KEITH OLBERMANN: Your chances of winning the Mega Millions jackpot? One in 135 million. Your chances of Wall Street changing its tune, shirking the Republican regulation-free mantra, and embracing higher taxes for the super-wealthy? The odds sound equally absurd.
But, in our third story on the "Countdown" — following the occupation of Zuccotti Park this past fall and winter, The Wall Street Journal and JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon appear to be echoing some of Occupiers' battle cries.
Just last month, the JPMorgan Chase CEO was whining that blaming big banks for the financial collapse is "just a form of discrimination," that, in his words, "should be stopped." But, in an interview with New York Magazine, Dimon now says, "Have a higher tax rate. If you said there'd be a certain percentage rate for people making over a million dollars and a higher percentage rate for people making over $10 million, no problem with me. I don't think people should be able to pass unlimited amounts on to their kids."
Many on the right equate regulating Wall Street to suffocating the nation's big banks. But the editorial board of Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal has now joined the likes of those who say the Volcker Rule, mandated by the 2010 Dodd-Frank law, does not do enough financial oversight. The board, in an editorial last Friday, wrote, "However it is written, the Volcker Rule is a diversion from the real solutions that would protect taxpayers from a repeat. These include more careful monetary policy, which we are still not getting, less politically-directed credit creation, which is still not occurring, and a congressional plan either for allowing large banks to fail or for breaking them up, which we still don't have."
Let's bring in Paul Abrams, contributing writer who wrote this all up for the Huffington Post yesterday. Thanks for your time tonight, sir.
PAUL ABRAMS: Thank you very much for having me, Keith, and thanks to your staff. They’ve been excellent.
OLBERMANN: Great. I'm glad to hear that. Thank you. When I read your piece, I thought maybe I missed something and now April Fool's Day had been merged with President's Day. Were Dimon's comments as surprising to you as they would have been to me?
ABRAMS: They were surprising when they came out but I looked at it, as you said. I think Occupy Wall Street changed the dialogue in the country, number one.
Number two, I think that they see that there's an increasing chance that President Obama's going to be re-elected and — very much like the Mafia of old — they always bet on both sides. So I think this is — I believe that, of the things that they care about, this probably is the least important to them, taxes on the wealthy. Regulation is more important. Breaking up the banks is more important. The tax on financial transactions would be more important. So, in essence, if you think of this as one big negotiation, they're signaling that this is what's least important to them.
OLBERMANN: Well, all right. Then, this leads me in two directions. The first one being, is there any chance that Jamie Dimon or this socialist newspaper, The Wall Street Journal, actually might get some of what they want? Will anybody grab this, either of these footballs, and run with them?
ABRAMS: Well, it certainly gives a lot more cover to people in Congress, but I think that the tax issue for congressional Republicans is their brand, and so when I wrote they abandoned the Republicans, basically Jamie Dimon et al has abandoned the Republican brand because it's not the most important thing to them. As far as The Wall Street Journal is concerned, it just reminds me of John F. Kennedy's quote about Richard Nixon when he was criticized by The Wall Street Journal, when he said "It's like the Vatican City newspaper criticizing the pope."
OLBERMANN: Yeah. The other direction, did Occupy actually win something or is this just going to wind up being lip service and kind of a feel-good moment?
ABRAMS: Well, I think that there's — it's a step in the direction. I think they won something with the rhetoric. I don't suspect that inside — I don't suspect that their lobbyists will — are going to change very much, but it certainly gives, on the political front, a lot more backing to the notion that everybody basically agrees that we need to raise revenues, and the best place to do that is, number one, raising taxes on the — those who can most afford it.
OLBERMANN: The other part of this — and I read the quote from Dimon, the second part of it — in addition to the idea of a certain surcharge or some kind of growth of taxes at a million and then again at 10 million, was the other part of this, which is: "I don't think people should be able to pass unlimited amounts on to their kids." Is he going to — is the next protest group that charges Jamie Dimon's home going to be his fellow CEOs? Isn't this the essence of big money, that you should be able to give nearly all of it to your descendents?
ABRAMS: I think so, Keith, and I just think that he was recognizing a certain reality in the dialogue, and if the Occupy movement continues, if the political momentum continues to move in the direction of raising taxes and doing the things that are necessary for the government to do, such as building roads and bridges, et cetera, I think that they will have, again, indicated what their least important concern is, and they're more concerned with issues such as keeping the banks big, keeping their power and prestige, and also avoiding a tax on financial transactions.
By the way, Keith, do you know what the average time that a share is now held in the United States, a share of stock?
OLBERMANN: With the computerized —
ABRAMS: 20 —
OLBERMANN: I was going to say, must be microscopic.
ABRAMS: Twenty-four seconds.
OLBERMANN: When in doubt, get rid of it. Last thing, about —
ABRAMS: Exactly.
OLBERMANN: Relative to the Occupy message, is there anything that those people involved in that protest can take from this and say, "This is precedent? This is an M.O. for us to proceed in the future," or is this just a one-off thing?
ABRAMS: No, I think they can absolutely do it. Basically, the bully pulpit that the president has — but hasn't used that much until recently — wasn't really competitive with the right-wing media ability to get things out in many different directions. Occupy, by their actions, brought a lot of attention to what they were doing, and so everybody was talking about what they were doing, and then people started talking about what they were for. So I think they absolutely should continue what they were doing. I take my hats off to them.
OLBERMANN: Yeah, and the idea of a point of view rather than an agenda was perhaps integral to that as well. Paul Abrams, contributing writer of the Huffington Post.
ABRAMS: Yes.
OLBERMANN: Great thanks for you time. Great thanks for your assessment.
ABRAMS: Thank you very much, Keith.
OLBERMANN: Thank you.
ABRAMS: Thank you.
