7 ms·

I'm sure he performatively complains about regulation because he's a wealthy CEO who doesn't want to pay taxes, but at the end of the day, he has no financial i

by bccdee 5y ago

I'm sure he performatively complains about regulation because he's a wealthy CEO who doesn't want to pay taxes, but at the end of the day, he has no financial interest in "protecting the little guy," because he's not a little guy and neither are any of his cronies.

danielmarkbruce 5y ago
He has plenty of financial interest. Chase has 100's of billions in core deposits from little guys. They pay about 0 on them. They lend them at 3-4%. If people started to think Chase was a place where their deposits weren't safe, it wouldn't be pretty for Chase. Even the thought that maybe just maybe they aren't safe is enough. Banks are in a precarious situation re deposits.
- bccdee 5y ago
  > If people started to think Chase was a place where their deposits weren't safe, it wouldn't be pretty for Chase. But when all banks get hit equally by regulation, consumers would have nowhere else to go. The banks might superficially complain, but they have no financial interest in opposing surveillance.
  - danielmarkbruce 5y ago
    You are conflating three issues at this point - taxes, regulations, and a government entity illegally taking people's money.
    - bccdee 5y ago
      There is only one underlying issue — the fact that institutions cooperate with each other and shut out the public. Only a strong culture of democracy and government accountability can actually protect the public. Without that, it doesn't matter whether the banks are private or state-owned; they control our money all the same.
- yborg 5y ago
  You seem to have a very naive view of how the financial system works. It's not like there are a lot of options for small depositors, it's one of the set of too big to fail banks. And they can get all the free money they want from the Fed. If you are someone with millions of dollars of annual deal flow through Chase, yeah, Dimon will go to bat for you, but if you are some retail depositor, as long as they verify it's the government, they'll do whatever they want. (And they don't even really care about verifying anything under normal circumstances, which is why identity thievery is so easy.)
  - danielmarkbruce 5y ago
    > It's not like there are a lot of options for small depositors, it's one of the set of too big to fail banks You might be outside the US? In the US there are literally 1000s of options. And the idea that banks get all the "free money" they want from the Fed... I don't think you should be suggesting anyone is naive with those two statements.
    - geysersam 5y ago
      No, he is literally correct. The fed interest rate has hovered around 0% for ages. That's free money.
      - danielmarkbruce 5y ago
        The fed funds rate was 2% just a few years ago, it was 5% in the mid 00's and was rarely below 5% before that for decades. Also, it needs to be paid back. On top of that, they are in a competitive market where mortgage rates are very low, corporate lending rates are very low. So it's not a simple game of "free money in, high interest money out". Anyone who thinks finance is some easy game hasn't played the game.

by bccdee 5y ago

danielmarkbruce 5y ago

He has plenty of financial interest. Chase has 100's of billions in core deposits from little guys. They pay about 0 on them. They lend them at 3-4%. If people started to think Chase was a place where their deposits weren't safe, it wouldn't be pretty for Chase. Even the thought that maybe just maybe they aren't safe is enough. Banks are in a precarious situation re deposits.

bccdee 5y ago
> If people started to think Chase was a place where their deposits weren't safe, it wouldn't be pretty for Chase. But when all banks get hit equally by regulation, consumers would have nowhere else to go. The banks might superficially complain, but they have no financial interest in opposing surveillance.
- danielmarkbruce 5y ago
  You are conflating three issues at this point - taxes, regulations, and a government entity illegally taking people's money.
  - bccdee 5y ago
    There is only one underlying issue — the fact that institutions cooperate with each other and shut out the public. Only a strong culture of democracy and government accountability can actually protect the public. Without that, it doesn't matter whether the banks are private or state-owned; they control our money all the same.
yborg 5y ago
You seem to have a very naive view of how the financial system works. It's not like there are a lot of options for small depositors, it's one of the set of too big to fail banks. And they can get all the free money they want from the Fed. If you are someone with millions of dollars of annual deal flow through Chase, yeah, Dimon will go to bat for you, but if you are some retail depositor, as long as they verify it's the government, they'll do whatever they want. (And they don't even really care about verifying anything under normal circumstances, which is why identity thievery is so easy.)
- danielmarkbruce 5y ago
  > It's not like there are a lot of options for small depositors, it's one of the set of too big to fail banks You might be outside the US? In the US there are literally 1000s of options. And the idea that banks get all the "free money" they want from the Fed... I don't think you should be suggesting anyone is naive with those two statements.
  - geysersam 5y ago
    No, he is literally correct. The fed interest rate has hovered around 0% for ages. That's free money.
    - danielmarkbruce 5y ago
      The fed funds rate was 2% just a few years ago, it was 5% in the mid 00's and was rarely below 5% before that for decades. Also, it needs to be paid back. On top of that, they are in a competitive market where mortgage rates are very low, corporate lending rates are very low. So it's not a simple game of "free money in, high interest money out". Anyone who thinks finance is some easy game hasn't played the game.