ironically, from the chase department in charge of mitigated risk. my colleague, christine romans watching this hearing from her post in new york. the department that s supposed to mitigate risks made these risky trades and now he is having to answer questions. it s obvious why congress wants to know why these stupid trades were made. yeah. he says, you know what? i m not going to defend it, because it violates common sense. it shouldn t have happened. what was, maybe should have been a legitimate, bona fide macroeconomic hedge, morphed into something else, he says, and he did not defend it. talk about, you say a grilling. a civil discussion. in part because he is so contrite here. the conversation just now turning into something more about what do you think about dodd-frank and the volcker rule and new regulations he has been vocal against. but as far as that trade, he says, no, you re right. it shouldn t have happen and we re sorry for that. in particular, let me tell you
1994, when he was running against ted kennedy it was only 10,000 jobs. 10,000 jobs becomes 100,000 jobs and that happened after his watch. you can only round it up to 100,000, multiply by 10 if you take in all of those after he left. if you take in the jobs created after you left you got to take in those you lost after you left. this is such a pickle for him. he shouldn t touch it. it s a bogus statistic too. let s say staples created x number of jobs. staples also put stationery stores out of business. so you lost jobs. if you do analysis with the job picture, maybe he s lucky if it s a net wash. you can t get numbers and he throws themmous, gets shot down and 100,000 jobs lost in the auto industry t obama people came back, saying it s not true. alex right up here, guys. it s amazing that generally