Skip to content

Decoding Bank Talk

September 27, 2011

(crossposted from chez rebellion)

Every now and then I’ll catch, out of the corner of my eye, the peach of a Financial Times lying around. It was Professor Elliot Posner who showed me the value of this paper, and who taught me about Justice Brandeis.

Here’s the front page:


When anyone powerful labels something ‘anti-US’, red flags should be waving. Dimon’s language proceeds with a basic assumption- what’s good for large US banks (large US banks’ profits) is the US public interest. As opposed to strengthening international banking standards?

Anybody with a pulse might take pause at this idea.

Dimond’s interview in FT comes in the same day that a British commission (Vickers) has recommended a ‘radical proposal’- to divide commercial and investment banking. Something that the US did for about 50 years under the Glass-Steagall Act?

In the Vickers story:

fuck you

This is a big question?

I think it’s time to elect and appoint folks who get these questions. Rich Cordray should be confirmed as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Board, and Sherrod Brown and Elizabeth Warren should be (re)elected to the Senate.

Here are smarter people than me talking about the same thing:

Mike Konczal

Matt Yglesias

Felix Salmon

Yves Smith

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: