JPMorgan losses a headache for Romney?
Jamie Dimon's JPMorgan had rode out much of the financial crisis
The London whale has made a big splash that's likely to create waves in the presidential election.
JPMorgan lost $2bn (£1.2bn), and its outspoken chairman Jamie Dimon has lost some political credibility. He's been at the forefront of the argument against the Obama administration's attempt to bring in tighter financial regulation.
In particular he's trying to fight off the "Volcker rule", named after Paul Volcker, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve. It stops banks from investing in hedge funds.
Mr Dimon was winning. Now his company's huge losses strengthen the hand of those arguing in favour of the new regulations and leaves Mr Dimon looking slightly foolish, although some say the Volcker rule wouldn't have had any impact in this case.
This plays into November's elections because one of Mitt Romney's central arguments is that President Obama has tangled the economy up in red tape.
Financial regulation is at the heart of that argument. Republicans have been ferocious in their opposition to the new rules on banks.
I can't find any specific comment Mitt Romney has made on the Volcker rule, but it is part of the new regulations on Wall Street made by the Dodd-Frank Act, which he has promised to repeal.
Mr Romney's website says that this law is "a quantum increase in the scale of the regulatory burden on the American economy".
Although quantum doesn't mean "big", I think that's what the Romney team meant. The promise is to repeal Dodd-Frank and replace it with a "streamlined, modern regulatory framework".
That could, of course, include something like the Volcker rule. But that would only blur his attack, and be controversial with Republicans.
All sorts of good arguments can be made on the other side, but many Americans are likely to see the JPMorgan debacle as demonstrating the need for tougher rules. It blunts Romney's offensive against red tape.
JPMorgan's loss could be Obama's gain.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~44~RS~)




Dozens die in Iraqi car bomb attacks
Foot loose
Afrikaner agony
America's Latino future
Hoops and dreams
Be kind, rewind
HARDtalk
Comment number 141.
ReadRaviBatra13th May 2012 - 0:59
Due to America's blind faith in the "free market", much of that shale and tar sands oil is exported, while it would be put to much better use by providing it to manufacturers at a reduced rate, as China does. Republicans, unsurprisingly, are in favor of a pipeline to the Gulf of Mexico so that the Chinese government can buy it and further undermine our Democracy.
Link to this (Comment number 141)
Comment number 140.
ReadRaviBatra13th May 2012 - 0:49
Entropic man,
Much of U.S. oil comes from the Bakken formation. Estimates are 24 billion barrels of recoverable oil with current technology. The big problem in N.Dakota is too little housing for oil workers.
Link to this (Comment number 140)
Comment number 139.
Entropic man12th May 2012 - 23:50
#116 McJAakome
"The Other Conspiracy theory...the US has been...husbanding its own oil"
You may be right. US oil production peaked in 1970 at 3 billion barrels a year(bby), now down to 1.6bby.
You consume 6bby.
At this rate your proven oil and shale reserves of 21 billion barrels will last you 13 years.
Various sources claim unproven reserves of 2 trillion barrels. Hope they're right!
Link to this (Comment number 139)
Comment number 138.
Removed12th May 2012 - 23:44
All this user's posts have been removed.Why?
Link to this (Comment number 138)
Comment number 137.
U1526152112th May 2012 - 23:26
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Link to this (Comment number 137)
Comments 5 of 141