Bankruptcies rising. Fed answer? More debt.

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're wrong. Again. Their balance sheet shows the amount they lent.
The claim that they lent a lot of "free money" is just wrong.
After a few months of QE, the banks were lending the Fed huge amounts of (almost) free money.

If that was true they would allow an independent audit.

The Fed is audited every year.
Just because you don't understand what audit means doesn't mean they don't happen.

Here's 2018

Federal Reserve Board - Federal Reserve System Audited Annual Financial Statements

.............. the Federal Reserve Transparency Act (H.R. 459), which will force the Federal Reserve Bank to open its books to independent auditors for the first time.

DeFazio Fights for First Ever Audit of the Federal Reserve *Video and Audio Available*

Wait, you've posted proof that a Congressman is ignorant of the facts?

I'll bet that's the first time that ever happened...….LOL!

Seems to be a bipartisan ignorance.

American taxpayers deserve an audit of the Federal Reserve

I agree, assclown politicians on both sides are ignorant of much of banking, finance and the Fed.

 

[NightFox]

Then we read that the Fed is considering that the solution to debt getting out of control is loosening banks ability to create more debt.

Now, some Fed officials are debating whether it is time to use the tool, which could provide banks with additional lending firepower in a subsequent downturn. It isn’t clear when they might make a decision.

Fed Considers New Tool for a Downturn

I could be wrong but I suspect you're reading of this is backwards since the idea of the Countercyclical capital buffer would be to force banks with $250 billion or more in assets to hold more capital during up cycle times (like now), so that they'll have more capital to absorb losses (and lend) during the down cycle. I think what the Fed is considering here is raising capital requirements via the CCCB (i.e. tightening) in anticipation of a downturn.

 

[pknopp]

No they weren't. You bought the lies. Tarp was paid back by other government programs like Harp.

Give Wall Street 5 billion. Tell them they have to pay it. Give them 5 billion more that they pay the first 5 billion with but there is no requirement to pay this money back.

That is what happened.

The “TARP is turning a profit” claim is hardly new. In the past, proponents have looked at the $211.5 billion repaid from the Capital Purchase Program (the first phase of TARP) on $204.9 billion loaned out and concluded that a nearly $7 billion profit was yielded. Mark Gongloff at the Huffington Post pointed out that the problem here isn’t inflation but the fact that nearly half of those funds were repaid with funds that come from loans from other government programs.

Overselling TARP: The Myth of the $15 Billion Profit | National Review

(to note, not a left leaning source)

It’s the usual Conservative, “Gee, I could have made even more money if only...”, opinion piece.

That's an interesting spin. It's a Conservative site that uses in part research by the "left".

It’s a Conservative site that has as much credence for me as a Progressive site.
I read the entire opinion piece.

I understand......if it doesn't fit your argument it holds no sway on you.

Not at all; I’m not an ideologue.
Both sides are insane.
I have already stated what the article concludes...the money could have earned better returns.

No, it argues that those who argue that we made money ignore all the other money pumped into the system outside of TARP.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Then we read that the Fed is considering that the solution to debt getting out of control is loosening banks ability to create more debt.

Now, some Fed officials are debating whether it is time to use the tool, which could provide banks with additional lending firepower in a subsequent downturn. It isn’t clear when they might make a decision.

Fed Considers New Tool for a Downturn

I could be wrong but I suspect you're reading of this is backwards since the idea of the Countercyclical capital buffer would be to force banks with $250 billion or more in assets to hold more capital during up cycle times (like now), so that they'll have more capital to absorb losses (and lend) during the down cycle. I think what the Fed is considering here is raising capital requirements via the CCCB (i.e. tightening) in anticipation of a downturn.

force banks with $250 billion or more in assets to hold more capital during up cycle times (like now), so that they'll have more capital to absorb losses (and lend) during the down cycle.

And lower capital requirements during a downturn.

 

[Indeependent]

It’s the usual Conservative, “Gee, I could have made even more money if only...”, opinion piece.

That's an interesting spin. It's a Conservative site that uses in part research by the "left".

It’s a Conservative site that has as much credence for me as a Progressive site.
I read the entire opinion piece.

I understand......if it doesn't fit your argument it holds no sway on you.

Not at all; I’m not an ideologue.
Both sides are insane.
I have already stated what the article concludes...the money could have earned better returns.

No, it argues that those who argue that we made money ignore all the other money pumped into the system outside of TARP.

That’s the first half of the article that concludes the money would have better returns elsewhere.
My mind converts articles into flowcharts.
The narrative and the conclusion are clear.

 

[pknopp]

Then we read that the Fed is considering that the solution to debt getting out of control is loosening banks ability to create more debt.

Now, some Fed officials are debating whether it is time to use the tool, which could provide banks with additional lending firepower in a subsequent downturn. It isn’t clear when they might make a decision.

Fed Considers New Tool for a Downturn

I could be wrong but I suspect you're reading of this is backwards since the idea of the Countercyclical capital buffer would be to force banks with $250 billion or more in assets to hold more capital during up cycle times (like now), so that they'll have more capital to absorb losses (and lend) during the down cycle. I think what the Fed is considering here is raising capital requirements via the CCCB (i.e. tightening) in anticipation of a downturn.

Yes that is what we required of the banks. Now the Fed is considering loosening those requirements. Allowing more debt because we are already so far in debt it's starting to drag things down.

 

[NightFox]

Then we read that the Fed is considering that the solution to debt getting out of control is loosening banks ability to create more debt.

Now, some Fed officials are debating whether it is time to use the tool, which could provide banks with additional lending firepower in a subsequent downturn. It isn’t clear when they might make a decision.

Fed Considers New Tool for a Downturn

I could be wrong but I suspect you're reading of this is backwards since the idea of the Countercyclical capital buffer would be to force banks with $250 billion or more in assets to hold more capital during up cycle times (like now), so that they'll have more capital to absorb losses (and lend) during the down cycle. I think what the Fed is considering here is raising capital requirements via the CCCB (i.e. tightening) in anticipation of a downturn.

force banks with $250 billion or more in assets to hold more capital during up cycle times (like now), so that they'll have more capital to absorb losses (and lend) during the down cycle.

And lower capital requirements during a downturn.

Yes, exactly, which makes perfect sense, having a capital buffer doesn't really help if the banks can never use it.

 

[pknopp]

That's an interesting spin. It's a Conservative site that uses in part research by the "left".

It’s a Conservative site that has as much credence for me as a Progressive site.
I read the entire opinion piece.

I understand......if it doesn't fit your argument it holds no sway on you.

Not at all; I’m not an ideologue.
Both sides are insane.
I have already stated what the article concludes...the money could have earned better returns.

No, it argues that those who argue that we made money ignore all the other money pumped into the system outside of TARP.

That’s the first half of the article that concludes the money would have better returns elsewhere.
My mind converts articles into flowcharts.
The narrative and the conclusion are clear.

The first part argued inflation but then argued the reasons why we lost money. You can't read a 1/4 of the article and then claim that is all the article is. Well, you obviously can if that fits your political narrative.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

So the news out today is that bankruptcies are on the rise. Debt is getting out of control once again.

https://nypost.com/2019/08/11/bankruptcy-filings-rising-across-the-country-and-it-could-get-worse/

Then we read that the Fed is considering that the solution to debt getting out of control is loosening banks ability to create more debt.

Now, some Fed officials are debating whether it is time to use the tool, which could provide banks with additional lending firepower in a subsequent downturn. It isn’t clear when they might make a decision.

Fed Considers New Tool for a Downturn

Banks don’t hold guns to people’s heads. It’s their choice whether to borrow or not.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Then we read that the Fed is considering that the solution to debt getting out of control is loosening banks ability to create more debt.

Now, some Fed officials are debating whether it is time to use the tool, which could provide banks with additional lending firepower in a subsequent downturn. It isn’t clear when they might make a decision.

Fed Considers New Tool for a Downturn

I could be wrong but I suspect you're reading of this is backwards since the idea of the Countercyclical capital buffer would be to force banks with $250 billion or more in assets to hold more capital during up cycle times (like now), so that they'll have more capital to absorb losses (and lend) during the down cycle. I think what the Fed is considering here is raising capital requirements via the CCCB (i.e. tightening) in anticipation of a downturn.

force banks with $250 billion or more in assets to hold more capital during up cycle times (like now), so that they'll have more capital to absorb losses (and lend) during the down cycle.

And lower capital requirements during a downturn.

Yes, exactly, which makes perfect sense, having a capital buffer doesn't really help if the banks can never use it.

Obama and the Fed forced much higher capital requirements and couldn't figure out why the banks weren't lending more.

 

[Indeependent]

It’s a Conservative site that has as much credence for me as a Progressive site.
I read the entire opinion piece.

I understand......if it doesn't fit your argument it holds no sway on you.

Not at all; I’m not an ideologue.
Both sides are insane.
I have already stated what the article concludes...the money could have earned better returns.

No, it argues that those who argue that we made money ignore all the other money pumped into the system outside of TARP.

That’s the first half of the article that concludes the money would have better returns elsewhere.
My mind converts articles into flowcharts.
The narrative and the conclusion are clear.

The first part argued inflation but then argued the reasons why we lost money. You can't read a 1/4 of the article and then claim that is all the article is. Well, you obviously can if that fits your political narrative.

I read the entire article.

 

[pknopp]

So the news out today is that bankruptcies are on the rise. Debt is getting out of control once again.

https://nypost.com/2019/08/11/bankruptcy-filings-rising-across-the-country-and-it-could-get-worse/

Then we read that the Fed is considering that the solution to debt getting out of control is loosening banks ability to create more debt.

Now, some Fed officials are debating whether it is time to use the tool, which could provide banks with additional lending firepower in a subsequent downturn. It isn’t clear when they might make a decision.

Fed Considers New Tool for a Downturn

Banks don’t hold guns to people’s heads. It’s their choice whether to borrow or not.

Banks do demand that taxpayers bail them out when those loans go bad.

 

[pknopp]

Then we read that the Fed is considering that the solution to debt getting out of control is loosening banks ability to create more debt.

Now, some Fed officials are debating whether it is time to use the tool, which could provide banks with additional lending firepower in a subsequent downturn. It isn’t clear when they might make a decision.

Fed Considers New Tool for a Downturn

I could be wrong but I suspect you're reading of this is backwards since the idea of the Countercyclical capital buffer would be to force banks with $250 billion or more in assets to hold more capital during up cycle times (like now), so that they'll have more capital to absorb losses (and lend) during the down cycle. I think what the Fed is considering here is raising capital requirements via the CCCB (i.e. tightening) in anticipation of a downturn.

force banks with $250 billion or more in assets to hold more capital during up cycle times (like now), so that they'll have more capital to absorb losses (and lend) during the down cycle.

And lower capital requirements during a downturn.

Yes, exactly, which makes perfect sense, having a capital buffer doesn't really help if the banks can never use it.

Obama and the Fed forced much higher capital requirements and couldn't figure out why the banks weren't lending more.

The argument is that we are drowning in debt. More debt would solve that?

 

[pknopp]

I understand......if it doesn't fit your argument it holds no sway on you.

Not at all; I’m not an ideologue.
Both sides are insane.
I have already stated what the article concludes...the money could have earned better returns.

No, it argues that those who argue that we made money ignore all the other money pumped into the system outside of TARP.

That’s the first half of the article that concludes the money would have better returns elsewhere.
My mind converts articles into flowcharts.
The narrative and the conclusion are clear.

The first part argued inflation but then argued the reasons why we lost money. You can't read a 1/4 of the article and then claim that is all the article is. Well, you obviously can if that fits your political narrative.

I read the entire article.

But only commented on a 1/4 of it.

 

[NightFox]

Then we read that the Fed is considering that the solution to debt getting out of control is loosening banks ability to create more debt.

Now, some Fed officials are debating whether it is time to use the tool, which could provide banks with additional lending firepower in a subsequent downturn. It isn’t clear when they might make a decision.

Fed Considers New Tool for a Downturn

I could be wrong but I suspect you're reading of this is backwards since the idea of the Countercyclical capital buffer would be to force banks with $250 billion or more in assets to hold more capital during up cycle times (like now), so that they'll have more capital to absorb losses (and lend) during the down cycle. I think what the Fed is considering here is raising capital requirements via the CCCB (i.e. tightening) in anticipation of a downturn.

Yes that is what we required of the banks. Now the Fed is considering loosening those requirements. Allowing more debt because we are already so far in debt it's starting to drag things down.

Like I said I think you might be reading this wrong, if I'm not mistaken the CCCB has never been used (since it was approved in 2016) so there is no way to loosen using that tool (right now), I think the idea the fed is kicking around is to use it to tighten lending so that the banks have a capital buffer during the next downturn.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Then we read that the Fed is considering that the solution to debt getting out of control is loosening banks ability to create more debt.

Now, some Fed officials are debating whether it is time to use the tool, which could provide banks with additional lending firepower in a subsequent downturn. It isn’t clear when they might make a decision.

Fed Considers New Tool for a Downturn

I could be wrong but I suspect you're reading of this is backwards since the idea of the Countercyclical capital buffer would be to force banks with $250 billion or more in assets to hold more capital during up cycle times (like now), so that they'll have more capital to absorb losses (and lend) during the down cycle. I think what the Fed is considering here is raising capital requirements via the CCCB (i.e. tightening) in anticipation of a downturn.

force banks with $250 billion or more in assets to hold more capital during up cycle times (like now), so that they'll have more capital to absorb losses (and lend) during the down cycle.

And lower capital requirements during a downturn.

Yes, exactly, which makes perfect sense, having a capital buffer doesn't really help if the banks can never use it.

Obama and the Fed forced much higher capital requirements and couldn't figure out why the banks weren't lending more.

The argument is that we are drowning in debt. More debt would solve that?

The argument is that we are drowning in debt.

Silly argument.

More debt would solve that?

Lower capital requirements during a downturn would allow more lending.
Are you arguing that banks should cut off all new lending during a downturn?

 

[Indeependent]

Not at all; I’m not an ideologue.
Both sides are insane.
I have already stated what the article concludes...the money could have earned better returns.

No, it argues that those who argue that we made money ignore all the other money pumped into the system outside of TARP.

That’s the first half of the article that concludes the money would have better returns elsewhere.
My mind converts articles into flowcharts.
The narrative and the conclusion are clear.

The first part argued inflation but then argued the reasons why we lost money. You can't read a 1/4 of the article and then claim that is all the article is. Well, you obviously can if that fits your political narrative.

I read the entire article.

But only commented on a 1/4 of it.

I suggest you search for the word “paltry”.
The article ain’t that long.

 

[Andylusion]

So the news out today is that bankruptcies are on the rise. Debt is getting out of control once again.

https://nypost.com/2019/08/11/bankruptcy-filings-rising-across-the-country-and-it-could-get-worse/

Then we read that the Fed is considering that the solution to debt getting out of control is loosening banks ability to create more debt.

Now, some Fed officials are debating whether it is time to use the tool, which could provide banks with additional lending firepower in a subsequent downturn. It isn’t clear when they might make a decision.

Fed Considers New Tool for a Downturn

I think the real answer is to teach people to not borrow money. Why do you keep looking to government to solve these problems?

Me?

If a person borrows money until they are bankrupt, there is nothing the Fed can do to change that. That person needs to stop spending more money than they make. That is the only solution.

The Fed is arguing to make it easier for them to do that.

Well of course.

If people are denied a loan, they scream at government, and the Feds get their money and power from government. Don't piss off the person that signs your check.

At the same time, are you shocked that people who live their lives in banking.... want to make it easier to borrow?

If there was a Department of Federal Auto, and they said "we want to make it easier to sell autos"... there's a shocker.

A bunch of bankers want to make it easier for people to give their money to banks. Crazy!

 

[pknopp]

Then we read that the Fed is considering that the solution to debt getting out of control is loosening banks ability to create more debt.

Now, some Fed officials are debating whether it is time to use the tool, which could provide banks with additional lending firepower in a subsequent downturn. It isn’t clear when they might make a decision.

Fed Considers New Tool for a Downturn

I could be wrong but I suspect you're reading of this is backwards since the idea of the Countercyclical capital buffer would be to force banks with $250 billion or more in assets to hold more capital during up cycle times (like now), so that they'll have more capital to absorb losses (and lend) during the down cycle. I think what the Fed is considering here is raising capital requirements via the CCCB (i.e. tightening) in anticipation of a downturn.

Yes that is what we required of the banks. Now the Fed is considering loosening those requirements. Allowing more debt because we are already so far in debt it's starting to drag things down.

Like I said I think you might be reading this wrong, if I'm not mistaken the CCCB has never been used (since it was approved in 2016) so there is no way to loosen using that tool (right now), I think the idea the fed is kicking around is to use it to tighten lending so that the banks have a capital buffer during the next downturn.

It hasn't been used. It states that right in the article. The drag of all our debt is what is going to cause the downturn and the Fed wants banks to add to that debt in a downturn.

Now, some Fed officials are debating whether it is time to use the tool, which could provide banks with additional lending firepower in a subsequent downturn.

 

[Dana7360]

And when higher rates cause the economy to slow and jobs to be lost our Pknopps will whine about that. The Fed's job is to regulate the money supply to keep growth ahead of inflation. They seem to be doing pretty well.

Lefties NEVER consider even the most likely results of the economic policies they promote because they don't understand economics.

Lefties NEVER consider even the most likely results of the economic policies they promote because they don't understand economics.

Truer words were never spoken.

pk is concerned his portfolio will be adversely affected by a crash.

I'm concerned that the taxpayers will be responsible for bailing out Wall Street again.

Too Big To Fail...

Unfortunately. Another example where Obama failed.

The banks and Wall Street were bailed out by the bush boy. Without any rules or conditions on that money they were given.

Obama was elected. He bailed out the car companies and put rules or conditions on the bailout for the banks and Wall Street.