Bankruptcies rising. Fed answer? More debt.

[whitehall]

Market Watch says that bankruptcies are at a 10 year low.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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

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.

I often wonder if the government copies the people or if the people copy the government.

The government is bringing in money hand over fist and is adding debt at close to record levels.

The same thing is happening in the private sector, despite the booming economy and good jobs to be found, private debt is through the roof.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Market Watch says that bankruptcies are at a 10 year low.

 

[OnePercenter]

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

Easy fix, don't spend more than you make.

Since costs are increasing much more than salaries that's easier said than done.

 

[OnePercenter]

Market Watch says that bankruptcies are at a 10 year low.

Since rules established under baby bushes rein make it harder for consumers to file, I'm not surprised.

The New Bankruptcy Law: Changes to Chapter 7 and 13

 

[OnePercenter]

Corporate debt could be the next sub-prime crisis, warns banking body

He said the demands of investors for higher returns had pushed finance companies increasingly to lend money to firms with poor credit scores.

But it's the fault of people wanting to go to college I suppose. The Fed seems to want to make the requirements even more lax.

I've been telling you guys for years that the trouble with the economy is investors. Walmart knows this, which is why they tried to take their company private. Unfortunately for Walmart was the payback subsidies requirement.

 

[Thinker101]

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

Easy fix, don't spend more than you make.

Since costs are increasing much more than salaries that's easier said than done.

Yep, we know how iPhones, Starbucks and high speed internet is a life necessity for some of you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Without any rules or conditions on that money they were given.

Ummmm...they had to pay a 5% dividend and the Treasury got warrants.

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

Rules and conditions? Like what?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

No, I'm shocked we would let them. They also only want to make it easier because they believe with justification that when things go bad the taxpayers will be forced to step in again.

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!

What they want is not the issue.

Depends on what you mean by forced. If you mean that politicians believing they are saving the economy will give away tax money... yes. If you mean that without that, the economy will implode, then no.

There is no evidence at all, that government saved the economy in 2008. There is tons of evidence that we gave away tons of money to bankers, without purpose or value.

Again... we don't have to let them. Stop borrowing money. I don't borrow money.

There is tons of evidence that we gave away tons of money to bankers, without purpose or value.

"Gave away"?
Weird description for loans that made the US Treasury $10s of billions in profit.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

No they do not. And they paid back all of TARP plus interest

Nope. Verification posted.

Bank of America didn’t pay back TARP? LOL

Not the argument. If you want to take the time to read the thread and my argument and then reply, great.

If have no need to reply to something that wasn't even my argument.

But since you brought them up.

Matt Taibbi on Bank of America: Too Crooked to Fail

Bank of America should have told the government to go fuck themselves instead of agreeing to buy Countrywide. Worst purchase ever.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Corporate debt could be the next sub-prime crisis, warns banking body

He said the demands of investors for higher returns had pushed finance companies increasingly to lend money to firms with poor credit scores.

But it's the fault of people wanting to go to college I suppose. The Fed seems to want to make the requirements even more lax.

I've been telling you guys for years that the trouble with the economy is investors. Walmart knows this, which is why they tried to take their company private. Unfortunately for Walmart was the payback subsidies requirement.

Walmart knows this, which is why they tried to take their company private.

You're lying, again.

Tell me again that the Walton's own the transportation division of WalMart.

That one never gets old.

Unfortunately for Walmart was the payback subsidies requirement.

No such thing.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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

No they do not. And they paid back all of TARP plus interest

Nope. Verification posted.

Bank of America didn’t pay back TARP? LOL

Not the argument. If you want to take the time to read the thread and my argument and then reply, great.

If have no need to reply to something that wasn't even my argument.

But since you brought them up.

Matt Taibbi on Bank of America: Too Crooked to Fail

Bank of America should have told the government to go fuck themselves instead of agreeing to buy Countrywide. Worst purchase ever.

Yep!!! But they got a gift with ML

 

[pknopp]

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

No they do not. And they paid back all of TARP plus interest

Nope. Verification posted.

Bank of America didn’t pay back TARP? LOL

Not the argument. If you want to take the time to read the thread and my argument and then reply, great.

If have no need to reply to something that wasn't even my argument.

But since you brought them up.

Matt Taibbi on Bank of America: Too Crooked to Fail

Bank of America should have told the government to go fuck themselves instead of agreeing to buy Countrywide. Worst purchase ever.

The dealings behind the scene would be interesting. As I noted with my link earlier, BoA was gave virtual impunity for any law they wanted to break after that.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

No they do not. And they paid back all of TARP plus interest

Nope. Verification posted.

Bank of America didn’t pay back TARP? LOL

Not the argument. If you want to take the time to read the thread and my argument and then reply, great.

If have no need to reply to something that wasn't even my argument.

But since you brought them up.

Matt Taibbi on Bank of America: Too Crooked to Fail

Bank of America should have told the government to go fuck themselves instead of agreeing to buy Countrywide. Worst purchase ever.

The dealings behind the scene would be interesting. As I noted with my link earlier, BoA was gave virtual impunity for any law they wanted to break after that.

You should watch Too Big to Fail. Entertaining and has some truth to it.

 

[Denizen]

Perhaps Uncle Sam needs rescue by Russian Oligarchs like Donald Trump did.

Is the USA following the Trump casino path to bankruptcy?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Perhaps Uncle Sam needs rescue by Russian Oligarchs like Donald Trump did.

Is the USA following the Trump casino path to bankruptcy?

They gave Hillary $145 million and she still lost.

 

[Dana7360]

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.

No, he made things even worse. He made "Too Big To Fail" institutionalized with Dodd/Frank. He made the bankers feel secure that no matter what they do, they will get away with it when he failed to prosecute even one (unlike the promises he made).

Ben Bernanke failed in epic proportions and then Obama renominated him. How does one do that?

I just stated what he did.

You believe it made things worse. In some ways it did. In other ways things got better.

A lot of Frank/Dodd has been repealed. Including not bailing big business and banks out.

No true. I'll not continue until you post something that backs this up.

Here you go:

Trump signs the biggest rollback of bank rules since the financial crisis

All but the largest banks are affected by this. The largest banks still have to follow Frank/Dodd.

That does nothing about institutionalizing Too Big to Fail.

The damage had already been done. A large portion of smaller banks had already been gobbled up by the bigger banks. Nothing was done to simply allow banks to fail if they fail.

That is new legislation that removed a lot of the Frank/Dodd legislation. It didn't remove it for the big banks. So small and medium size banks will become risky because they don't have to follow the same rules big banks have to follow.

No it doesn't do anything about too big to fail. Do you really think that any republican is going to allow anything to be done about that? That legislation was written and signed in 2018. By the republican controlled congress and trump signing it.

Even if democrats tried to fix the problem of too big to fail, the republicans in the senate will filibuster it so it will die in the senate. The only way we will get any meaningful rules for big banks and wall street is to have a very different congress and president from what we have now.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, he made things even worse. He made "Too Big To Fail" institutionalized with Dodd/Frank. He made the bankers feel secure that no matter what they do, they will get away with it when he failed to prosecute even one (unlike the promises he made).

Ben Bernanke failed in epic proportions and then Obama renominated him. How does one do that?

I just stated what he did.

You believe it made things worse. In some ways it did. In other ways things got better.

A lot of Frank/Dodd has been repealed. Including not bailing big business and banks out.

No true. I'll not continue until you post something that backs this up.

Here you go:

Trump signs the biggest rollback of bank rules since the financial crisis

All but the largest banks are affected by this. The largest banks still have to follow Frank/Dodd.

That does nothing about institutionalizing Too Big to Fail.

The damage had already been done. A large portion of smaller banks had already been gobbled up by the bigger banks. Nothing was done to simply allow banks to fail if they fail.

That is new legislation that removed a lot of the Frank/Dodd legislation. It didn't remove it for the big banks. So small and medium size banks will become risky because they don't have to follow the same rules big banks have to follow.

No it doesn't do anything about too big to fail. Do you really think that any republican is going to allow anything to be done about that? That legislation was written and signed in 2018. By the republican controlled congress and trump signing it.

Even if democrats tried to fix the problem of too big to fail, the republicans in the senate will filibuster it so it will die in the senate. The only way we will get any meaningful rules for big banks and wall street is to have a very different congress and president from what we have now.

That is new legislation that removed a lot of the Frank/Dodd legislation.

Should have removed all of it.

So small and medium size banks will become risky because they don't have to follow the same rules big banks have to follow.

Did you ever think that added paperwork and compliance expense could make small and medium seize banks more risky?

 

[pknopp]

No, he made things even worse. He made "Too Big To Fail" institutionalized with Dodd/Frank. He made the bankers feel secure that no matter what they do, they will get away with it when he failed to prosecute even one (unlike the promises he made).

Ben Bernanke failed in epic proportions and then Obama renominated him. How does one do that?

I just stated what he did.

You believe it made things worse. In some ways it did. In other ways things got better.

A lot of Frank/Dodd has been repealed. Including not bailing big business and banks out.

No true. I'll not continue until you post something that backs this up.

Here you go:

Trump signs the biggest rollback of bank rules since the financial crisis

All but the largest banks are affected by this. The largest banks still have to follow Frank/Dodd.

That does nothing about institutionalizing Too Big to Fail.

The damage had already been done. A large portion of smaller banks had already been gobbled up by the bigger banks. Nothing was done to simply allow banks to fail if they fail.

That is new legislation that removed a lot of the Frank/Dodd legislation. It didn't remove it for the big banks. So small and medium size banks will become risky because they don't have to follow the same rules big banks have to follow.

No it doesn't do anything about too big to fail. Do you really think that any republican is going to allow anything to be done about that? That legislation was written and signed in 2018. By the republican controlled congress and trump signing it.

Why blame Republicans for something Democrats did? No, Republicans didn't fix it but really, that should be our expectation?

Even if democrats tried to fix the problem of too big to fail, the republicans in the senate will filibuster it so it will die in the senate. The only way we will get any meaningful rules for big banks and wall street is to have a very different congress and president from what we have now.

Democrats created the mess to start with.

 

[sparky]

Such is the economic cycle, but that's why many are expecting a slowdown in early to mid 2020.

It's who gets a chair when the music stops that's distressing

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

Government IS the problem

Is the USA following the Trump casino path to bankruptcy?

Wall Streets prodigal son's entire modus operandi predicates itself on the losers it can assume

~S~