After Arguing People Shouldn’t Attack Media Indiscriminately, Jamie Dimon Attacks Media Indiscriminately
When last we saw Jamie Dimon being a dick, he was appealing to what he presumably imagined was reporters’ shared sense of indiscriminate victimization.
Is it surprising that people lash out after such a severe recession in which we’ve seen these polars of wealth creation and destruction?
I can give you all the reasons why. But whenever anyone says to me, “All media,” I turn it off. “All politicians.” I turn it off. I don’t think it’s the right way to have discourse. Abe Lincoln didn’t do it. George Washington didn’t do it. It shouldn’t be done.
You don’t justify it because you’ve had a tough time. As a matter of fact, in a tough time, the best people stand tallest. They’re the ones who discriminate between the right and wrong. They’re the ones who stick to the true blue. … Not the ones who out of convenience scapegoat and finger-point.
It was wrong, Dimon argued, for people to indiscriminately pick on the media out of convenience.
In our latest edition of Jamie the Psychopath, he attacks newspapers, indiscriminately, as a convenient way to suggest banks don’t pay inordinate salaries.
“Obviously our business, in investment banking in particular, all of our businesses, we have high capital and high human capital,” Dimon said today at a presentation in New York, where the bank is based. “Newspapers — I went and got this one day just for fun — 42 percent payout ratio, which I just think is just damned outrageous.”
[snip]
“Worse than that, you don’t even make any money!” Dimon said, directing his comments to those in the media covering the company’s investor day and drawing laughter from his audience. “We pay 35 percent. We make a lot of money.” JPMorgan posted $19 billion in profit last year.
Especially nice, however, is Dimon’s suggestion that the justification for such a payout–for banks and for newspapers–is and should only be profit. If only the media just provided an even shittier product–and put the difference to profits–then all would be right with this world.
Presumably because then no one would chronicle what a dick he is.
what a dick he is.
This is a little weak could you punch it up little please;)
Dimon is being tripped up by his glorified definition of “make money.”
Perhaps this would help him:
Workers earn/make money. Banks merely collect it.
Reminds me of the NPR show, broadcast yesterday, about how Amazon posts profits despite eating the cost of free shipping. How is that accomplished?
Amazon succeeds, it seems, because it squeezes the amazon fullfillment warehouse pickers dry of their human labor (every sold item to be placed in a box is geolocated in giant warehouses, and the worker is given a specified time, down to the second, to make it to the item and then on to the next item, etc. for 10 hour shift. Not completing a 1000+ item pick list means not getting full pay for the shift) and pays them a pittance.
Profits (for the CEOs) are coming out of the paychecks of the workerbees according to the NPR story.
It might be how the settlement fails, however, because of the backlash against the 1% whining and sniveling. Seriously I have to wonder why Jamie’s legal beagles haven’t slapped a muzzle on him, the deal was everything they could ask for, and yet it isn’t “good enough”. Really?
Let’s hope the WH LEARNS THE LESSON NOW ABOUT NEGOTIATING WITH BRATS.
Call the waahmbulance for Jamie. He’s clearly escaped from his guardians again.
I’d like to see what would happen if he had to live like an average person, on an average income. (I know it won’t happen anytime soon.)
Well, over at the HuffPo, they’re saying that 10% of Wall Streeters are psychopaths. I think there must be something about Wall Street that *selects for* psychopaths. Apparently, they are being rewarded for psychopathic behaviors. So Jaime is not alone.
Bob in AZ