Jamie Dimon, man of the people?

No. Definitely not. Dimon personifies American banking in a way unseen since his firm’s namesake lorded it over America in and around the country’s last Gilded Age.

Insulated from it by dint of billions though he is, Dimon still understands that Wall Street isn’t Main Street. That in fact, there’s an objective reality behind the financialized abstraction. But judging by the dismissive cadence he employed while musing off-the-cuff about the September Fed meeting, he’s unavoidably out of touch with that reality — and with the teeming masses who comprise it.

“It’s s a minor thing when the Fed’s raising rates and lowering rates because underneath that there’s a real economy,” Dimon said this week, at a Georgetown event which bills itself as a forum “for policymakers, regulators, C-suite, institutional [investors] and private equity.” Dimon went on: “People overly focus on, ‘are we going to have a soft landing, a hard landing?’ Honestly, most of us have been through all that stuff, it doesn’t matter as much.”

While conceding the distinct possibility that I’m taking Jamie out of context, allow me to say, as someone who isn’t exactly “Main Street” but who’s much closer to Main Street than to whatever street Dimon lives on these days, that it does matter for the underlying “real economy” whether the Fed ultimately pulls off a soft landing or misses the runway.

When Dimon referred to “us,” he presumably meant the C-suite, institutional investors and the private equity set. For that crowd, it really “doesn’t matter as much,” because in a pinch, they can always sell a piece of art or a car from the fleet to raise a few million. For everybody else, it’s — umm — not that simple.

Where Dimon’s right, though, is in suggesting that the 25 versus 50 debate as it relates specifically to this week’s FOMC meeting doesn’t so much matter. Ironically, that distinction — 25 versus 50 in September — matters more for Wall Street because, irony atop irony, people who don’t live on Main Street and thereby have no conception of it, imagine that 50 today versus 25 today reduces the risk of a hard landing for regular people, and that’s a tradable nuance.

Ray Dalio gets it. Sort of. As much as someone with Ray’s net worth (which is multiples of Dimon’s) can get it. He weighed in on the Fed during a wide-ranging interview with Bloomberg TV’s Haslinda Amin, who’s hanging out at a Milken event in Singapore this week.

Ray fancies himself a kind of pedagogical historian in semi-retirement. Everything he says is couched in wide-lens terminology, which he imagines is befitting of his pretensions to philosophical profundity: “The creditors,” “the debtors,” “the principles,” “the timeless and universal mechanics of money and debt cycles,” to borrow the title of an e-mail blast he sent out to tens of thousands of followers a couple of years ago.

Oratorial grandiosity aside, I’d venture that Ray actually does care what happens on Main Street, and maybe even as much as he does about what happens on Wall Street. Indeed, if you push him, as Joe Kernen once did, he’ll flat out indict American-style capitalism as a failing system on live television.

So, you can generally trust Ray when he says, as he did while chatting with Amin, that the size of this week’s Fed cut is irrelevant. For everybody. “I think it’s such a silly bet –” he marveled, shaking his head. “Like why — 25 or 50? — it doesn’t make a difference.”

Dimon concurs. Wednesday’s Fed decision is “not going to be earth-shattering,” he shrugged, at the Georgetown conference.

In his dialogue with Amin, Ray took the opportunity to critique society. “I think that’s the problem with the news cycle,” he chided, of wall-to-wall “25 versus 50” coverage. The media and, by extension, the public which relies on the media to stay informed, is “losing [sight] of the bigger picture.” This is simple, Dalio suggested. “The Fed has to keep interest rates high enough to satisfy the creditors that they are going to get a real return without having them so high that the debtors have a problem.”