Jamie Dimon for Treasury Secretary?

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! 

WSO Elite Modeling Package

  • 6 courses to mastery: Excel, Financial Statement, LBO, M&A, Valuation and DCF
  • Elite instructors from top BB investment banks and private equity megafunds
  • Includes Company DB + Video Library Access (1 year)

Comments (54)

Nov 19, 2020 - 9:54am

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. 

Commercial Real Estate Developer

  • 2
  • 1
Controversial
  • NA in IB-M&A
Nov 19, 2020 - 5:03pm

Bro I'm so glad you showed up. I literally can't wait to hear about your ~passionate liberal views~

Funniest
Nov 19, 2020 - 5:07pm

Shhhh the adults are talking. Go play with your friends. 

Commercial Real Estate Developer

  • 13
  • 3
Learn More

300+ video lessons across 6 modeling courses taught by elite practitioners at the top investment banks and private equity funds -- Excel Modeling -- Financial Statement Modeling -- M&A Modeling -- LBO Modeling -- DCF and Valuation Modeling -- ALL INCLUDED + 2 Huge Bonuses.

Learn more
Nov 19, 2020 - 6:47pm

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.

Nov 19, 2020 - 7:10pm

NoEquityResearch

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....

Man, you really stretched a lot to try to make this point. In order:

  1. The Democratic Party is decisively not socialist. Hi. I'm a capitalist. I've also been a Democrat since 2018. 
  2. I think Jamie could do the job. I think he's a smart and obviously accomplished guy. That's a far stretch from the best candidate though. 
  3. The "radical wing of the party" is also not socialist. You can literally google the differences in political ideology between socialism and democratic socialism. 
  4. Every political party makes decisions based on compromise. Republican businessmen compromised with evangelicals and uneducated racist conspiracy theorists to win the presidency in 2016, for instance. Compromise is politics.  

Commercial Real Estate Developer

  • 3
Nov 19, 2020 - 7:19pm

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.

Nov 19, 2020 - 7:41pm

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. 

Commercial Real Estate Developer

  • 3
  • 1
Nov 19, 2020 - 9:53pm

CRE

You seem to be misunderstanding political ideologies, intentionally or otherwise. 

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!

Nov 20, 2020 - 3:21am

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.

Nov 20, 2020 - 8:38am

Milton Friedchickenman

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.

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.

Nov 20, 2020 - 8:57am

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.

Nov 20, 2020 - 10:48am

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.

Nov 19, 2020 - 10:09am

Analyst 1 in IB-M&A

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! 

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.

Nov 19, 2020 - 10:14am

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. 

Array

  • 3
Nov 19, 2020 - 10:25am

PrivateTechquitycorporate Democrats 

Is this supposed to mean something other than what rose twitter calls everyone who isn't Bernie Sanders? 

Commercial Real Estate Developer

  • 2
Nov 19, 2020 - 10:33am

CRE

PrivateTechquitycorporate Democrats 

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.  

Array

  • 6
  • 4
Nov 19, 2020 - 10:41am

Hah, touchy touchy. Of course there are factions within the Democratic party - I said as much in my first post in this thread and alluded to it in the thread you responded to. Perhaps you should focus more on reading comprehension as opposed to what you think others are incapable of grasping. 

What I clearly objected to was the term "corporate Democrat," because it implies that the mainstream (and more successful) members of the party are somehow beholden to corporate interests, as opposed to the "pure" progressives. It's like calling a specific faction of the Republican party RINOs. It is not a widely used term. It is instead meant to be derogatory. 

Commercial Real Estate Developer

  • 4
  • 3
Most Helpful
Nov 19, 2020 - 10:46am

CRE

Hah, touchy touchy. Of course there are factions within the Democratic party - I said as much above in my own post. 

What I clearly objected to was the term "corporate Democrat," because it implies that the mainstream (and more successful) members of the party are somehow beholden to corporate interests, as opposed to the "pure" progressives. It's like calling a specific faction of the Republican party RINOs. It is not a widely used term. It is instead meant to be derogatory. 

No, I wouldn't say it's always meant to be derogatory, it's just a qualifier to segregate factions.  But the ultra-progressive populists like the Bernie bros certainly see it as a negative and will bemoan it till the cows come home.  The idea that certain mainstream Dems aren't beholden to corporate interests is just laughable.  Wikileaks already showed us that Obama literally got his cabinet picks from an email with executives at major banks.  Both parties have candidates that do this, it isn't new. 

Array

  • 6
  • 1
  • Prospect in IB-M&A
Nov 19, 2020 - 11:01am

Yes I can spell conflict of interest:

A-M-E-R-I-C-A-N   P-O-L-I-T-I-C-S

  • Prospect in IB-M&A
Nov 19, 2020 - 6:53pm

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?

Nov 20, 2020 - 9:15am

Oh god Wokeahontas is beatiful. Can't wait to use this term on my insufferable progressive friends that pray to Bernie, Warren, AOC etc...

Nov 19, 2020 - 4:50pm

I like Elizabeth Warren but she should not be the Treasury Secretary.  

http://www.series65examtutor.com
Nov 19, 2020 - 11:24am

Heard this as well and I think she'd be a great choice

I’m a fun guy. Obviously I love the game of basketball. I mean there’s more questions you have to ask me in order for me to tell you about myself. I'm not just gonna give you a whole spill... I mean, I don't even know where you're sitting at
  • 1
Nov 19, 2020 - 10:55am

Analyst 1 in IB-M&A

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? 

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. 

Nov 19, 2020 - 1:43pm

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. 

Nov 19, 2020 - 1:46pm

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.  

http://www.series65examtutor.com
Nov 19, 2020 - 8:10pm

NoEquityResearch

Check your priviledge! Can you suggest someone who is not white and cisgender? Jeez financeabc 

I do not understand your point.  

http://www.series65examtutor.com
  • 1
Start Discussion

Total Avg Compensation

June 2021 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (9) $911
  • Vice President (35) $364
  • Associates (204) $233
  • 2nd Year Analyst (115) $151
  • Intern/Summer Associate (97) $145
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (27) $145
  • 1st Year Analyst (422) $131
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (340) $82