NO ONE HAS EVER SERVED CRIMINAL
BANKSTERS, WALL STREET OR THE RICH
MORE THAN THE OBAMA-BIDEN TEAM
OF CORRUPTION
In total, the former vice president has filled a significant portion of his campaign account from Wall Street donors, including nearly a million dollars from the securities and investment sector
The bailout came even though JPMorgan’s mortgage lending practices helped create the housing bubble that, when it burst, ultimately led the to the recession. In 2013, the bank agreed to pay a civil fine of $13 billion for its unscrupulous lending practices.
Jamie Dimon is wrong because he doesn’t understand that he is himself, a billionaire product of corporate socialism. CEOs love to talk about how corporations should legally be treated as individuals, so we can probably just call it socialism.
A person who is down and out in society is no different from a bankrupt Wall Street firm when it comes to needing a handout. Whatever the result, or the amount in question, they are all part of the same system.
Bernie Sanders is right to tell you not to listen to people like Jamie Dimon, who criticize socialism when they don’t need it, yet are first in line and full of excuses when they do. Secondly, please don’t believe word for word everything Bernie Sanders says about Wall Street, because he is often exaggerating to make his point.
Obama Breaks Silence Ahead of Super Tuesday Showdown Between Sanders and Biden
1:37
Former President Barack Obama broke his silence after former Vice President Joe Biden won big in the South Carolina presidential primary on Saturday.
Obama reportedly called Biden, according to “sources close to” the former president to congratulate him for re-energizing his presidential campaign in South Carolina.
The former president broke his silence as the party faces the possibility that Sen. Bernie Sanders has a chance for a big delegate lead ahead of Super Tuesday, wherein 14 states will vote for their choice for candidate.
It also appears to be a rare departure from his set precedent of not getting involved in the primary process.
There were no reports of Obama calling former Mayor Pete Buttigieg after he won Iowa or Sanders after he won New Hampshire or Nevada.
Buttigieg announced his decision to drop out of the race on Sunday night, which shocked his supporters who felt that he could still compete.
Obama still will not endorse Biden or any other candidates before the primary, according to reports, a position he staked out at the beginning of the process. Obama met with Biden before his former vice president announced his campaign and even hinted that he probably should not run, according to reports.
Biden said he asked the former president not to endorse him and said in December 2019 that he did not need the endorsement.
“[E]veryone knows I’m close with him,” Biden said. “I don’t need an Obama endorsement.”
Sanders called JPMorgan’s CEO America’s "biggest corporate socialist" — here’s why he has a point
Sen. Bernie Sanders called JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon the “biggest corporate socialist in America today” in recent ad
PAUL ADLER
FEBRUARY 13, 2020 9:59AM (UTC)
Sen. Bernie Sanders called JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon the "biggest corporate socialist in America today" in a recent ad.
He may have a point — beyond what he intended.
With his Dimon ad, Sanders is referring specifically to the bailouts JPMorgan and other banks took from the government during the 2008 financial crisis. But accepting government bailouts and corporate welfare is not the only way I believe American companies behave like closet socialists despite their professed love of free markets.
In reality, most big U.S. companies operate internally in ways Karl Marx would applaud as remarkably close to socialist-style central planning. Not only that, corporate America has arguably become a laboratory of innovation in socialist governance, as I show in my own research.
Closet socialists
But inside JPMorgan and most other big corporations, market competition is subordinated to planning. These big companies often contain dozens of business units and sometimes thousands. Instead of letting these units compete among themselves, CEOs typically direct a strategic planning process to ensure they cooperate to achieve the best outcomes for the corporation as a whole.
This is just how a socialist economy is intended to operate. The government would conduct economy-wide planning and set goals for each industry and enterprise, aiming to achieve the best outcome for society as a whole.
And just as companies rely internally on planned cooperation to meet goals and overcome challenges, the U.S. economy could use this harmony to overcome the existential crisis of our age — climate change. It's a challenge so massive and urgent that it will require every part of the economy to work together with government in order to address it.
Overcoming socialism's past problems
But, of course, socialism doesn't have a good track record.
One of the reasons socialist planning failed in the old Soviet Union, for example, was that it was so top-down that it lacked the kind of popular legitimacy that democracy grants a government. As a result, bureaucrats overseeing the planning process could not get reliable information about the real opportunities and challenges experienced by enterprises or citizens.
Moreover, enterprises had little incentive to strive to meet their assigned objectives, especially when they had so little involvement in formulating them.
A second reason the USSR didn't survive was that its authoritarian system failed to motivate either workers or entrepreneurs. As a result, even though the government funded basic science generously, Soviet industry was a laggard in innovation.
Ironically, corporations — those singular products of capitalism — are showing how these and other problems of socialist planning can be surmounted.
Take the problem of democratic legitimacy. Some companies, such as General Electric, Kaiser Permanente and General Motors, have developed innovative ways to avoid the dysfunctions of autocratic planning by using techniques that enable lower-level personnel to participate actively in the strategy process.
Although profit pressures often force top managers to short-circuit the promised participation, when successfully integrated it not only provides top management with more reliable bottom-up input for strategic planning but also makes all employees more reliable partners in carrying it out.
So here we have centralization — not in the more familiar, autocratic model, but rather in a form I call "participative centralization." In a socialist system, this approach could be adopted, adapted and scaled up to support economy-wide planning, ensuring that it was both democratic and effective.
As for motivating innovation, America's big businesses face a challenge similar to that of socialism. They need employees to be collectivist, so they willingly comply with policies and procedures. But they need them to be simultaneously individualistic, to fuel divergent thinking and creativity.
One common solution in much of corporate America, as in the old Soviet Union, is to specialize those roles, with most people relegated to routine tasks while the privileged few work on innovation tasks. That approach, however, overlooks the creative capacities of the vast majority and leads to widespread employee disengagement and sub-par business performance.
Smarter businesses have found ways to overcome this dilemma by creating cultures and reward systems that support a synthesis of individualism and collectivism that I call "interdependent individualism." In my research, I have found this kind of motivation in settings as diverse as Kaiser Permanent physicians, assembly-line workers at Toyota's NUMMI plant and software developers at Computer Sciences Corp. These companies do this, in part, by rewarding both individual contributions to the organization's goals as well as collaboration in achieving them.
While socialists have often recoiled against the idea individual performance-based rewards, these more sophisticated policies could be scaled up to the entire economy to help meet socialism's innovation and motivation challenge.
Big problems require big government
The idea of such a socialist transformation in the U.S. may seem remote today.
But this can change, particularly as more Americans, especially young ones, embrace socialism. One reason they are doing so is because the current capitalist system has so manifestly failed to deal with climate change.
Looking inside these companies suggests a better way forward — and hope for society's ability to avert catastrophe.
Paul Adler, Professor of Management and Organization, Sociology and Environmental Studies, University of Southern California
Billionaire JP Morgan chief attacks socialism as 'a disaster'
This article is more than 10 months old
· Jamie Dimon: socialism leads to ‘corruption and favouritism’
· America’s top banker, paid $31m last year, defends capitalism
Thu 4 Apr 2019 12.45 EDTLast modified on Sun 7 Apr 2019 20.55 EDT
5,968
Jamie Dimon said capitalism was ‘the most successful economic system the world has ever seen’. Photograph: Jacquelyn Martin/AP
The world’s most powerful banker has attacked socialism, saying it produces “stagnation, corruption and often worse”.
Jamie Dimon, spare us your crocodile tears about inequality
Robert Reich
Read more
JP Morgan’s chief executive, Jamie Dimon, took aim at socialism in his annual letter to shareholders, and warned it would be “a disaster for our country”.
Dimon, who was paid $31m last year as the head of America’s largest bank and who is estimated by Forbes to be worth $1.3bn, took his swipe as a new wave of left politics has emerged in the US.
Democratic socialism has been embraced by a new generation of politicians, including New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and supporters of Bernie Sanders, a longtime socialist now making a second bid for the presidency.
Dimon’s attack also comes as many leftwing Democrats, including Sanders and Senator Elizabeth Warren, have called for the breakup of big businesses and greater regulation of banking in particular.
In his letter, Dimon wrote: “When governments control companies, economic assets (companies, lenders and so on) over time are used to further political interests – leading to inefficient companies and markets, enormous favoritism and corruption.”
He went on: “Socialism inevitably produces stagnation, corruption and often worse – such as authoritarian government officials who often have an increasing ability to interfere with both the economy and individual lives – which they frequently do to maintain power. This would be as much a disaster for our country as it has been in the other places it’s been tried.”
Socialism is set to be one of the key issues of the 2020 election cycle. Donald Trump has already begun campaigning against socialism and used his State of the Union address to declare that “America will never be a socialist country.”
Business Today: sign up for a morning shot of financial news
Read more
“It is absolutely obvious that a big chunk of [people] have been left behind,” Dimon said last month. “Forty percent of Americans make less than $15 an hour. Forty percent of Americans can’t afford a $400 bill, whether it’s medical or fixing their car. Fifteen percent of Americans make minimum wages, 70,000 die from opioids [annually].”
In his letter, Dimon acknowledged capitalism’s “flaws” but praised it as “the most successful economic system the world has ever seen”.
He wrote: “This is not to say that capitalism does not have flaws, that it isn’t leaving people behind and that it shouldn’t be improved. It’s essential to have a strong social safety net – and all countries should be striving for continuous improvement in regulations as well as social and welfare conditions.”
JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon takes on socialism, says it will lead to an ‘eroding society’
PUBLISHED WED, JAN 22 20207:58 AM ESTUPDATED WED, JAN 22 20208:57 AM EST
KEY POINTS
· J.P. Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon criticized socialism, saying it leads to an “eroding society.”
· Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Dimon told CNBC that capitalism is not perfect but is capable of fixing the problems of today.
VIDEO01:59
Jamie Dimon: ‘I don’t think people understand what socialism is’
Socialism has failed where it’s been tried and ultimately leads to an “eroding society,” J.P. Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon said Wednesday.With democratic socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders among the leaders in the Democratic presidential race and other candidates espousing similar-sounding ideas, the head of the nation’s biggest bank by assets said the idea of socialist control of the means of production would be detrimental to the U.S.
“I honestly don’t think they understand what socialism is,” Dimon told CNBC during a “Squawk Box” interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, referring to a question about millennials.
VIDEO19:31
Watch CNBC’s full Davos interview with JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon
“Most state-owned enterprises don’t do a particularly good job,” he added. “You look around the world and they become corrupt over time. That doesn’t mean that capitalism is perfect. That doesn’t mean that every public company is perfect. No, there are flaws.”Sanders has been the most out front of the candidates in backing socialism, though many of his opponents in the Democratic race also back universal health care, increased business taxes and greater government control over private enterprise.
Dimon said he did not want to address any specific candidates. But he said that socialist governments traditionally have done a poor job allocating capital and end up backing politically popular endeavors and “bridge to nowhere” projects.
“Once you do that, you will have an eroding society,” he said.
“They do need to fix inner-city schools, infrastructure, health care,” Dimon added. “We can fix all of those in a capitalist society.”
Bernie Sanders Slams Jamie Dimon On Socialism – They’re Both Wrong
Bernie Sanders has hit back against Jamie Dimon's comments about socialism, but they're both missing the point on Wall Street greed.
· Bernie Sanders went after Jamie Dimon on Twitter calling him a hypocrite for his comments on socialism.
· Senator Sanders is not telling the whole truth when it comes to Wall Street bailouts.
· Jamie Dimon is also wrong as corporate welfare is rampant, and creating a dangerous imbalance in U.S. society.
What is the saying about people in glass houses? Jamie Dimon has been getting a lot of press for his comments on several economic topics at the billionaire ski-meet, otherwise known as the World Economic Forum in Davos. Of particular interest were his comments regarding socialism, of which the JPMorgan Chase CEO and Chairman were very critical. The United States’ most famous socialist, Senator Bernie Sanders, is not having it, and reminded Dimon of a very inconvenient truth.
Bernie Sanders Stretches The Truth To Slam Jamie Dimon
While the above tweet will no doubt get Bernie Bros feeling the Bern and pumping their fists, a note of caution. JPMorgan Chase did pay back their bailout money, and Bernie Sanders must be referring to Wall Street as a whole, not specifically Jamie Dimon’s bank, which only received $25 billion.
Dimon can state that his bank was a profitable investment, as President Obama’s decision to trust the bank’s ability getting back on its feet resulted in a profit for the government.
The JPMorgan Chase CEO Owes A Lot Of His Considerable Wealth To Socialism
So Sanders is not telling it precisely as it is here. The point he is really making paraphrases as “don’t insult the concept of receiving aid from the government when your corporation went broke and used Wall Street food stamps.” The senator has a point.
What truly irks the everyday American is not that some people rise to the top of the corporate ladder on Wall Street and earn billions. What annoys them is when those CEO’s mess up, get everything wrong, screw over the working man and crash the housing market, and still walk away with their vast compensation packages.
Yes, the taxpayer technically got most of it back, but a large contingent of those people didn’t get the jobs or houses back that they lost in the recession.
Fed Interventions Are Enabling Wall Street Recklessness, Again
The same economic mistakes that required the Federal Reserve to put the U.S. economy on life support have, in turn, stagnated wage growth and disproportionately benefited the financial class that got so greedy in the first place.
Now that Jamie Dimon has shown that JPMorgan paid back their bailout money, what’s to stop them from taking excessive risks and blowing everything up again? Rinse and repeat, as Wall Street relies on government handouts to catch it when it falls.
Long considered somewhat of a conspiracy theory, more and more market voices are speaking up against the Fed’s interventions in financial markets. Scott Minerd, the CIO of Guggenheim Partners, is about as mainstream a figure as you can get in the hedge fund world, and he called the stock market a “Ponzi scheme” in Davos.
You Can’t Cherry-Pick What Is Socialism & What’s “Necessary”
So Bernie Sanders is absolutely right. Taxpayer funds were used to make the rich richer but looks to be wrong that these were not a good investment from perspective of taxpayer funds.
Jamie Dimon is wrong because he doesn’t understand that he is himself, a billionaire product of corporate socialism. CEOs love to talk about how corporations should legally be treated as individuals, so we can probably just call it socialism.
A person who is down and out in society is no different from a bankrupt Wall Street firm when it comes to needing a handout. Whatever the result, or the amount in question, they are all part of the same system.
Bernie Sanders is right to tell you not to listen to people like Jamie Dimon, who criticize socialism when they don’t need it, yet are first in line and full of excuses when they do. Secondly, please don’t believe word for word everything Bernie Sanders says about Wall Street, because he is often exaggerating to make his point.
Finally, it’s impossible to have an article about socialism and not give former U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher the last word.
This article was edited by Samburaj Das.
Last modified: January 23, 2020 9:29 AM UTC
Financial speculator & author living in the hills in Los Angeles. J.D. but very much not a lawyer. Favorite trading books are anything written by Jack Schwager. Email: bullishtulips@gmail.com,
MORE OF:
‘Pocahontas’ Is a Joke, But Apparently Some People Aren't In On It
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.
Every conservative knows that Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, in addition to being a sanctimonious stealth-socialist and the bane of Mike Bloomberg's existence, is a nominal Native American. That's a polite way of saying that, for years, she falsely claimed not only to have Native American ancestry, but to be an “American Indian.” She made those phony claims, moreover, at times and in circumstances when they could potentially bring her personal advantage: when she was looking for work as a high-priced corporate legal consultant, for example, or when she was looking to advance her career as an Ivy League professor.
Needless to say, if a Republican engaged in this kind of conduct, he or she would be accused of “cultural appropriation,” at best, and criminal fraud, at worst. But for Liz, lying about her heritage is just another day at the office, seemingly.
As reported by Fox News, over 200 Native Americans recently issued a letter to Sen. Warren stating that her actions have “perpetuated a dangerous misunderstanding of tribal sovereignty” and created “the most public debate about our identity in a generation.”
The truth, though, is that, while many Americans, including President Trump, are laughing at “Pocahontas,” and many actual Native Americans are harshly criticizing her, others are taking a cue from her special brand of deceitful self-promotion.
For instance, political authorities and the courts have weighed in on specious claims by individuals that they belong to minority groups. After all, if such claims were to gain recognition, affirmative action would cease to have any practical meaning or effect.
Hiring isn't the only way that fraudulent claims of minority group status impact federal, state, and local government. If a business can claim to be minority- or women-owned, it often can qualify for special benefits or greater access to government contracts — just like Elizabeth Warren, charlatan extraordinaire, gained an advantage over other lawyers and professors by falsely claiming to be an Indian.
While there are ways that federal lawmakers can reform this process, in the interim the absolute worst thing we could do is to make it easier for swindlers like Elizabeth Warren to get away with their mendacity and fraud. Baseless claims of Native American ancestry, for example, ought to be quickly exposed, and the perpetrators of these falsehoods should be prosecuted, wherever and whenever appropriate.
Unfortunately, however, Sen. Warren’s bad example has helped to normalize this atrocious behavior. All across this country there are now groups making false or highly dubious claims of Native American ancestry and heritage, often in order to obtain access to lucrative government contracts.
A Los Angeles Times investigation found that at least $800 million in federal contracts have been awarded to state-recognized “tribes,” which the federal government cannot verify are, in fact, Native American.
In their letter to Sen. Warren, the 200 Native Americans stated, “Rather than using evidence of Native ancestry, these fake tribes rely solely on family stories and commercial DNA tests.” In other words, these charlatans are following the Warren playbook to a tee. With the standard for “Indianness” set this low, the potential for gaming the system is vast.
That's why it's so distressing that a new bill before Congress, the Lumbee Recognition Act, would lower the bar for federal recognition of Native American tribes even further.
The Lumbees, a state-recognized “tribe” in North Carolina and the focus of the proposed bill, have claimed, at various times, to be related to the Croatans, Cherokees, Siouans, and Cheraws, but what they really are is an ill-defined group that the federal government has declined to recognize for over a century. The Director of the Office of Tribal Services even once testified to a “major deficiency” in their claims: “the Lumbee have not documented their descent from a historic tribe.”
Fast forward to the early 21st century, however, and federal funds are flowing more freely than ever. The Lumbees want “in” on this largesse. And if the federal government grants their wish for federal recognition, there’s no telling which of the other state-recognized pseudo-tribes will come next.
In a sense, we should thank Elizabeth Warren for opening the eyes of the American people to an alarming trend: duplicitous people are attempting to take advantage of preferences and services offered to minority groups by falsely claiming membership therein. One is tempted to call this “the ugly side of identity politics,” but, since I have yet to find an appealing side to this odious by-product of leftism, I will simply say: enough is enough!
Liz Warren and the Lumbees should cool their jets, therefore. The last thing this country needs is to expand the circle of group preferences — especially for people who don't belong to protected groups in the first place.
No comments:
Post a Comment