analysis of bank balance sheets.
First, the good news: someone at Bloomberg figured all of this out by reading a balance sheet, meaning that this person is qualified to be president, which is fantastic. The bad news: the $14 billion per year goes to paying grossly inflated salaries to wankers like Jamie Dimon in addition to ruining your life and the lives of others.
The money helps the bank pay big salaries and bonuses. More important, it distorts markets, fueling crises such as the recent subprime-lending disaster and the sovereign-debt debacle that is now threatening to destroy the euro and sink the global economy… In other words, U.S. taxpayers helped foot the bill for the multibillion-dollar trading loss that is the focus of today’s hearing. They’ve also provided more direct support: Dimon noted in a recent conference call that the Home Affordable Refinancing Program, which allows banks to generate income by modifying government-guaranteed mortgages, made a significant contribution to JPMorgan’s earnings in the first three months of 2012.
We at Wonkette hate to say I told you so but it looks like the subprime crisis was caused by Poors after all. Or possibly Europe.
Perhaps I should explain my "economy" reaction. Here is a fairly typical exchange had with various levels of nutters-of-wing; after they have spewed something to the effect of "lazy poorz":
<strong>OWL:</strong> So you&#039;d like less people on &quot;welfare&quot;? <strong>WingusNuttus:</strong> (Rolling eyes) Well <i>yeah.</i> <strong>OWL:</strong> So we&#039;d need more jobs then, yes? <strong>WingusNuttus:</strong> (Rolling eyes) Well <i>yeah.</i> <strong>OWL:</strong> So you know then that to create these jobs, we&#039;d need more <i>demand</i> - yes? <strong>WingusNuttus:</strong> (questinging look, and unintelligible mumbled response at best) <strong>OWL:</strong> We need more demand for goods &amp; svcs to create these jobs for those currently on &quot;welfare.&quot; This demand will not come from cutting. Cutting at a governmental level will only cause the recession to spiral and self-fulfill. What we need to create these jobs is an infusion of stimulus ... I&#039;ve completely lost you, haven&#039;t I? <strong>WingusNuttus:</strong> (blank mistrusting stare) <strong>OWL:</strong> Nevermind. As you were.
I rarely get much further. And the way things are now, any more of these types of exchanges could end in my demise at gunpoint; making all this albeit legitimate angst moot. Appallingly, WAst has one of those stand your ground laws. I&#039;m almost ashamed to admit that of late it has far too often crossed my mind that were it not for a wife and son, I would join those Inuktitut up in the frozen north of our northern neigbour, and see if living out the balance of my days struggling for survival wouldn&#039;t indeed give me that illusive inner peace. Apologies for my deep level of downerism today. Clearly I allowed that bumper sticker&#039;s essence too deeply into my psyche.
And when they announce changes, they always say it&#039;s to better serve the customers.