Bankruptcies rising. Fed answer? More debt.

[pknopp]

Banks have no obligation to make people more fiscally responsible

The people should have had no responsibility to have bailed them out.

Exactly!
The people would have been much better off if 30% of banks had failed.....like in the Great Depression....wait, what?

Voids are always filled.

In the meantime, the bailout changes from TARP to FDIC.

That's the plan. We will have to wait and see what actually happens.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Banks have no obligation to make people more fiscally responsible

The people should have had no responsibility to have bailed them out.

Exactly!
The people would have been much better off if 30% of banks had failed.....like in the Great Depression....wait, what?

Voids are always filled.

In the meantime, the bailout changes from TARP to FDIC.

That's the plan. We will have to wait and see what actually happens.

FDIC losses and massive disruptions versus TARP? Not the best plan.

 

[pknopp]

The people should have had no responsibility to have bailed them out.

Exactly!
The people would have been much better off if 30% of banks had failed.....like in the Great Depression....wait, what?

Voids are always filled.

In the meantime, the bailout changes from TARP to FDIC.

That's the plan. We will have to wait and see what actually happens.

FDIC losses and massive disruptions versus TARP? Not the best plan.

No, not at all. Shouldn't this be where I point out that Capitalism is the best plan? Do you disagree? Or is Capitalism the greatest economic system except when it isn't?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Exactly!
The people would have been much better off if 30% of banks had failed.....like in the Great Depression....wait, what?

Voids are always filled.

In the meantime, the bailout changes from TARP to FDIC.

That's the plan. We will have to wait and see what actually happens.

FDIC losses and massive disruptions versus TARP? Not the best plan.

No, not at all. Shouldn't this be where I point out that Capitalism is the best plan? Do you disagree? Or is Capitalism the greatest economic system except when it isn't?

Capitalism is awesome!!
And yet, sometimes, you need a lender of last resort.

 

[pknopp]

Voids are always filled.

In the meantime, the bailout changes from TARP to FDIC.

That's the plan. We will have to wait and see what actually happens.

FDIC losses and massive disruptions versus TARP? Not the best plan.

No, not at all. Shouldn't this be where I point out that Capitalism is the best plan? Do you disagree? Or is Capitalism the greatest economic system except when it isn't?

Capitalism is awesome!!
And yet, sometimes, you need a lender of last resort.

Right, Capitalism is awesome except when it fails.

Voids are always filled.

In the meantime, the bailout changes from TARP to FDIC.

That's the plan. We will have to wait and see what actually happens.

FDIC losses and massive disruptions versus TARP? Not the best plan.

No, not at all. Shouldn't this be where I point out that Capitalism is the best plan? Do you disagree? Or is Capitalism the greatest economic system except when it isn't?

Capitalism is awesome!!
And yet, sometimes, you need a lender of last resort.

Right, Capitalism is awesome except for when it fails.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In the meantime, the bailout changes from TARP to FDIC.

That's the plan. We will have to wait and see what actually happens.

FDIC losses and massive disruptions versus TARP? Not the best plan.

No, not at all. Shouldn't this be where I point out that Capitalism is the best plan? Do you disagree? Or is Capitalism the greatest economic system except when it isn't?

Capitalism is awesome!!
And yet, sometimes, you need a lender of last resort.

Right, Capitalism is awesome except when it fails.

In the meantime, the bailout changes from TARP to FDIC.

That's the plan. We will have to wait and see what actually happens.

FDIC losses and massive disruptions versus TARP? Not the best plan.

No, not at all. Shouldn't this be where I point out that Capitalism is the best plan? Do you disagree? Or is Capitalism the greatest economic system except when it isn't?

Capitalism is awesome!!
And yet, sometimes, you need a lender of last resort.

Right, Capitalism is awesome except for when it fails.

Capitalism fails when there is a smash? LOL!
People are afraid to lend during a panic.....true story.
That's not a failure of capitalism, that's human nature.

Human nature isn't a problem under other economic systems, eh?

 

[Dana7360]

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.

Because it wasn't democrats who wrote that legislation. They were in the minority at the time. The republicans controlled both chambers of the congress and the White House. That bill was written, passed and signed into law in 2018 by republicans.

Democrats didn't start the mess. Clinton left a balanced budget with a surplus. The bush boy destroyed it with his first budget. He cut taxes too much and removed too many very necessary regulations.

Clinton did sign a republican bill that removed proper regulation on banks and lending institutions. The repeal of Glass/Stegal never should have happened. Clinton was wrong to sign that legislation though signing it wouldn't have stopped it. It had a veto proof majority. The legislation was written by republicans, they controlled both chambers of the congress at the time.

It wasn't only the democrats who caused the mess of the bush boy years. In fact, most of the responsibility for that mess falls directly on the shoulders of the republicans. Democrats didn't deregulate and cut taxes in the bush boy years. The bush boy and his republican congress did it.

 

[pknopp]

That's the plan. We will have to wait and see what actually happens.

FDIC losses and massive disruptions versus TARP? Not the best plan.

No, not at all. Shouldn't this be where I point out that Capitalism is the best plan? Do you disagree? Or is Capitalism the greatest economic system except when it isn't?

Capitalism is awesome!!
And yet, sometimes, you need a lender of last resort.

Right, Capitalism is awesome except when it fails.

That's the plan. We will have to wait and see what actually happens.

FDIC losses and massive disruptions versus TARP? Not the best plan.

No, not at all. Shouldn't this be where I point out that Capitalism is the best plan? Do you disagree? Or is Capitalism the greatest economic system except when it isn't?

Capitalism is awesome!!
And yet, sometimes, you need a lender of last resort.

Right, Capitalism is awesome except for when it fails.

Capitalism fails when there is a smash? LOL!
People are afraid to lend during a panic.....true story.
That's not a failure of capitalism, that's human nature.

Human nature isn't a problem under other economic systems, eh?

People are not afraid to lend. People are afraid to borrow.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Because it wasn't democrats who wrote that legislation. They were in the minority at the time. The republicans controlled both chambers of the congress and the White House. That bill was written, passed and signed into law in 2018 by republicans.

Democrats didn't start the mess. Clinton left a balanced budget with a surplus. The bush boy destroyed it with his first budget. He cut taxes too much and removed too many very necessary regulations.

Clinton did sign a republican bill that removed proper regulation on banks and lending institutions. The repeal of Glass/Stegal never should have happened. Clinton was wrong to sign that legislation though signing it wouldn't have stopped it. It had a veto proof majority. The legislation was written by republicans, they controlled both chambers of the congress at the time.

It wasn't only the democrats who caused the mess of the bush boy years. In fact, most of the responsibility for that mess falls directly on the shoulders of the republicans. Democrats didn't deregulate and cut taxes in the bush boy years. The bush boy and his republican congress did it.

Democrats didn't start the mess.

Clinton didn't tell HUD to mandate Fannie and Freddie make half their mortgage buys subprime mortgages?

He cut taxes too much and removed too many very necessary regulations.

Which ones? Got a list?

The repeal of Glass/Stegal never should have happened.

Glass-Steagall didn't prevent banks from writing, or buying, crappy mortgages.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

FDIC losses and massive disruptions versus TARP? Not the best plan.

No, not at all. Shouldn't this be where I point out that Capitalism is the best plan? Do you disagree? Or is Capitalism the greatest economic system except when it isn't?

Capitalism is awesome!!
And yet, sometimes, you need a lender of last resort.

Right, Capitalism is awesome except when it fails.

FDIC losses and massive disruptions versus TARP? Not the best plan.

No, not at all. Shouldn't this be where I point out that Capitalism is the best plan? Do you disagree? Or is Capitalism the greatest economic system except when it isn't?

Capitalism is awesome!!
And yet, sometimes, you need a lender of last resort.

Right, Capitalism is awesome except for when it fails.

Capitalism fails when there is a smash? LOL!
People are afraid to lend during a panic.....true story.
That's not a failure of capitalism, that's human nature.

Human nature isn't a problem under other economic systems, eh?

People are not afraid to lend. People are afraid to borrow.

Talking about institutions. Why would a firm be afraid to borrow?
Banks are afraid to lend because they're afraid the borrower will go under.
That's what happened to Lehman. They financed their bond portfolio with overnight loans.
Banks were afraid they'd collapse, so they stopped rolling over their loans. They collapsed.
No one knew who'd be next.

Lender of last resort, because during a panic, firms need to stay liquid.

 

[pknopp]

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.

Because it wasn't democrats who wrote that legislation. They were in the minority at the time. The republicans controlled both chambers of the congress and the White House. That bill was written, passed and signed into law in 2018 by republicans.

Democrats didn't start the mess. Clinton left a balanced budget with a surplus. The bush boy destroyed it with his first budget. He cut taxes too much and removed too many very necessary regulations.

Clinton did sign a republican bill that removed proper regulation on banks and lending institutions. The repeal of Glass/Stegal never should have happened. Clinton was wrong to sign that legislation though signing it wouldn't have stopped it. It had a veto proof majority. The legislation was written by republicans, they controlled both chambers of the congress at the time.

It wasn't only the democrats who caused the mess of the bush boy years. In fact, most of the responsibility for that mess falls directly on the shoulders of the republicans. Democrats didn't deregulate and cut taxes in the bush boy years. The bush boy and his republican congress did it.

I have NEVER argued ONLY.

 

[pknopp]

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.

Because it wasn't democrats who wrote that legislation. They were in the minority at the time. The republicans controlled both chambers of the congress and the White House. That bill was written, passed and signed into law in 2018 by republicans.

Democrats didn't start the mess. Clinton left a balanced budget with a surplus. The bush boy destroyed it with his first budget. He cut taxes too much and removed too many very necessary regulations.

Clinton did sign a republican bill that removed proper regulation on banks and lending institutions. The repeal of Glass/Stegal never should have happened. Clinton was wrong to sign that legislation though signing it wouldn't have stopped it. It had a veto proof majority. The legislation was written by republicans, they controlled both chambers of the congress at the time.

It wasn't only the democrats who caused the mess of the bush boy years. In fact, most of the responsibility for that mess falls directly on the shoulders of the republicans. Democrats didn't deregulate and cut taxes in the bush boy years. The bush boy and his republican congress did it.

Democrats didn't start the mess.

Clinton didn't tell HUD to mandate Fannie and Freddie make half their mortgage buys subprime mortgages?

Quid Pro Quo. The government loosened regulations and the banks made the loans.

The repeal of Glass/Stegal never should have happened.

Glass-Steagall didn't prevent banks from writing, or buying, crappy mortgages.

It would have kept the banks from putting money that did not belong to them at risk,

 

[pknopp]

No, not at all. Shouldn't this be where I point out that Capitalism is the best plan? Do you disagree? Or is Capitalism the greatest economic system except when it isn't?

Capitalism is awesome!!
And yet, sometimes, you need a lender of last resort.

Right, Capitalism is awesome except when it fails.

No, not at all. Shouldn't this be where I point out that Capitalism is the best plan? Do you disagree? Or is Capitalism the greatest economic system except when it isn't?

Capitalism is awesome!!
And yet, sometimes, you need a lender of last resort.

Right, Capitalism is awesome except for when it fails.

Capitalism fails when there is a smash? LOL!
People are afraid to lend during a panic.....true story.
That's not a failure of capitalism, that's human nature.

Human nature isn't a problem under other economic systems, eh?

People are not afraid to lend. People are afraid to borrow.

Talking about institutions. Why would a firm be afraid to borrow?
Banks are afraid to lend because they're afraid the borrower will go under.
That's what happened to Lehman. They financed their bond portfolio with overnight loans.
Banks were afraid they'd collapse, so they stopped rolling over their loans. They collapsed.
No one knew who'd be next.

Lender of last resort, because during a panic, firms need to stay liquid.

Lehman was a bad risk and shouldn't have been loaned to. That should have been common sense. That is not making the argument that banks wouldn't loan.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Because it wasn't democrats who wrote that legislation. They were in the minority at the time. The republicans controlled both chambers of the congress and the White House. That bill was written, passed and signed into law in 2018 by republicans.

Democrats didn't start the mess. Clinton left a balanced budget with a surplus. The bush boy destroyed it with his first budget. He cut taxes too much and removed too many very necessary regulations.

Clinton did sign a republican bill that removed proper regulation on banks and lending institutions. The repeal of Glass/Stegal never should have happened. Clinton was wrong to sign that legislation though signing it wouldn't have stopped it. It had a veto proof majority. The legislation was written by republicans, they controlled both chambers of the congress at the time.

It wasn't only the democrats who caused the mess of the bush boy years. In fact, most of the responsibility for that mess falls directly on the shoulders of the republicans. Democrats didn't deregulate and cut taxes in the bush boy years. The bush boy and his republican congress did it.

Democrats didn't start the mess.

Clinton didn't tell HUD to mandate Fannie and Freddie make half their mortgage buys subprime mortgages?

Quid Pro Quo. The government loosened regulations and the banks made the loans.

The repeal of Glass/Stegal never should have happened.

Glass-Steagall didn't prevent banks from writing, or buying, crappy mortgages.

It would have kept the banks from putting money that did not belong to them at risk,

The government loosened regulations and the banks made the loans.

I agree, pushing loans to less creditworthy borrowers wasn't something the government should have done.

It would have kept the banks from putting money that did not belong to them at risk,

Glass-Steagall would have prevented banks from writing mortgages? Are you sure?

 

[pknopp]

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.

Because it wasn't democrats who wrote that legislation. They were in the minority at the time. The republicans controlled both chambers of the congress and the White House. That bill was written, passed and signed into law in 2018 by republicans.

Democrats didn't start the mess. Clinton left a balanced budget with a surplus. The bush boy destroyed it with his first budget. He cut taxes too much and removed too many very necessary regulations.

Clinton did sign a republican bill that removed proper regulation on banks and lending institutions. The repeal of Glass/Stegal never should have happened. Clinton was wrong to sign that legislation though signing it wouldn't have stopped it. It had a veto proof majority. The legislation was written by republicans, they controlled both chambers of the congress at the time.

It wasn't only the democrats who caused the mess of the bush boy years. In fact, most of the responsibility for that mess falls directly on the shoulders of the republicans. Democrats didn't deregulate and cut taxes in the bush boy years. The bush boy and his republican congress did it.

Democrats didn't start the mess.

Clinton didn't tell HUD to mandate Fannie and Freddie make half their mortgage buys subprime mortgages?

Quid Pro Quo. The government loosened regulations and the banks made the loans.

The repeal of Glass/Stegal never should have happened.

Glass-Steagall didn't prevent banks from writing, or buying, crappy mortgages.

It would have kept the banks from putting money that did not belong to them at risk,

The government loosened regulations and the banks made the loans.

I agree, pushing loans to less creditworthy borrowers wasn't something the government should have done.

It would have kept the banks from putting money that did not belong to them at risk,

Glass-Steagall would have prevented banks from writing mortgages? Are you sure?

If you refuse to honestly discuss what I say, we are done.

 

[Brain357]

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.

Tell trump that. People are following the governments lead.

 

[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.

Tell trump that. People are following the governments lead.

What!? And disrupt Obama's legacy more?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Capitalism is awesome!!
And yet, sometimes, you need a lender of last resort.

Right, Capitalism is awesome except when it fails.

Capitalism is awesome!!
And yet, sometimes, you need a lender of last resort.

Right, Capitalism is awesome except for when it fails.

Capitalism fails when there is a smash? LOL!
People are afraid to lend during a panic.....true story.
That's not a failure of capitalism, that's human nature.

Human nature isn't a problem under other economic systems, eh?

People are not afraid to lend. People are afraid to borrow.

Talking about institutions. Why would a firm be afraid to borrow?
Banks are afraid to lend because they're afraid the borrower will go under.
That's what happened to Lehman. They financed their bond portfolio with overnight loans.
Banks were afraid they'd collapse, so they stopped rolling over their loans. They collapsed.
No one knew who'd be next.

Lender of last resort, because during a panic, firms need to stay liquid.

Lehman was a bad risk and shouldn't have been loaned to. That should have been common sense. That is not making the argument that banks wouldn't loan.

Lehman was a bad risk and shouldn't have been loaned to.

Banks lent to Lehman every day.....until they feared it would collapse.

That is not making the argument that banks wouldn't loan.

After Lehman failed, banks were afraid to lend to anyone. It was in all the papers.

Two days after the failure of Lehman Brothers in September 2008, a money market mutual fund (MMMF) that held Lehman commercial paper “broke the buck”―that is, it announced that it would be unable to continue to redeem its shares at the usual $1 per share price. Many MMMFs experienced significant withdrawals of funds by investors and were forced to meet the demand for withdrawals by selling assets into illiquid markets. In response, the Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility (AMLF) was introduced to finance purchases of commercial paper that MMMFs wanted to sell. Under the program, the Federal Reserve provided nonrecourse loans to US depository institutions, US bank holding companies (including their broker-dealer subsidiaries), and US branches and agencies of foreign banks. These institutions used the funding to purchase eligible asset-backed commercial paper (ABCP) from MMMFs. Borrowers under the AMLF, therefore, served as conduits in providing liquidity to MMMFs, and the MMMFs were the primary beneficiaries of the AMLF. The facility was announced on September 19, 2008, and was closed on February 1, 2010. At its peak, there was $152 billion in AMLF loans outstanding.

Federal Reserve Credit Programs During the Meltdown | Federal Reserve History

Money market mutual funds, foreign banks, pretty much everybody needed dollars to stay liquid.
Short term commercial paper market pretty much disappeared.
Everyone wanted cash.

In a situation like that, the Fed needs to lend to stem the panic.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

Democrats created the mess to start with.

Because it wasn't democrats who wrote that legislation. They were in the minority at the time. The republicans controlled both chambers of the congress and the White House. That bill was written, passed and signed into law in 2018 by republicans.

Democrats didn't start the mess. Clinton left a balanced budget with a surplus. The bush boy destroyed it with his first budget. He cut taxes too much and removed too many very necessary regulations.

Clinton did sign a republican bill that removed proper regulation on banks and lending institutions. The repeal of Glass/Stegal never should have happened. Clinton was wrong to sign that legislation though signing it wouldn't have stopped it. It had a veto proof majority. The legislation was written by republicans, they controlled both chambers of the congress at the time.

It wasn't only the democrats who caused the mess of the bush boy years. In fact, most of the responsibility for that mess falls directly on the shoulders of the republicans. Democrats didn't deregulate and cut taxes in the bush boy years. The bush boy and his republican congress did it.

Democrats didn't start the mess.

Clinton didn't tell HUD to mandate Fannie and Freddie make half their mortgage buys subprime mortgages?

Quid Pro Quo. The government loosened regulations and the banks made the loans.

The repeal of Glass/Stegal never should have happened.

Glass-Steagall didn't prevent banks from writing, or buying, crappy mortgages.

It would have kept the banks from putting money that did not belong to them at risk,

The government loosened regulations and the banks made the loans.

I agree, pushing loans to less creditworthy borrowers wasn't something the government should have done.

It would have kept the banks from putting money that did not belong to them at risk,

Glass-Steagall would have prevented banks from writing mortgages? Are you sure?

If you refuse to honestly discuss what I say, we are done.

Every loan a bank makes is "putting money that did not belong to them at risk"

Do you honestly not understand how banks operate?

 

[pknopp]

Right, Capitalism is awesome except when it fails.
Right, Capitalism is awesome except for when it fails.

Capitalism fails when there is a smash? LOL!
People are afraid to lend during a panic.....true story.
That's not a failure of capitalism, that's human nature.

Human nature isn't a problem under other economic systems, eh?

People are not afraid to lend. People are afraid to borrow.

Talking about institutions. Why would a firm be afraid to borrow?
Banks are afraid to lend because they're afraid the borrower will go under.
That's what happened to Lehman. They financed their bond portfolio with overnight loans.
Banks were afraid they'd collapse, so they stopped rolling over their loans. They collapsed.
No one knew who'd be next.

Lender of last resort, because during a panic, firms need to stay liquid.

Lehman was a bad risk and shouldn't have been loaned to. That should have been common sense. That is not making the argument that banks wouldn't loan.

Lehman was a bad risk and shouldn't have been loaned to.

Banks lent to Lehman every day.....until they feared it would collapse.

That is not making the argument that banks wouldn't loan.

After Lehman failed, banks were afraid to lend to anyone. It was in all the papers.

Two days after the failure of Lehman Brothers in September 2008, a money market mutual fund (MMMF) that held Lehman commercial paper “broke the buck”―that is, it announced that it would be unable to continue to redeem its shares at the usual $1 per share price. Many MMMFs experienced significant withdrawals of funds by investors and were forced to meet the demand for withdrawals by selling assets into illiquid markets. In response, the Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility (AMLF) was introduced to finance purchases of commercial paper that MMMFs wanted to sell. Under the program, the Federal Reserve provided nonrecourse loans to US depository institutions, US bank holding companies (including their broker-dealer subsidiaries), and US branches and agencies of foreign banks. These institutions used the funding to purchase eligible asset-backed commercial paper (ABCP) from MMMFs. Borrowers under the AMLF, therefore, served as conduits in providing liquidity to MMMFs, and the MMMFs were the primary beneficiaries of the AMLF. The facility was announced on September 19, 2008, and was closed on February 1, 2010. At its peak, there was $152 billion in AMLF loans outstanding.

Federal Reserve Credit Programs During the Meltdown | Federal Reserve History

Money market mutual funds, foreign banks, pretty much everybody needed dollars to stay liquid.
Short term commercial paper market pretty much disappeared.
Everyone wanted cash.

In a situation like that, the Fed needs to lend to stem the panic.

LOL, let's let the Federal Reserve write it's own history.