JP Morgan continues to slurp at the public trough

According to 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. 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 . . . To estimate the dollar value of the subsidy in the U.S., we multiplied it by the debt and deposits of 18 of the country’s largest banks, including JPMorgan, Bank of America Corp. and Citigroup Inc. The result: about $76 billion a year. The number is roughly equivalent to the banks’ total profits over the past 12 months, or more than the federal government spends every year on education.
On his June 22, 2012 show, Bill Moyers discussed this insane state of affairs, and the rampant corruption and criminality of Wall Street with Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone and Yves Smith of Naked Capitalism. Yves Smith offers this as part of the solution to the ongoing problem with large Wall Street banks:
BILL MOYERS: What do you mean when you say banks should be more like a utility? YVES SMITH: Banks, more than any other business, more than military contractors, live off the government. They depend on government backstopping. They exist only by way of government issued licenses, which if you had open entry you'd see much lower fees. And they get some confidence from the public from the fact that they are regulated. Oh, and the most important thing is they have access to-- MATT TAIBBI: The Federal Reserve. YVES SMITH: --the Federal Reserve. MATT TAIBBI: They're getting huge amounts of free money. YVES SMITH: Well, not just the free money. The Federal Reserve basically guarantees the payment system. You know, that's the really critical architecture that banks control is that, you know, we write checks to each other. We have credit cards. They clear through banks. But the fact that banks can exchange money with each other confidently is because the Fed stands behind that. So there's a much-- there's another layer of Fed backstopping beyond what we think of the way they step in in a crisis or the way they're now intervening to help the banks. So the fact that these institutions really depend in a very fundamental way on government support means they don't have any right to the upside. I mean, they should really be paid like public servants. I mean, I'm not kidding. I mean, and if they had been, if the pay had been ratcheted down after the crisis, I would have had a lot more sympathy for them, even if they just behaved for a couple of years. You know, they were bailed out. And then in 2009 the industry went and paid itself record bonuses, higher than 2007 instead of rebuilding their balance sheets. I mean, this was just a slap in the face for the public. BILL MOYERS: And there's no shame. YVES SMITH: No.

Continue ReadingJP Morgan continues to slurp at the public trough

Who is buying the upcoming election for President?

Bill Moyers reports:

And that’s how the wealthy one percent does its dirty business. They are, by the way, as we were reminded by CNN’s Charles Riley in his report, “Can 46 Rich Dudes Buy an Election?” almost all men, mostly white, “and so far, the vast majority of their contributions have been made to conservative groups.” They want to own this election.

Continue ReadingWho is buying the upcoming election for President?

Matt Taibbi analyzes Jamie Dimon’s appearance before the Senate Banking Committee

Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone found it hard to watch all of the U.S. Senators giving homage to Jamie Dimon of J.P. Morgan Chase. You can read his detailed report here. And here's the lesson Dimon doesn't get:

You can either be a commercial bank, with all the federal support that entails, or you can be a high-risk gambler. But you shouldn't be allowed to be both. We could have Chase Commercial Bank, and Chase Investments Inc., and they can each be as big as they want, but those companies should be separate. Why do we need companies like Chase that are both things, under one tent? The real answer, from Jamie Dimon’s point of view, is simple – there’s no way he could have a $350 billion hedge fund if he didn’t have mountains of federally-insured money to play with, and a steady stream of low-interest loans from the Fed.

Continue ReadingMatt Taibbi analyzes Jamie Dimon’s appearance before the Senate Banking Committee

Four trillion in secret loans

Keep in mind that all of the U.S. tax receipts for an entire year are only two trillion dollars. Now read this:

""This report reveals the inherent conflicts of interest that exist at the Federal Reserve.  At a time when small businesses could not get affordable loans to create jobs, the Fed was providing trillions in secret loans to some of the largest banks and corporations in America that were well represented on the boards of the Federal Reserve Banks.  These conflicts must end," [Senator Bernie] Sanders said."

Continue ReadingFour trillion in secret loans

Modern political money

From Rachel Maddow's blog:

[T]he playing field has changed in fundamental ways. In the traditional model, we'd see two major-party candidates, each backed by their respective national party. In 2012, President Obama's campaign team will effectively have two extremely well-financed opponents: Mitt Romney and the RNC, which are projected to raise at least $800 million, as well as a $1 billion outside attack operation. Obama, in other words, is going to face a far-right wall of at least $1.8 billion between now and Election Day. To say this is without precedent in a major democracy is a dramatic understatement.

Continue ReadingModern political money