Home | About | Donate

'This Is Only the Beginning': JPMorgan Chase Faces Investor Revolt Over Financing Climate Destruction

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/05/19/only-beginning-jpmorgan-chase-faces-investor-revolt-over-financing-climate

1 Like

Recall Obama in the aftermath of the 2008 crash gushing over Jamie Demon being such a savvy businessman ?

After they crashed the economy, Chase and the other too-big-to-fail banks should have been taken over by the gubmit, broken up, restored to solvency and sold at a profit the way Conrail was during the 20th century. Instead, Congress put taxpayers on the hook for trillions in bankster bailouts, enabling those banks to increase their control of US bank assets from 25% to 50% during the Obama regime.

Railroading, especially Conrail’s service area in the northeast is inherently more complex than banking. Banking is complex only because the banksters and the politicians they own contrive complexity, making US banking a heads the bank wins, tails the customer loses business model.

6 Likes

One of your best, ray.

It’s time to rally the left (and a few conservative purists) behind the notion of creative destruction leading to nationalizing multiple US industries that are basically surviving off the bail out teat once again.

Wall St is surviving on Fed ( and Congressional in the form of borrowing) handouts.
And airlines.
And health insurers.
And fossil fuel producers.

Nationalize! Nationalize! Nationalize the bail out babies!

2 Likes

HELLO? Sorry to spoil this party but it seems this article is leaving out something very important:
As reported by MarketWatch: Shareholders of JPMorgan Chase & Co. on Tuesday narrowly defeated the call for greater company disclosure around lending activities that affect climate change.

Yes, the proposed resolution on the table gained a lot of shareholder support, but NOT ENOUGH to pass it. This article really should have made that clear as day, but instead it mis-reports the story as a “success” only. The “success” of almost forcing the company to bend is an arguable point, but nonetheless, this article should have been crystal clear on this.