The description of questioning by committee members "some aggressive, but most deferential" pretty much sums up the sad reality.

Obama's favorite banker...

He just know what it takes to play in Congress. I'[m sure Chuckie Schumer coached him or maybe he called Paulsen up to get some coaching on how to make stuff go away.

Jail? Why?

Because he's not an Obama bundler like Democrat powerhouse John Corzine?

I mean, if misappropriating investor funds isn't a problem for Corzine why is it for Dimon?

Jamie Dimon is the personification of evil

That Jon Corzine is not in jail is truly scandalous.

That more head honchos involved in serious corporate crime went to jail when George W. Bush was president is what is obscene.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/02/opinion/nocera-the-mortgage-fraud-fraud.html

From spying on citizens, to Guantanamo, to drone strike summary executions and the never ending wars, as well as the utter lack of prosecution of the banking thieves, Obama and Holder have much for which to answer.

By the way, whatever happened to Cindy Sheehan?

How high and when:
http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/06/13/061312-news-dimon-cufflinks/

And Jamie Dimon's prison band could call itself "Open Kimono."

I enjoyed seeing Dimon tell off that self-important jerk Merkley yesterday. The entire hearing was nothing more than political theatre to make these do-nothing putzes in Washington appear to be doing something about the banking industry.

Dimon to prison? Why?

Isn't he the guy that lost a couple of percent of his company's money?

NOT taxpayer money!
NOT government insured money?

What is the problem that suggests government action? Why is it the government’s concern if he looses his company’s money?

Thanks
JK

Guys that big are no different than a governing body. They should be treated as such or busted up.

As for the people that don't know, or are pretending not to know, why this guy should be in jail. It is because he, those like him, and his cronies are directly responsible for perpetuating the fraud that destroyed and continues to destroy the world economy.

Further the funds they are dealing with are not private. Anything they do, anything they lose, becomes a public loss. They've gained clout to such an extent that they command the levers of power at both state and federal level.

Personally I am not sure what he and his ilk do is illegal. There has to be an element of fraud in there, but it's murky. Too murky. If they were tossing around, say, 10 billion in assets then perhaps it wouldn't be a big deal. But the sheer scale of the game they are playing threatens the economic security of the planet.

Go ahead and defend the legality of it all. Fine. Now take a step back and see just how profoundly negative and screwed up the whole thing is. At that point I'm sure we can agree that reform is needed.

Or were you telling an ironic joke? Like being funny? Sorry if I didn't get it. HA!

Jim Karlock - Specifically I'd like to point out that his loses are publicly insured and so do amount to tax payer losses.

That's the problem with 'too big to fail'. They operate outside the normal rules of capitalism. They are big enough to hold the government and the people hostage, extracting as what they will when needed.

Jo: As for the people that don't know, or are pretending not to know, why this guy should be in jail. It is because he, those like him, and his cronies are directly responsible for perpetuating the fraud that destroyed and continues to destroy the world economy.
JK: Sorry, I have to disagree.

Question (100 points) : Explain how a housing bubble can occur when there is an unlimited supply of houses?
Answer: It can’t.

Commodity bubbles can only occur when the supply is limited, otherwise they just build more.

Well then, why was there a bubble? Simple - the bubble ONLY occurred in places where the supply was constrained, mostly by government planning. Like Oregon & California. Actually most of both coasts, but not in “flyover country which generally has fewer restrictions.

There was little bubble in some of the fastest growing areas like Houston. That proves the planners saying demand was the cause is yet another planner lie.

Jo: Further the funds they are dealing with are not private. Anything they do, anything they lose, becomes a public loss. They've gained clout to such an extent that they command the levers of power at both state and federal level.
JK: That is not my impression. They ONLY lost around 2% of their net worth - hardly the stuff of bailouts.

Jo: Specifically I'd like to point out that his loses are publicly insured and so do amount to tax payer losses.
JK: That is contrary to what I have superficially read on the subject, so please provide proof.

Jo: That's the problem with 'too big to fail'. They operate outside the normal rules of capitalism. They are big enough to hold the government and the people hostage, extracting as what they will when needed.
JK: Yeah, kinda like a government agency or Trimet or the CRC.

Thanks
JK

JK -

Neither Florida nor Nevada had an artificially constrained market for houses, unlike California and Oregon.

Yet Nevada had the worst housing value implosion in the country, and Florida's, IIRC, was 3rd worst.

You're theme that the "housing bubble" came into being only because of governmental restraints on housing supply, e.g. Oregon's Urban Growth Boundaries, is just not supported by the actual facts.

Bah. Stupid mindo, not typo.

Should read "Your theme....

Nonny Mouse: Neither Florida nor Nevada had an artificially constrained market for houses,
JK: Note that “artificial” is not a requirement.
Nevada most certainly did have a severe restraint. The Federal government stopped net selling of land there. O’Toole lists Florida as having growth management laws.

Nonny Mouse: You're theme that the "housing bubble" came into being only because of governmental restraints on housing supply, e.g. Oregon's Urban Growth Boundaries, is just not supported by the actual facts.
JK:
1. I did not say ONLY - other factors contributed, but without supply restrictions, a commodity bubble is not possible.
2. Then how do you explain this:
http://www.portlandfacts.com/bubble_chart.html

Thanks
JK

Here is what Paul Krugman said:
In Flatland, which occupies the middle of the country, it's easy to build houses. When the demand for houses rises, Flatland metropolitan areas, which don't really have traditional downtowns, just sprawl some more. As a result, housing prices are basically determined by the cost of construction. In Flatland, a housing bubble can't even get started.

But in the Zoned Zone, which lies along the coasts, a combination of high population density and land-use restrictions - hence "zoned" - makes it hard to build new houses. So when people become willing to spend more on houses, say because of a fall in mortgage rates, some houses get built, but the prices of existing houses also go up. And if people think that prices will continue to rise, they become willing to spend even more, driving prices still higher, and so on. In other words, the Zoned Zone is prone to housing bubbles.

see: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/08/opinion/08krugman.html

Thanks
JK