4 ms·

Wasn't Jamie Dimon one of the individuals who was largely responsible for the last "economic hurricane" and was shielded from personal financial injury by gover

Wasn't Jamie Dimon one of the individuals who was largely responsible for the last "economic hurricane" and was shielded from personal financial injury by government bailouts?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
reducesuffering 4y ago
"It has been widely reported that JPMorgan Chase was in much better financial shape than other banks and did not need TARP funds but accepted the funds because the government did not want to single out only the banks with capital issues." "You know, keep in mind, though, there are a lot of banks that are actually pretty well managed; JP Morgan being a good example. Jamie Dimon, the CEO there; I don't think he should be punished for doing a pretty good job managing an enormous portfolio." - Barack Obama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Dimon#Federal_TARP_funds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Dimon#Federal_TARP_funds
- wolverine876 4y ago
  This is exactly the kind of informaiton that would be manipulated on Wikipedia, IMHO.
  - reducesuffering 4y ago
    You can look up the 2008 banking issues from primary sources then. It's not controversial at all that JP Morgan Chase was basically the only solid bank when 2008 happened, in large part due to Dimon being practically the definition of an intellectual standup guy.
    - wolverine876 4y ago
      > You can look up the 2008 banking issues from primary sources then. I think if someone is making a claim, it's up to them to support it. Wikipedia isn't great support. > Dimon being practically the definition of an intellectual standup guy. Dimon says a lot of BS.
      - faeriechangling 4y ago
        You're more critical of somebody claiming Jamie Dimon wasn't guilty for insufficiently supporting their argument despite citing an encyclopaedia, than you are the person who said "wasn't Jamie Dimon one of the individuals who was largely responsible for the last "economic hurricane"" Seems like quite the double standard. Sure, an argument based on Wikipedia isn't that strong, but he made a well supported argument relative to the rest of the thread and only he is getting crapped on. Even I made a less supported argument than he did.
faeriechangling 4y ago
No, he was relatively blameless and if anything aided the recovery because JP Morgan was so rock solid he was able to buy a ton of toxic assets. Jamie Dimon made shittons of money in 2008 by buying tons of stuff on the cheap when everybody else was illiquid. Not that JP Morgan hasn’t landed itself in a bunch of scandals between then and now but no Jamie Dimon is not culpable for 2008 at all.

Wasn't Jamie Dimon one of the individuals who was largely responsible for the last "economic hurricane" and was shielded from personal financial injury by government bailouts?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

reducesuffering 4y ago

"It has been widely reported that JPMorgan Chase was in much better financial shape than other banks and did not need TARP funds but accepted the funds because the government did not want to single out only the banks with capital issues." "You know, keep in mind, though, there are a lot of banks that are actually pretty well managed; JP Morgan being a good example. Jamie Dimon, the CEO there; I don't think he should be punished for doing a pretty good job managing an enormous portfolio." - Barack Obama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Dimon#Federal_TARP_funds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Dimon#Federal_TARP_funds

wolverine876 4y ago
This is exactly the kind of informaiton that would be manipulated on Wikipedia, IMHO.
- reducesuffering 4y ago
  You can look up the 2008 banking issues from primary sources then. It's not controversial at all that JP Morgan Chase was basically the only solid bank when 2008 happened, in large part due to Dimon being practically the definition of an intellectual standup guy.
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    > You can look up the 2008 banking issues from primary sources then. I think if someone is making a claim, it's up to them to support it. Wikipedia isn't great support. > Dimon being practically the definition of an intellectual standup guy. Dimon says a lot of BS.
    - faeriechangling 4y ago
      You're more critical of somebody claiming Jamie Dimon wasn't guilty for insufficiently supporting their argument despite citing an encyclopaedia, than you are the person who said "wasn't Jamie Dimon one of the individuals who was largely responsible for the last "economic hurricane"" Seems like quite the double standard. Sure, an argument based on Wikipedia isn't that strong, but he made a well supported argument relative to the rest of the thread and only he is getting crapped on. Even I made a less supported argument than he did.

faeriechangling 4y ago

No, he was relatively blameless and if anything aided the recovery because JP Morgan was so rock solid he was able to buy a ton of toxic assets. Jamie Dimon made shittons of money in 2008 by buying tons of stuff on the cheap when everybody else was illiquid. Not that JP Morgan hasn’t landed itself in a bunch of scandals between then and now but no Jamie Dimon is not culpable for 2008 at all.