This was Dimon's refrain throughout the hearing—that a good idea somehow "morphed" into a bad one, almost as if it was a cancer that nobody could predict nor control. "The way it was contrived between January, February and March, it changed into something I cannot publically defend," he said at another point.
Would a strong Volcker Rule have prevented this evolution towards risky proprietary bets? Of course it would have, but Dimon has been the lead proponent to make sure it doesn't, personally visiting the Treasury Department several times this year and spending over $10 million on behind-the-scenes lobbying in the past two years.
When asked directly if a strong Volcker Rule would have prevented the losses, Dimon gave a response that harkened an image of Sylvester the Cat professing innocence as yellow feathers dangle on the edge of his lips. "I don't know what the Volcker rule is, it hasn't been written yet. It's very complicated," Dimon said. "It may very well have stopped parts of what this portfolio morphed into.... I just don't know."
Yeah, well I do, and it would have. More so, Glass-Steagall never should have been weakened — plain and simple. Deregulation of the banksters allowed for the current crash.
Airheads call for even more deregulation, as if the hearts and minds of the hyper-greedy give a tinker's damn about "grassroots" Tea Party members.
BTW, the reason the government screwed up was because of the revolving door with the banksters, which most Tea Partiers don't seem to plan to do a thing about. Why don't they call out the greedy without letting up? It's telling.