Jamie Dimon has recently become vocal, calling on President Trump to concede and for Congress to stop its "childish behavior" with regard to stimulus negotiations.
This made me wonder, do you think Jamie Dimon would be a good fit for treasury secretary? Is this at all feasible, or would appointing a Wall Street CEO to the position be bad for optics and potentially alienate millions of left-leaning people?
Curious to hear others' thoughts!
| +96 | Are you “less ambitious” for having long term goals outside of NYC | 24 | 1d | |
| +45 | Interviews Are So Fake | 28 | 3h | |
| +33 | 2024 UK Election - Tories finished? | 21 | 7h | |
| +29 | Being Christian in investment banking | 14 | 1d | |
| +25 | Non-Competes Banned | 24 | 1h | |
| How do I become Sigma | 15 | 23m | ||
| +19 | ADHD ! | 4 | 4h | |
| +19 | Moelis has the cutest Analysts? | 4 | 1d | |
| +18 | Best NYC neighborhood for single 30M | 12 | 2d | |
| +16 | Underage intern, drinking? | 7 | 1d |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
Yes, he would be a decent choice, but appointing a Wall Street CEO would also be a bit of a non-starter with today's Democratic party. Biden probably would be fine with it, but the party is a big tent and he has to hold everyone from Bernie Sanders to Joe Manchin together.
Bro I’m so glad you showed up. I literally can’t wait to hear about your ~passionate liberal views~
Lol
Shhhh the adults are talking. Go play with your friends.
Quality comment there, bud
Last week, you were arguing that the Democratic Party is not really socialist. Now, you're telling me that Biden can't pick the best person for the job because he might upset the powerful radical wing of the party....
I mean, Dimon isn't necessarily the best person for the job (I don't think such a thing exists for prominent Cabinet positions), and the fact that the party wouldn't support that pick doesn't mean it's socialist. It sounds like it'll be Yellen from the rumors and she's definitley not a socialist's pick.
Man, you really stretched a lot to try to make this point. In order:
1. Everyone might not be socialist but if you have to appeal to socialists and consider their opinons for cabinet picks, you've got a problem.
2. Fair.
3. Socialism is socialism. Bad decisions are bad regardless of whether you came to them democratically or through totalitarianism. Saying "democratic fascism" does not make fascism any less bad for example.
4. Yup. Compromise is important but you want to comprise with people who are at least somewhat normal, not radicals and socialists. If you're meeting in the middle with someone who has insane ideas, the outcome will be half crazy policies.
You seem to be misunderstanding political ideologies, intentionally or otherwise.
No one has to appeal to socialists because socialists are not an influential or size-able part of the Democratic party. Even "far left" figures within the party, such as AOC or Bernie, are still not socialists. Since you used it as an example, socialism is also not akin to fascism. It is not the "flip side" or "mirror image" of fascism. One can argue that soviet-style communism certainly is, but socialism is certainly not.
I'm assuming you're a conservative here, and I agree that you shouldn't be gifting radicals too much, but the irony of this kind of statement after 4 years of Donald Trump appeasing foreign dictators, neo-nazis, actual fascists, white supremacists, conspiracy theorists, and general imbeciles dramatically undercuts your argument.
Finally, not confirming Jamie Dimon as Treasury Secretary isn't a "half crazy" decision borne from compromising with socialists. It's a personnel preference.
Back at you. Your point seems to be that unless someone says, "I'm a member of the communist party"...then they are not a socialist or communist. Well what if you support policies that aim for more government control, less freedom, more taxation, and you never draw a limit to government power to redistribute or spread "social justice"?
It's as if I said, "I want less regulation, super low taxes, no interference from government BUT I'm not a capitalist or free-market." That is a ridiculous thing to claim.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck!
Eh. Democraric Socialists nowadays aren't actually socialists in the way we think about socialists.
I had to teach myself lots of Marxist economics and different branches of socialism to understand the difference but here is what Paul Krugman said (not verbatim), "These Democratic Socialists aren't actually socialists, they're social democrats the way Germans and some Scandinavians are. They really should do themselves a favor and stop calling themselves Socialists. It gives people the wrong impression. "
Most of these "Socialists" believe in the market economy. They just think social safety net should be more socialized and put in some regulations that makes every corporation to be structured in a way that co-ops are structured. Yeah some of these ideas aren't exactly smart, but certainly far from central planning.
Even the ones who identify as "Marxists" believe in market economy apparently. But that's actually an oxymoron because Marxist economics is entirely based on the notion that value is objective. That means that prices can be fixed (the way Soviet Union did things) as opposed to the way the market economy determines prices. They just like the part about how "capitalists exploit workers" and call themselves Marxists. But they don't know WTF they're talking about.
When exactly have you heard Bernie or AOC praise the market economy? Never....the only thing that they're pushing is more government and more regulation. You never hear one of these people say, "well you know I think we've gone too far regulating industry XYZ. We should really pull that back because we want a balanced system along with our safety net." Ever heard something like that? Nope instead, it's always more government programs, more taxes, more regulations.
I don't disagree that Denmark or Sweden are balanced economies. Yes, the far left wants those outcomes, but if you listen to what they're preaching, it is not a balanced Denmark/Sweden philosophy with an appreciation for the free market. Instead, it's a belief that if you crush the free market and rapidly expand the extent of the government, you will get to become like Sweden.
You also don't here AOC or Bernie praising central planning.
The fact that they talk about regulations is that they accept market economy. If you had a centraly planned economy with price fixing, there would be no regulations. Because the state controls everything in the first place. The state is free to do whatever the hell it wants, problem arises because it won't listen to consumers and will output shitty products.
AOC and Sanders have some terrible ideas but they're hardly "socialists" the way people think about it. Point being, they don't know WTF real socialism is and neither do people who hate it.
If your strict definition of socialism is central planning of the entire economy, then only one or two countries in the world have ever been socialist and only for short periods of time.
There is a spectrum of socialism and that's what I'm talking about. By your definition, Venezuela is also not a socialist country. Venezuela also "accepts the market economy" as you say. The market exists there. You can have small businesses and even major corporations operate there. What Venezuela has is a bunch of socialist policies and central planning of certain aspects of the economy which have resulted in a travesty. But is Venezuela centrally planning everything? Absolutely not.
Same with Bernie and AOC. Are they talking about centrally planning the entire economy? No. Healthcare definitely. A super high minimum wage which is essentially a wage price control. Yes. You get enough socialist inspired policies in place and you can ruin an economy without centrally planning everything.
Furthermore, if we're going only by the strictest definitions of words, then we really can't talk about anything. Nothing is a free-market policy unless it's anarcho-capitalism and nothing is a socialist policy unless its straight out of the Soviet Union's 1950s playbook. I just don't think that's a useful way to discuss political economy.
.
Not that he'd be bad, but I'm not sure he's the "best" choice either. Running a private-sector business is not necessarily good training for running a government entity.
Can you spell conflict of interest? The irony is that he would probably alienate the far left Democrat base who would tear their hair out over his appointment, but the corporate Democrats ie Obama/Kamala/Joe would love him. Just look at the cabinet list Joe's already put together, it's just like Obama's, all big corporate names.
Is this supposed to mean something other than what rose twitter calls everyone who isn't Bernie Sanders?
If you can't grasp the idea that there is a clear delineation between factions of ultra-progressives, moderates, and corporatists within the Democrat party you're observation skills are woefully subpar. Try turning on a political commentator that isn't spoon-fed by one of the major networks for a change. The same thing exists within the Republican party between hardcore evangelists, old school corporate conservatism, and neoconservatism. Granted just because the separation exists doesn't mean they don't coalesce when it gets down to party vs party, but there's plenty of infighting in both groups between factions jockeying for position in local elections and national election primaries.
Yes I can spell conflict of interest:
A-M-E-R-I-C-A-N P-O-L-I-T-I-C-S
Underrated post
Sounds a hell of a lot better than Elizabeth Warren, who is a name that has been floated around recently.
I pray to god Wokeahontas never holds a cabinet position. BLACK TRANS WOMEN ARE THE BACKBONE OF OUR DEMOCRACY despite making up less than 0.01% of the population...
The black trans lives crap feels like a 4chan hoax or troll-gone-wrong a la the "ok sign" being racist-- Like someone was trying to sarcastically tag extra wokeness onto BLM to highlight woke absurdity and then it sprung into a movement of its own. I refuse to accept that the black trans lives matter movement is organic. Also, why don't black chicano non-binary disabled lives matter? Or is that up next?
Oh god Wokeahontas is beatiful. Can't wait to use this term on my insufferable progressive friends that pray to Bernie, Warren, AOC etc...
I like Elizabeth Warren but she should not be the Treasury Secretary.
I saw somewhere Janet Yellen was a candidate too (former fed chair), has that ever happened? A former fed chair becoming head of treasury?
I could get behind bringing back mama J, she's an OG.
Heard this as well and I think she'd be a great choice
I agree. She makes sense and would be a big improvement over Mnuchin.
Yes, unfortunately, good policy decisions often have a tendency of alienating millions of left-leaning people. If you look at recent the history of US Treasury Secretaries, a bunch are straight from Wall Street. Appointing Jamie Dimon would hardly be an outlier.
He would probably do fine, but does he really want to leave JPM?
The optics of appointing him would be terrible.
Roger Ferguson is retiring. He has prior quasi-government experience in the Fed, plenty of ties to the Harvard deep state, still a 'Wall Street' guy even though the general public may not consider TIAA to be Wall Street, other 'factors'.....I'd put my money on him.
Dimon is an experienced deal maker and would do wonders as Treaury Secretary but honestly why would he want the job? At JPM, he runs the show and gets to accumulate his wealth unopposed. As Treasury Secretary, he would have to incessantly battle with Congress and The White House to enforce his ideology. Roger Ferguson and Janet Yellen are better fits honestly. Just pray it’s not Warren or Sanders as Secretary or else we’re all fucked.
I like Jamie Dimon and saw him speak a long time ago. Wow, if I had a dollar for each F bomb that came out of his mouth, I would be super wealthy. I am not opposed to Jamie Dimon as Treasury Secretary but I would prefer someone like Janet Yellin.
Check your priviledge! Can you suggest someone who is not white and cisgender? Jeez financeabc
I do not understand your point.
He said on the NYT interview yesterday that he "never coveted the job" and that he would "help anyone who has that job."
Laborum a veritatis velit in quod. Quia necessitatibus veritatis molestiae vitae. Voluptatem inventore quos doloribus occaecati inventore nobis quod.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Eaque numquam qui nisi sequi adipisci. Rerum velit commodi fuga tempore. Aut et vel et molestiae veniam repellat. Cum voluptatem dolores facere totam illum laudantium illo. Est et voluptatem ab rem corporis.
Et odio illo delectus cupiditate eum non deleniti sequi. Voluptas consequatur nihil maiores distinctio est. Quo error vero tenetur non id quia.
Dicta error ullam et repellendus praesentium sequi accusantium. Vel veniam minima vitae nemo. Aut dolores sed ut maiores porro quia. Et commodi excepturi enim accusamus cumque ut ea.