What 50 percent? Both firms and their managers would be gone if the government had let them pull the trigger on the guns they were holding to their own heads.

Instead, the insurance premium should be based on the assumption that this will happen again in 20 years, so about $25 billion a year prorated by market share...

I couldn't agree more. Spitzer did some finger pointing this morning also - along with estimating unemployment to be more like 20%.

T. Roosevelt in 1907 did call people of great wealth "malefactors." Beginning from his assumption should be the 'guiding light' in assessing anything happening in the financial sector.

An antitrust action against these guys would go on for years--eight to ten wouldn't surprise me. The only way to get it done in a reasonable amount of time is a "systemic risk tax" of some kind that gives them an incentive to break themselves up.

I thought that something like that was part of the administration's financial reform proposal. Regardless, we don't have much time to get it done. We just have a narrow window in which the wrath of the people will outweigh the pressue these two new behemoths can bring to bear in the collective mind of Congress.

I think pressure to reform will decrease with the unemployment rate, which puts anyone who wants reform into a morally tricky position.

Just got notified from (JP Morgan)Chase that they are raising my minimum credit card payment by 150%. Can't anything be done about these people.

Robert Reich meltdown over the actions of the president he endorsed.

Exactly how do the activities of these two banks benefit the community?

What do they manufacture. What service do they offer? What added-value to they give? Who profits other than themselves? Where do the gains come from? Playing the market? That's good for America?

Its enough to want to bring back Gorbachov or even Stalin.

Based on antitrust law, you'd have to demonstrate that these companies are "monopolizing" the industry (it's actually the act of monopolizing that is illegal and not simply being a monopoly or wielding monopoly power) or abusing their monopoly power so as to block or limit competition.

To achieve this, you'd either have to demonstrate that the firms took actions that ran counter to their shorter-term interest in maximizing their profits but served a longer-term goal of consolidating market power or that their actions were designed to inhibit the ability of competitors to enter the market or compete.

Given that the firms' new-found market power is largely the result of "tumult on the Street," it may be very difficult to establish that they are not merely acting in a manner designed to maximize profits. Raising fees, attracting talent with large pay packages and even lobbying - no matter how furious - are all legitimate, profit-maximizing actions for a firm in their very favorable market position.

I wholeheartedly agree that this kind of power is dangerous but we may have to wait for competitors to emerge before that power can be legally challenged. Thankfully, the kind of profit these firms are realizing will attract competitors so the problem will likely iron itself out.

my comment here

Remember in the first Terminator movie when despite having a horrific explosion rip the flesh off it's metalic skeleton, the Terminator just twinkled his red eyes at you and kept coming and coming and coming ....?

Well this is exactly how I feel about Goldman.

They are too big to fail and no firestorm of financial disaster can burn them out of existence. They are immortal now. Obama is afraid to take them on. They are the corporate machine that owns us all right now, making billions and billions of dollars in an otherwise completely depressed world economy.

My God, what has been created here? Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Welcome to the market, Obama (and Bush)-Style. This is the natural outcome of providing government bailouts to industry. TARP was a bad idea from the beginning...and still a bad idea when TARP was changed to provide direct investments in banks. Allowing Goldman to become a commercial bank (with discount window access) was a bad idea...bailing out GM, AIG, et al, all bad ideas.

The solution is clear -- learn from our mistakes and don't repeat them. Pull commercial bank status from Goldman...add regulation to the CDS and derivative markets...and ALLOW THESE CAPITALISTS TO SUCCEED OR FAIL ON THEIR OWN.

Did the banks pull off a bloodless coup here in the US and nobody noticed when they took over the government?

JP Morgan has $81 TRILLION in derivatives contracts, any losses of which will promptly be socialized for society to pay, while any gains will remain privatized and enjoyed by a only a few.

And yet howls echo across the land at the thought of a relatively mere 1.5 trillion to pay for healthcare reform.

It's disgusting.

Join a credit union near you today and drop off the banksters' greed grid.

As usual, Reich misses the real problem and therefore offers a solution that would leave us even worse off than before.

"Government bailout insurance" is something enjoyed by not only JPMorgan and Goldman, but Fannie, Freddie, and AIG as well. Right now the difference between Goldman and Fannie is that the taxpayer bailout of Goldman is IMPLICIT, whereas the taxpayer bailout of Fannie is EXPLICIT (thanks, Congress!). Rather than imposing a surtax, which transfers more of the nation's (and the world's) limited capital to the Washington idiots - Reich being one of them - who created the bailout insurance, let's eliminate the bailout insurance and let the greedy bankers fall on their faces. Our experience with the long list of bank failures over the past couple of years shows that the FDIC's insurance of our deposits will keep our money safe even while the executives of the banks are taking too much risk.

Another way to solve this problem without denying freedom to the average American is to stop patronizing the institutions that expect taxpayers to pay for their bad decisions AND stop voting for politicians who believe in such fairy tales as "too big to fail."