given the current state of America markets and their already VERY lax enforcement of the current regs
Their is so much bad debt kicking around at the moment im actively nervous how well American banks could actually withstand any real shocks
We have already seen failures happening across all sizes over the last few years due to poor enforcement of concentration and liquidity risk principles.
If the rules goes it will just further encourage people to sell American and derisk so they don't get caught in the blast wave...
However this is a very controversial topic even within my own team so im aware off the other schools of thought. But i firmly sit on the "don't add more risk to an already top heavy system"
Oligarchy is just an outcome of capitalism. As wealth concentrates in a liberal democracy, the corporations/billionaires just use their wealth to buy whatever politician wins.
This is just what happens. Fascism is the wealthy using the power of the state to enforce their will during times of capitalist crisis.
Wealth is taxed at a much higher rate in a Democracy, to pay for programs like Health , Schools and Social Security but we have had mostly controlling Republican leaders.
I think it takes unique circumstances/people/mass inaction or belief for capitalism to evolve to oligarchy, capitalism doesn't always devolve to oligarchy (US existed in 'capitalism' far longer than Russia, for example)
I'm not arguing the merits of either. I'm just saying US could've possibly shifted to democratic socialism if the masses were led down a different path.
They legitimately look at Russian crony capitalism as a model to emulate. They look at the collapse of the USSR and how the rich elites were able to buy up everything and form a permanent kleptocracy and they want to do that here.
> Can't you understand what's happening here? Don't you see what's happening? Potter isn't selling. Potter's buying! And why? Because we're panicky and he's not. That's why. He's pickin' up some bargain.
Egotistical ignorants believe they have the right to destroy 250 years of history, the work that generations have spent their lives building this democratic republic nation (for better or worse), because they believe that, because they now can control the means and ways, they can subjugate the world to do what they believe, in their alcoholic, drug ridden, xenofobic, sociopathic, twisted minds, is the right thing to do.
A acquired personality disorder associated with possessing and exercising power, characterized by excessive self-confidence, contempt for others, and a loss of touch with reality. Often described as "pride that blinds," it leads to poor decision-making and is common in leaders, such as politicians or CEOs, particularly after long, uninterrupted periods in high-ranking positions.
So I understand this is Reddit, and like it's also the Trump admin so people are rightfully suspicious of everything, but Bessent is pretty likely referring to the SLR - almost everyone in the industry will tell you the SLR is doing more harm than good.
Here's a quick excerpt from Jamie Dimon's letter to shareholders all the way back in 2020:
>Several times in the last few years you have seen dislocation in our repo markets, Treasury markets and, in March 2020, all of our markets. In many cases, the Fed has had to step in to intermediate and help finance these markets.
>Part of the reason for this is the probably unintended confluence of new regulations. We now manage our bank to try to maximize and optimize across more than 20 capital and liquidity factors (we run the bank to serve customers, but we maximize capital and liquidity requirements for economic reasons). But the confluence of three main constraints (the LCR, the supplementary leverage ratio (SLR) rule and G-SIFI) created red lines that we cannot cross. Over the past two years, we saw significant dislocation in the U.S. Treasury (UST) repo markets, which were certainly linked to these regulations. At those moments of stress, by simply reducing the regulatory cost of UST repo, we could have supplied hundreds of billions of dollars in additional UST financing to the market (this activity would be properly collateralized and very safe) – and remember, we are only one market player. In addition, when the market had high stress, we could also have lent hundreds of billions of dollars against corporate bonds, mortgage securities or equities to help market participants sell or deleverage in an orderly way. We did much of this in the Great Recession, but today’s new rules precluded us from taking these actions this time. JPMorgan Chase was essentially “the discount window” for the marketplace before Dodd-Frank – we would lend freely against good collateral just as the central bank was the discount window for banks in a crisis. This system is broken.
Once again, as reserves wane, we're seeing the Fed need to intervene directly in the repo market again.
E:
You can also see the Federal Reserve issuing statements regarding it, like Bowman's speech here:
>The proposal does not address or propose changes to leverage requirements, including the 5 percent leverage ratio that applies to U.S. global systemically important banks, commonly referred to as the enhanced supplementary leverage ratio (or eSLR). Treasury market intermediation can be disrupted by constraints imposed by the eSLR, as occurred during the early days of market stress during the pandemic. It seems prudent to address this known leverage rule constraint before future stresses emerge that would likely disrupt market functioning.
>However, since that time, conditions have changed. When the Board originally approved the SLR—and the enhanced SLR, or eSLR, for our largest banks—we expected reserves in the banking system to substantially decline in the following years. Instead, we have seen bank reserves increase substantially. We also have seen Treasury holdings in the banking system climb precipitously. This stark increase in the amount of relatively safe and low-risk assets on bank balance sheets over the past decade or so has resulted in the leverage ratio becoming more binding. Based on this experience, it is prudent for us to reconsider our original approach. Because banks play an essential intermediation role in the Treasury market, we want to ensure that the leverage ratio does not become regularly binding and discourage banks from participating in low-risk activities, such as Treasury market intermediation.
Lisa Cook: https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/cook-statement-20251125b.htm
And that the Fed had to suspend parts of it in 2020: https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/bcreg20200401a.htm
>Liquidity conditions in Treasury markets have deteriorated rapidly, and financial institutions are receiving significant inflows of customer deposits along with increased reserve levels. The regulatory restrictions that accompany this balance sheet growth may constrain the firms' ability to continue to serve as financial intermediaries and to provide credit to households and businesses. The change to the supplementary leverage ratio will mitigate the effects of those restrictions and better enable firms to support the economy.
Or this write up:
>A spate of market stresses, including the dash for cash in March 2020, has exposed the susceptibility of the US Treasury market to liquidity shocks during periods of stress, prompting regulators to look for ways to enhance the resiliency of this market. The recent publication of rules by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) requiring certain cash US Treasury securities and repo transactions to be cleared is one such policy change – something SEC chair Gary Gensler says will “help to make the Treasury market more efficient, competitive and resilient”.
>However, the SLR is inconsistent with that objective, as it serves as a non-risk-sensitive binding constraint on banks and can impede their ability to act as intermediaries, including their capacity to clear for clients. That’s particularly the case in times of stress – which is what prompted the US Federal Reserve to take a series of measures in 2020 to support liquidity conditions in the Treasury market, including the temporary exclusion of US Treasury securities and deposits at Federal Reserve banks from the SLR calculation. Academics have also pointed to the role of the SLR in constraining the ability of banks to participate in the US Treasury market in certain circumstances.
> The Biden administration, policy groups, and academics have all included changes in capital regulations in menus of possible reforms to improve the functioning of the Treasury market.1 Specifically, changes have been proposed to the Enhanced Supplementary Leverage Ratio (eSLR) and G-SIB (Global Systemically Important Bank) capital surcharge. (See box on next page.) Both these capital requirements apply only to the eight U.S. banks designated as of global systemic importance.2 Because these banks are some of the most important dealers in Treasuries, regulatory disincentives to hold and trade Treasuries can adversely affect the liquidity of the world’s most important debt market.
>Disagreement over whether to adjust the eSLR, the surcharges, or both is often just a version of the continuing debate over the right level of capital requirements. Some banking interests seize on episodes of Treasury market dysfunction to argue for reductions in the eSLR and surcharge. Some regulators, elected representatives, and commentators see any adjustments as weakening post-GFC capital standards. Yet it is possible to reduce the current regulatory disincentive of banks, especially at the margin, to hold and trade Treasuries without diminishing the overall capital resiliency of large banks.
I get the kneejerk "regulations good, less regulation bad" mentality, but if we're being serious about discussing regulation we should be talking about specifics - how they help, how they hurt, did something intended to be good end up resulting in a negative outcome?
You guys can and should google away yourselves - it's the "supplementary leverage ratio" or SLR. You'll find tons and tons of commentary on it, from the Federal reserve, from financial institutions, etc, and almost none of it is positive towards the way the SLR has actually impacted banking.
Isn't quoting a CEO of the largest too-big-to-fail bank is a little bias on this matter? Bank failures tend to help the biggest banks because people move from smaller banks to the too-big-to-fail. And JPM basically has an implicit infinite backstop, so we should be extremely suspicious of any view they have on regulation, since they don't have to factor in the extreme end risk into their decisions.
Its one thing to want to fix the issues with any regulation or to strengthen it, but the position here is specifically to loosen or unburden banks which is different than just pointing out weaknesses or areas of improvement for regulation.
> Isn't quoting a CEO of the largest too-big-to-fail bank is a little bias on this matter?
I had another moment free and added a few more sources above, suffice to say it's not simply Dimon, that was an easy grab earlier - but you would struggle to find anyone who's spoken highly of the SLR - I've added excerpts from Brookings, Fed board members, and industry groups.
Again, you can and should do your own research, I'm just giving people the specific regs and context, as most comments here are just mindless bitching about "regulations" with no indication that anyone seems to know anything beyond that.
However, in my years of reading on this topic I've not seen much of any sentiment coming from market experts or banking leads that expressed strong support for the SLR as it stands. The effort to address it's shortcomings started under Biden, this isn't really a partisan/politics thing, it's an issue of treasury market function - when there are reservations expressed around changes they're not about the SLR itself but rather how this will impact overall reserve math, which is obviously something that should be (and is being) carefully considered.
> Isn't quoting a CEO of the largest too-big-to-fail bank is a little bias on this matter?
Sure, it's just a good direct illustration from someone that knows the landscape describing the issue - but like I said at the end of the post, you can and should look this stuff up yourself, you'll find tons and tons of commentary on it that's not flattering from all corners of the industry. I'm strongly encouraging people to take the terms I'm providing them, and learn for themselves rather than just take kneejerk reddit comments as informative.
The intent of the above post isn't to convince anyone of anything, it's to raise awareness of the specific items being discussed and the reality that there are quite often negative unintended consequences from various pieces of regulation. The goal should never be regulation for regulation's sake, it should be to improve things over time, so if a regulation isn't doing that then we should examine it right?
>The goal should never be regulation for regulation's sake, it should be to improve things over time, so if a regulation isn't doing that then we should examine it right?
Of course, but they're not saying that, they saying regulation should be reduced to unburden banks. We should question that loaded premise that banks are burdened. They're the opposite of burdened by the government's full backing and widespread promotion, who has carried these private banks through repeating crises that would probably have bankrupted many of them multiple times over!
For example, in Dimon's view, the fed stepping into repo markets is implied as something to be avoided. JPM could have been there to save the day instead. But if the only reason JPM would lend in a financial crises is because they know they are backstopped by the government as a systematically important institution, what exactly is the difference here, other than in one case JPM makes a cut of the profit as privileged middleman? I'm not sure how great of an improvement is made is vs the risk of deregulation, when the government is still the one making the decision to full backstop the banking system either way.
> Of course, but they're not saying that, they saying regulation should be reduced to unburden banks.
Ehhhh, I think we need to differentiate between media headlines and the information that's actually come out of these discussions. The SLR specifically has been the focal point of a lot of discussion across the last few years, when Bessent makes generalized statements like this I believe he's referring to the SLR (he has specifically spoken about the SLR previously).
So like, in a general sense, the SLR is a burden on banks, and one that's detrimental to the financial system's efficiency at the moment. So yeah, removing that would unburden them, but does it create risk? There's still dozens of other liquidity and capital requirements in place, so I'm not sure that it does.
>For example, in Dimon's view, the fed stepping into repo markets is implied as something to be avoided. JPM could have been there to save the day instead.
I think this is a sorta valid view, but one that makes the central bank's fundamental role change. The Fed is mandated to be the lender of last resort, that's really the entire core reason it exists, however if the lender of last resort is needing to be the only lender in markets on an ongoing basis would you not say that's indicative of a flaw in the system?
I think of central banks like training wheels, they're there in case you fall, they inspire confidence, but you shouldn't be bouncing off them during normal operations.
At a core level, what the SLR has done was prevented banks (not just JPM, although JPM has historically been a major player in overnight funding) from being able to do something as simple as a treasury secured overnight loan. That's not a risky operation, you're lending cash, getting a treasury for the full value, swapping the items back, and taking a small spread. Treasuries are fully liquid, but because of their categorization within the SLR they count against you - therefore enacting treasury secured loans is prevented.
I'm very pro regulation, but I'm pro intelligent regulation, and if something isn't working we should examine it and ask what we can do better. I see that happening right now with the SLR.
That's me, I'm the bad debt. My gf was making 60% of the household income a year ago when she lost her job. I had some savings and the better credit score but was still upside down on my credit cards when it hit. We made it about 7 months before I started having to choose what I paid. Now get about 4 angry calls a day I send to a full mailbox. Already seen some stuff get charged off and sent to a collection agency. Can't even bear to look at my credit score. Still making a good salary but 2/3 of my paycheck goes to keeping my landlords happy for our 1 bedroom priced just below median rent in our city since the startup cost to move is expensive and requires a credit score check.
I spend my days working comms for a white collar lawfirm as a non-lawyer, reviewing client alerts explaining various deregulation opportunities. I also heard from yet another friend (in various non-legal industries) who got laid off yesterday who I hope were in better shape than me. Feels like an ironic front row seat to the next big crisis, where some day I'll be watching Margot Robbie in a bathtub in an Adam McKay film explain how it went down again, and I'll hear some term or regulation I read at work but didn't have the knowledge to process and say "oh right, that's what did it this time."
Same happened to us, except I'm the one who was laid off. Look into ACCC debt restructuring or some other non profit (stay away from the corporations). They'll at least negotiate with the card companies for lower rates (which makes you realize they're changing as much as they want, because they can clearly afford to offer lower rates).
We now have a single monthly payment and have cut back on spending, living like we're in a Monastary and our credit score is already starting to recover. It will still be a long time, but at least ita moving in the right direction.
Bankruptcy was amazing for us. Got to keep our house and vehicles, went down to a $400 monthly payment for 5 years with student loans deferred no interest until it was completed. We’re able to sell our home and finance another during that time. This was California. Bankruptcy attorneys are highly regulated and so are their fees, unlike debt consolidators.
Wow, this seems kind of crazy to me. How did you buy another house after declaring bankruptcy? Did you get reamed on interest rates or something?
This also makes me feel my life of never doing anything I want to ensure I don't go into debt was kind of pointless, if bankruptcy is this simple. Should of been putting everything on credit, living to the fullest, and just gone into bankruptcy when it all fell apart.
If you haven’t noticed, the tax payers can’t even afford to pay the government’s annual bills to the tune of 2 trillion a year. It won’t be the taxpayers that pay, it will be debt that does, which the United States has so much of right now and investors are slowly not buying this debt anymore because of the countries foreign policies.
Fun fact. Not this time ... The tax intake isn't enough to cover the cost and there isn't enough money left in people's account TOO tax in the first place.
If a bank pops noone is coming to save it. If they all pop its game over for the dollar (as in it will be worthless over night)
That's why I roll my eyes at people that think all these billionaires are gonna end up buying stuff cheap. Some will have the liquidity, but most are also leveraged up to their eyeballs against their own assets. Those creditors will come calling and they too will have to sell to save themselves.
I feel the ouroboros that is private equity will be the first domino to fall when the market goes to shit. They won't get a bailout though and I don't see traditional banks having any appetite to buy their debt up cheap either; since most of them shun private equity. They're essentially loan sharks.
Thank you for your informative fact based comment. Its obvious that faith and trust in US as global financial leader is eroding. Would you care to share what these "other schools of thought" are saying in response to what's unfolded?
We bailed out the banks in 2008 with Chinese money. After which they started the process of decoupling the economy. They aren’t lending that to us again.
Our entire financial industry is filled to the brim with people who don't believe they should be regulated. The company I work at is constantly reeling the c-suite in from marketing things in illegal ways. Lawmakers and internal compliance teams are pretty much the only people standing between you and being thoroughly scammed by every financial institution you interact with.
I am having a far different experience. I think banks are going to be fine unless real estate dumps more than 25%. Even then, lots of older loans willl still be ok. I don’t get how you can make so many bad loans under the current regulatory regime without committing outright fraud.
The issue as I see it, is that regulations are so tight that a lot of lending has moved to private lenders.
They seem hellbent on destroying the dollar and this is just one bullet in their arsenal. Did we learn nothing from the 2008 collapse? I'm reminded of when one of the Fed members sent his wife to the ATM and told her to remove as much cash as she could. That's how close we came to total collapse.
The last year has been filled with “zomg bubble!” rhetoric, as if that’s the big risk to crashing markets and/or the economy.
History shows it’s not bubbles that crash the economy, it’s shady financial deals resulting from inadequate regulations, or the collapse of “new” yet shady financial instruments designed to bypass regulations or too complex for regulators to spot. That’s the stuff that kills banks and then lending and then the economy, not people ramping up the price on niche markets due to exuberance.
>shady financial deals resulting from inadequate regulations, or the collapse of “new” yet shady financial instruments designed to bypass regulations or too complex for regulators to spot.
centralized planning. the center being the small class of people making those deals and pushing to implement those instruments. The rest of us just try to respond to the economy they have control over.
If we are going to go for a planned economy, then I prefer it be democratic as possible and let my coworkers and I decide how best to handle running the business. Instead of private lobbying lets just expand the number of things like house reps and senators to numbers that would actually capture a better picture of the general population and get rid the pay to play scheme set in place by the DNC and RNC.
But ffs can we please stop pretending we operate in a free market that we can apply economic theory to? We don't the invisible hand has become pretty fkn visible imo. How many quacks do we need to hear before we stop letting ducks shit on our heads?
Yea the "free hand of the market" gets pretty gimpy when you have enough VC funding to push every competitor out of the market before jacking up prices to try and break even.
>History shows it’s not bubbles that crash the economy, it’s shady financial deals resulting from inadequate regulations, or the collapse of “new” yet shady financial instruments designed to bypass regulations or too complex for regulators to spot.
Funny you mention that, because the recent Epstein docs have an overwhelming amount of subjective evidence suggesting the SEC is fully compromised and controlled by billionaires who have used it to kill competitive businesses and exploit trade loop holes for decades.
https://youtu.be/soxT47Bx1sI?si=KYx-6qNS-_je3yg-
So yeah, the reason many countries see the US as risky is because we haven't had adequate regulations for decades, and the Epstein files kinda prove we were just making empty promises about fixing big problems billionaires have been exploiting for so long. What we're seeing politically is the result of this lack of regulatory control, with the guilty party literally taking over politics to hide their financial crimes by dismantling the DOJ.
I would consider believing our financial markets have better regulations if our politics did too. One always begets the other. So there's now absolutley no reason anyone should simply assume the SEC is any better than the DOJ. Especially with this recent Epstein leak that basically suggests we've been compromised for over a decade.
So they did learn but the opposite end. They want the market to crash as they have a bunch of money on the side to pick up cheap assets. Also if the house of cards doesn't blow apart during this presidency the Democrats get the blame.
It always does. Crashing the economy gives billionaires incredible purchasing power since it strong arms competition out and they get a steep discount.
Hey guys not to rain on the parade but how would the billionaires who borrow money against their stocks be able to buy everything if their stocks crash? Also bank mergers wouldn’t be such a bad idea right now it could help prevent issues from deregulation. I would prefer not to deregulate because US banks can be dumber than rocks sometimes.
Billionaires don’t leverage their assets entirely and would be largely unaffected. The likelihood of a billionaire being margin called is also significantly lower than your average Joe simply because they have the resources to make it a huge hassle on the banks.
That’s not how margin calls work. Either you pony up the cash or we sell your assets. Like you gotta think about this, if a billionaire gives one institution a problem with collecting very few institutions would want to do business with them. That’s why Trump had to go to Deutsche bank when borrowing cash they were the only ones willing take on that risk. If you’re thinking “oh but they would make an exception” no they won’t and thats why it’s never been tested. No rich person would be dumb enough to bite the hand that loans you millions of dollars against your stocks. The few cases of a rich person sueing to get out of a margin call have some very complicated situations beyond “stock market dropped, margin requirement not met.”
First thing will happen is probably more bank merges. This is something US government can loose the regulation immediately without congressional act. US government can signal the willingness of allowing merges and speed up the approval.
A FED member didn't say this. A manager at an investing firm said it. Also if he thought there was "total collapse" why would he care about taking money out? The context was obviously he thought banks would be closed for a few days
That's not what happened and we both know that so please don't spread misinformation. Was Countrywide Financial a bank? It was not and they were the biggest lender of all. The vast majority of loans were coming from companies like them and you and I both know that. So please leave your political agenda out of this.
>There is possibly only one iron rule in 400 years on economic analysis: finacial deregulation leads to financial disasters.
See, that's not even a financial rule. That's just how entropy works in a system. If you remove all the things that hold a certain amount of "x" in place, then it's gonna fall apart into waste. Whether its information, currency, etc. The rest of economics is just sophistry. people just playing games convincing others to join and we all love games. Just a big roleplaying game for whatever reason. Don't know why we all act like economic theory is anything else.
Just because monkeys can trade food for sex doesn't mean a dog playing tug of war comprehends game theory even if we can explain his behavior using it or explain the monkey's using economic theory. That just isn't how theory works, but we all pretend so for the sake of something I can't seem to understand. The only time we can ever make reliable economic predicitions is when there are stable controls in place.. otherwise no predictions. this is why the "free market" is a myth. It's a controlled economy and always has been.
It's really funny state "Economic theory is just pretense that doesn't apply to anything in real life" and in the same breath say "Obviously entropy applies to socioeconomic systems"...
When you do choice theory and the deriving game theory etc, you don't assume the agent chooses according to game theory. You posit that the behaviour you do observe would be the same if they did use game theory, which is not the same thing! This is a fundamental and common misunderstanding of how economic theory works.
Right. It is a common misunderstanding. So common in fact, it seems to be a sort of rule.
and why use quotations and not quote what I say. Just a weird way to speak. I didnt say it doesnt apply. I moreorless said it is applied poorly. Same with most religions. they apply to life a plenty, people apply them all sorts of ways, usually harmful ones
It's also then asking for less regulation from Congress and agencies while simultaneously reserving the right for the president to call up any CEO and make specific demands under threat of tariffs or other targeted punishment.
This was literally the counsel given to Hoover during the Great Depression, and he said letting that attitude inform policy was his single biggest regret
Mr. Bessent seems to have a rigorous grasp on economics just like many of his former predecessors: McDuck, Wile. E. Coyote, snake oil sellers, etc. Micro and Macroeconomics were taught on the days he was absent perhaps. Past financial meltdowns aside, it’s great to be able to pretend to learn (lol) on the job.
As I've said before, the only way for the actions of this administration makes sense is if you view it through the lens of wanting to deliberately destroy the country.
I'm a big believer in Hanlon's Razor, but the actions of this administration cannot be explained by just incompetence and/or stupidity. There is deliberate intent.
Heritage Foundation and Project 2025 have entered the chat.
“We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected,” Vought said in a video revealed by ProPublica and the research group Documented in October. “When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work, because they are increasingly viewed as the villains. We want their funding to be shut down … We want to put them in trauma.” -Russell Vought, OMB Director
This dirtbag comes from the Chicago School of Moral Hazards: It's ok for Wall Street to take on more risk because another party (i.e., the taxpayers) will always bear the consequences of that risk.
Dems create rules, people vote them out. Repubs change rules, things get bad, people elect Dems. Dems create rules, people vote them out. Repubs change rules, things get bad… our (lack of) knowledge of history continues to fail us.
At least we finally have a balanced budget and states rights are thriving! The hallmark of the conservative belief system. Right? Right?!
Several months ago, Trump said he wanted to end the FDIC and have the U.S. Treasury handle bank failures.
If Trump follows through, there could be an old fashion run on the banks which would further collapse our currency.
Why do I get the feeling he's trying to push us into using crypto? I hate the direction Trump is taking us, with looser regulation and less oversight, especially at a time when our currency has already plummeted 11%.
This is coming straight from the top… Peter Thiel. That MF wants to see this whole thing burn so that be can bring about the second coming of Christ. He’s absolutely psycho. Let it be known who is out to destroy America.
The Republicans obviously as they are and have been in complete control the entire twenty-first century sans 72 days in 2009 which created ACA. If you think the past thirty year trend is shite....there is only one group to blame. Republican voters.
Started with being pissed about a dude getting a blowjob...really ramped up when a black man became president....and finally they chose to install a russian puppet.
How much looser could it be. The corporate grift is unbelievable, banking regulations non-existent. The system rigged and one-sided towards propping up large corporations above and huge profits nothing else matters. Individual financial rights have fallen by the wayside in the face of nameless, lawless companies who no longer deal with customers, but see people as numbers in a shell game. Looser regulations, is seen by corporations as another way to avoid accountability to consumers.
An outsize portion of any benefit produced by deregulation will go toward powerful financial institutions and the inevitable consequences of a financial shock will be borne by us all.
Bessent is essentially saying “what if we do pre-2008 finance, but knowingly and intentionally.”
How much looser, Scott? You and your friends and the donor class already run roughshod over the regulations we have in place with absolutely zero accountability. You commit white collar crimes daily while our justice department and regulatory agencies shrug. So how much more leeway do you need, buddy?
These are the kinds of monsters we should have been warned about as children. Deregulation of the finance industry has led to scandal after scandal. Corruption and malfeasance have increased and become simply a cost/benefit line in corporate reports, with poor prosecution and lax oversight commonplace. The intentional destruction of our country continues unabated, and so many people who know better applaud. Unbelievable.
Yeah, that'll work. The Canadian banking system didn't experience the same fallout that the US banks did in 2008. Why? We have strong regulations. We also had a strong Bank of Canada Governor at the time. I think his name was Mark Carney. Apparently he knows something about economics.
Yeah, that's what you need in the current climate of everyone starting to divest from the US, and taking on enormous national debt, and making the country unstable, and devaluing the currency, and losing trade deals, and slapping on stupid tariffs everywhere, and tech bubbles...
Yeah, less financial regulation so there's more corruption, instability, uncertainty, ... that'll solve it.
When the Dems get back in power after the Twinkie Wars of 2105 I hope they'll push for an Amendment to the Constitution preventing bailouts of the financial institutions that will fail because of this. It'd be nice to imprison everyone who profits, but I know that's a reach
Wall Street always wants rules loosened. So it can repeat the scams of the past and make a clique rich, and the rest of the investors, the Main Street, not Wall Street type, much poorer.
This feels like an incredibly risky game to play because the US barely has the ability to bail itself out anymore without incurring immediate repayment problems
This is a terrible idea. Prepare to watch the wealth disparity get greater. The only silver lining might be if folks begin to react like they did in the French Revolution, which came about due in large part to the wealth disparity.
Regulations do nothing but help protect average investors from getting swindled, but they're deeply harmful to the people and organizations who are attempting to swindle. It's time we ease the limitations on the American financial system and allow institutions to return to the more fluid and flexible approach that allows for more creative financial maneuvering against these burdensome regulations.
Wow... because that has never almost collapsed the US economy before. From the Clinton-era Savings & Loans Scandal through to the subprime BS of 2008-2009. Good idea Scotty Boy, because that won't further encourage other country to dump US treasuries and bonds as you become ever more of a economic liability.
Epstein, Jack Smith, January 6th, ICE ices taxpayers
YEAR ONE - US Taxpayer Pays:
$858 Million in ICE signing bonuses, $170 Billion to Stephen Miller Immigration enforcement, $40 billion to Argentinian Farmers, $110 Million for Trump golfing, $30 million for Trump birthday parade, and
$40 Million for JD Vance’s 8 vacations, $200 Million for Kristi Noem private jets, $62 Million plane with security detail used for Kash Patel girlfriend visits, $135 Billion in Musk DOGE costs (including Musk getting all your personal info), $500 Billion additional to military, and
Trump says $100 to $150 Billion reimbursement to oil companies for repairing Venezuelan infrastructure, $2.5 Billion contract to Peter Thiel owned Palantir Technologies whose tech is used for mass surveillance on US citizens. Plus $2,100 more in taxes paid per year per household for trump tariffs and
Pete Hegseths $400 Million retrofitting of Trumps Qatari jet, $6 million for bringing all generals to Washington for a speech, and a $50,000 paint job for his home.
Kristi Noem is spending $115 Million on a drone program to use against US citizens
Trumps personal wealth increased $3 Billion in this one year.
In one year Trump added $1.8 Trillion to the federal deficit in 2025 and $7.2 Trillion in his first 4 year term.
Trump placed unqualified armed masked men on the street who ask to see your papers.
$14 Billion for ICE immigration detention in 2025. Republican controlled Congress approved $45 Billion for new immigration detention centers.
$38 Billon in Elon Musk government contracts
DOGE cuts wasted $10 Billion on paid leave for federal workers.
Trumps $400 Million White House ballroom project is said to be paid by rich private donors looking for business favors, companies seeking mergers, the crypto folks desire for scam expansion, and it also allows them to pay less taxes because they can deduct their contributions from their taxable income. This will affect the individual taxpayer with reduced public services and increased individual taxes as well as the tax payer paying for the ballrooms expanded maintenance.
Small US business importers have paid about $25,000 more per month because of Trump tariffs.
Trumps shut down of USAID has led to 600 thousand deaths worldwide, two thirds of them children, with an estimated 14 million deaths possible through 2030.
Trump implemented funding cuts for environmental science, scientific research, the EPA, medicine, healthcare, the postal service, National Parks, public broadcasting and education.
Hedge fund manager Paul Singer gave $15 Million to Trumps PAC’s and $37 Million to republicans running for congress, he purchased Venezuelan oil company Citgo Oil for cheap in a well-timed transaction - 2 months before the illegal US invasion of Venezuela. He is expected to make billions.
2.2026 Trump announces the closure (for restoration) of the Kennedy Center. Artists cancel scheduled shows due to Trump takeover and restructure of the board of directors and appointment of unqualified leadership. Ticket sales tank...
Americans are going to be shocked when this whole thing implodes and there’s no money for any bailouts. You’re all going to be left holding the bag this time and it’s going to get ugly.
2026 It’s looking more & more like 2006. W has his foot mashed to the floor for GDP growth at any cost, and then it all collapsed in 2008.
These people never learn. They drive the economy like a rented mule and are surprised when it dies.
They really really want to do everything to postpone the bubble burst until after midterms. If it pops before then the shift will be so bad they wont have a way to reelection short of deploying troops and fabricating the whole thing.
2008 here we come…..give the keys to the criminals…..this is about current policies not working….this administration has already added 2.2 Trillion to the national debt since they took office….tariffs creating uncertainty(which is the plan) and not helping, the economy is showing signs of being overheated and prices for the average person are high….cheap money will only pump liquidity into this shit-show…..maybe, just maybe temporarily prop up the market for the midterms…..it wont work as the market and voters have other plans
2008 comin in hot! Jesus these goons don't learn... Or they do learn but know they can benefit huge so don't care that it will do damage to the overall system as folks over extend themselves in thier social media fueled, dopamine driven buying sprees... SMDH
Something created after '08 financial crisis is probably a good thing and a needed check and balance. Especially with Trump wanting higher home prices and his overt messaging around selling Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Trying to heat the housing market up
If someone asked him to name a single example, he'd have one, maybe two, tops. And you'd know exactly who is nudging him to remove that regulation, and exactly how it benefits that company, and really that company alone.
Not the public. Not the masses. As those people would definitely be hurt from removing the regulations.
Oh yeah, that's what we need. As AI companies are currently plowing us towards the next bubble and the president is enriching himself with crypto scams. Less regulation. Great idea.
Yes, because that worked great for housing 1994 - 2007...
Regulation is in place not just for the safety of the customer. As we saw in the run up to the 2007/2008 crash, banks were handing out mortgages left and right. Stated income mortgages for strawberry pickers in which the loan officer wrote they were making $250K a year. Interest only, zero down, negative amortization loans... ARMS...
The banks didn't care, because they were making all their money on the loan fees selling them to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But when they stopped buying these tainted mortgages, the banks were left holding the bag. They crumbled in record numbers.
We are primed for just such a calamity right now. A smart administration would slowly deflate the balloon, rather than pushing more air into it.
I don’t pretend to know the details of the regulations under discussion, but this administration ought to be focused on enforcing existing regulations as-is. The clumsy tariff rollout (highly charitable description), unwarranted disputes with the federal reserve, and completely unconstitutional actions in Venezuela have made them completely untrustworthy to make other changes.
The linked article is garbage. It just says the rules should be relaxed. No details about what that might mean. Did he have more specifics about what he wants, or did he just say he wants fewer rules in general?
Here comes the
Here comes the
Here comes the
Y'all really want it now (Boom!)
Here comes the (Boom!)
Here comes the (Boom!)
Here comes the
Y'all really want it now (Boom!)
Here comes the (Boom!)
Here comes the (Boom!)
Here comes the
Y'all really want it now (Boom!).
Old-Buffalo-5151 | 13 hours ago
Oh a topic i have direct experience of...
This would be a fucking disaster if this happens
given the current state of America markets and their already VERY lax enforcement of the current regs
Their is so much bad debt kicking around at the moment im actively nervous how well American banks could actually withstand any real shocks
We have already seen failures happening across all sizes over the last few years due to poor enforcement of concentration and liquidity risk principles.
If the rules goes it will just further encourage people to sell American and derisk so they don't get caught in the blast wave...
However this is a very controversial topic even within my own team so im aware off the other schools of thought. But i firmly sit on the "don't add more risk to an already top heavy system"
apoca1ypse12 | 13 hours ago
These mofos are out to destroy America
gwils_cupleah6240 | 11 hours ago
Yes. They want the market to crash so they can buy everything up cheaply.
Easy-Marsupial3268 | 10 hours ago
That’s just the capitalist cycle. They can now control when the crashes happen.
Per_Aspera_Ad_Astra | 6 hours ago
this is more full start of oligarchy instead of capitalism. Capitalism thrives on predictability, oligarchy thrives on chaos.
Easy-Marsupial3268 | 5 hours ago
Oligarchy is just an outcome of capitalism. As wealth concentrates in a liberal democracy, the corporations/billionaires just use their wealth to buy whatever politician wins.
This is just what happens. Fascism is the wealthy using the power of the state to enforce their will during times of capitalist crisis.
Salute-Major-Echidna | 5 hours ago
Wealth is taxed at a much higher rate in a Democracy, to pay for programs like Health , Schools and Social Security but we have had mostly controlling Republican leaders.
Easy-Marsupial3268 | 5 hours ago
What’s with the random capitalizations?
Per_Aspera_Ad_Astra | 5 hours ago
I think it takes unique circumstances/people/mass inaction or belief for capitalism to evolve to oligarchy, capitalism doesn't always devolve to oligarchy (US existed in 'capitalism' far longer than Russia, for example)
I'm not arguing the merits of either. I'm just saying US could've possibly shifted to democratic socialism if the masses were led down a different path.
Easy-Marsupial3268 | 5 hours ago
I mean, want America started by the founding fathers? And what were they but an oligarchy.
I’m of the mind that liberal democracy is really just a fig leaf for oligarchy. Seems that all Trump has done is drop the leaf.
Toribor | 8 hours ago
They legitimately look at Russian crony capitalism as a model to emulate. They look at the collapse of the USSR and how the rich elites were able to buy up everything and form a permanent kleptocracy and they want to do that here.
NihiloZero | 5 hours ago
It is exactly this. Adam Curtis's documentary "Hypernormalization" should be required watching for anyone interested in modern economics.
xtzee | 8 hours ago
They are going for the real estate market.
49orth | 6 hours ago
Seems nefarious enough for Putin's Trump stooges...
notapoliticalalt | 5 hours ago
> Can't you understand what's happening here? Don't you see what's happening? Potter isn't selling. Potter's buying! And why? Because we're panicky and he's not. That's why. He's pickin' up some bargain.
Sufficient-Salt-666 | 3 hours ago
Potter was a saint compared to this bunch.
shadowpawn | 9 hours ago
the chief architect of MAGA Steve Bannon called for this breaking down of the Western World Order to be rebuilt in a different image.
el_geto | 9 hours ago
Egotistical ignorants believe they have the right to destroy 250 years of history, the work that generations have spent their lives building this democratic republic nation (for better or worse), because they believe that, because they now can control the means and ways, they can subjugate the world to do what they believe, in their alcoholic, drug ridden, xenofobic, sociopathic, twisted minds, is the right thing to do.
WeirdJack49 | 6 hours ago
Hubris syndrome:
A acquired personality disorder associated with possessing and exercising power, characterized by excessive self-confidence, contempt for others, and a loss of touch with reality. Often described as "pride that blinds," it leads to poor decision-making and is common in leaders, such as politicians or CEOs, particularly after long, uninterrupted periods in high-ranking positions.
sylbug | 4 hours ago
They’re not destroying ‘history.’ They are destroying the present and the future.
Rottimer | 7 hours ago
You mean convicted felon Steve Bannon.
cmack | 10 hours ago
Just like they tried in 2001 to 2010.
Why do people not remember these nazi fucks?
alotofironsinthefire | 8 hours ago
Because the average voter has the memory of a goldfish
hmm_nah | 7 hours ago
I'm a millennial and wasn't old enough to vote until 2011...
Rottimer | 7 hours ago
They’re fine with that as long as they can make a buck while doing it.
WeirdJack49 | 6 hours ago
Project 2025, crash everything and rebuild a theocratic society.
RIP_Soulja_Slim | 8 hours ago
So I understand this is Reddit, and like it's also the Trump admin so people are rightfully suspicious of everything, but Bessent is pretty likely referring to the SLR - almost everyone in the industry will tell you the SLR is doing more harm than good.
Here's a quick excerpt from Jamie Dimon's letter to shareholders all the way back in 2020:
>Several times in the last few years you have seen dislocation in our repo markets, Treasury markets and, in March 2020, all of our markets. In many cases, the Fed has had to step in to intermediate and help finance these markets.
>Part of the reason for this is the probably unintended confluence of new regulations. We now manage our bank to try to maximize and optimize across more than 20 capital and liquidity factors (we run the bank to serve customers, but we maximize capital and liquidity requirements for economic reasons). But the confluence of three main constraints (the LCR, the supplementary leverage ratio (SLR) rule and G-SIFI) created red lines that we cannot cross. Over the past two years, we saw significant dislocation in the U.S. Treasury (UST) repo markets, which were certainly linked to these regulations. At those moments of stress, by simply reducing the regulatory cost of UST repo, we could have supplied hundreds of billions of dollars in additional UST financing to the market (this activity would be properly collateralized and very safe) – and remember, we are only one market player. In addition, when the market had high stress, we could also have lent hundreds of billions of dollars against corporate bonds, mortgage securities or equities to help market participants sell or deleverage in an orderly way. We did much of this in the Great Recession, but today’s new rules precluded us from taking these actions this time. JPMorgan Chase was essentially “the discount window” for the marketplace before Dodd-Frank – we would lend freely against good collateral just as the central bank was the discount window for banks in a crisis. This system is broken.
Once again, as reserves wane, we're seeing the Fed need to intervene directly in the repo market again.
E:
You can also see the Federal Reserve issuing statements regarding it, like Bowman's speech here:
https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bowman20231109a.htm
>The proposal does not address or propose changes to leverage requirements, including the 5 percent leverage ratio that applies to U.S. global systemically important banks, commonly referred to as the enhanced supplementary leverage ratio (or eSLR). Treasury market intermediation can be disrupted by constraints imposed by the eSLR, as occurred during the early days of market stress during the pandemic. It seems prudent to address this known leverage rule constraint before future stresses emerge that would likely disrupt market functioning.
Powell's statement: https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/powell-statement-20250625.htm
>However, since that time, conditions have changed. When the Board originally approved the SLR—and the enhanced SLR, or eSLR, for our largest banks—we expected reserves in the banking system to substantially decline in the following years. Instead, we have seen bank reserves increase substantially. We also have seen Treasury holdings in the banking system climb precipitously. This stark increase in the amount of relatively safe and low-risk assets on bank balance sheets over the past decade or so has resulted in the leverage ratio becoming more binding. Based on this experience, it is prudent for us to reconsider our original approach. Because banks play an essential intermediation role in the Treasury market, we want to ensure that the leverage ratio does not become regularly binding and discourage banks from participating in low-risk activities, such as Treasury market intermediation.
Lisa Cook: https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/cook-statement-20251125b.htm
And that the Fed had to suspend parts of it in 2020: https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/bcreg20200401a.htm
>Liquidity conditions in Treasury markets have deteriorated rapidly, and financial institutions are receiving significant inflows of customer deposits along with increased reserve levels. The regulatory restrictions that accompany this balance sheet growth may constrain the firms' ability to continue to serve as financial intermediaries and to provide credit to households and businesses. The change to the supplementary leverage ratio will mitigate the effects of those restrictions and better enable firms to support the economy.
Or this write up:
>A spate of market stresses, including the dash for cash in March 2020, has exposed the susceptibility of the US Treasury market to liquidity shocks during periods of stress, prompting regulators to look for ways to enhance the resiliency of this market. The recent publication of rules by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) requiring certain cash US Treasury securities and repo transactions to be cleared is one such policy change – something SEC chair Gary Gensler says will “help to make the Treasury market more efficient, competitive and resilient”.
>However, the SLR is inconsistent with that objective, as it serves as a non-risk-sensitive binding constraint on banks and can impede their ability to act as intermediaries, including their capacity to clear for clients. That’s particularly the case in times of stress – which is what prompted the US Federal Reserve to take a series of measures in 2020 to support liquidity conditions in the Treasury market, including the temporary exclusion of US Treasury securities and deposits at Federal Reserve banks from the SLR calculation. Academics have also pointed to the role of the SLR in constraining the ability of banks to participate in the US Treasury market in certain circumstances.
And this Brookings Brief:
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Brookings-Tarullo-Capital-Regulation-and-Treasuries_3.17.23.pdf
> The Biden administration, policy groups, and academics have all included changes in capital regulations in menus of possible reforms to improve the functioning of the Treasury market.1 Specifically, changes have been proposed to the Enhanced Supplementary Leverage Ratio (eSLR) and G-SIB (Global Systemically Important Bank) capital surcharge. (See box on next page.) Both these capital requirements apply only to the eight U.S. banks designated as of global systemic importance.2 Because these banks are some of the most important dealers in Treasuries, regulatory disincentives to hold and trade Treasuries can adversely affect the liquidity of the world’s most important debt market.
>Disagreement over whether to adjust the eSLR, the surcharges, or both is often just a version of the continuing debate over the right level of capital requirements. Some banking interests seize on episodes of Treasury market dysfunction to argue for reductions in the eSLR and surcharge. Some regulators, elected representatives, and commentators see any adjustments as weakening post-GFC capital standards. Yet it is possible to reduce the current regulatory disincentive of banks, especially at the margin, to hold and trade Treasuries without diminishing the overall capital resiliency of large banks.
I get the kneejerk "regulations good, less regulation bad" mentality, but if we're being serious about discussing regulation we should be talking about specifics - how they help, how they hurt, did something intended to be good end up resulting in a negative outcome?
You guys can and should google away yourselves - it's the "supplementary leverage ratio" or SLR. You'll find tons and tons of commentary on it, from the Federal reserve, from financial institutions, etc, and almost none of it is positive towards the way the SLR has actually impacted banking.
Illustrious-Lime-878 | 8 hours ago
Isn't quoting a CEO of the largest too-big-to-fail bank is a little bias on this matter? Bank failures tend to help the biggest banks because people move from smaller banks to the too-big-to-fail. And JPM basically has an implicit infinite backstop, so we should be extremely suspicious of any view they have on regulation, since they don't have to factor in the extreme end risk into their decisions.
Its one thing to want to fix the issues with any regulation or to strengthen it, but the position here is specifically to loosen or unburden banks which is different than just pointing out weaknesses or areas of improvement for regulation.
RIP_Soulja_Slim | 4 hours ago
> Isn't quoting a CEO of the largest too-big-to-fail bank is a little bias on this matter?
I had another moment free and added a few more sources above, suffice to say it's not simply Dimon, that was an easy grab earlier - but you would struggle to find anyone who's spoken highly of the SLR - I've added excerpts from Brookings, Fed board members, and industry groups.
Again, you can and should do your own research, I'm just giving people the specific regs and context, as most comments here are just mindless bitching about "regulations" with no indication that anyone seems to know anything beyond that.
However, in my years of reading on this topic I've not seen much of any sentiment coming from market experts or banking leads that expressed strong support for the SLR as it stands. The effort to address it's shortcomings started under Biden, this isn't really a partisan/politics thing, it's an issue of treasury market function - when there are reservations expressed around changes they're not about the SLR itself but rather how this will impact overall reserve math, which is obviously something that should be (and is being) carefully considered.
RIP_Soulja_Slim | 7 hours ago
> Isn't quoting a CEO of the largest too-big-to-fail bank is a little bias on this matter?
Sure, it's just a good direct illustration from someone that knows the landscape describing the issue - but like I said at the end of the post, you can and should look this stuff up yourself, you'll find tons and tons of commentary on it that's not flattering from all corners of the industry. I'm strongly encouraging people to take the terms I'm providing them, and learn for themselves rather than just take kneejerk reddit comments as informative.
The intent of the above post isn't to convince anyone of anything, it's to raise awareness of the specific items being discussed and the reality that there are quite often negative unintended consequences from various pieces of regulation. The goal should never be regulation for regulation's sake, it should be to improve things over time, so if a regulation isn't doing that then we should examine it right?
Illustrious-Lime-878 | 6 hours ago
>The goal should never be regulation for regulation's sake, it should be to improve things over time, so if a regulation isn't doing that then we should examine it right?
Of course, but they're not saying that, they saying regulation should be reduced to unburden banks. We should question that loaded premise that banks are burdened. They're the opposite of burdened by the government's full backing and widespread promotion, who has carried these private banks through repeating crises that would probably have bankrupted many of them multiple times over!
For example, in Dimon's view, the fed stepping into repo markets is implied as something to be avoided. JPM could have been there to save the day instead. But if the only reason JPM would lend in a financial crises is because they know they are backstopped by the government as a systematically important institution, what exactly is the difference here, other than in one case JPM makes a cut of the profit as privileged middleman? I'm not sure how great of an improvement is made is vs the risk of deregulation, when the government is still the one making the decision to full backstop the banking system either way.
RIP_Soulja_Slim | 6 hours ago
> Of course, but they're not saying that, they saying regulation should be reduced to unburden banks.
Ehhhh, I think we need to differentiate between media headlines and the information that's actually come out of these discussions. The SLR specifically has been the focal point of a lot of discussion across the last few years, when Bessent makes generalized statements like this I believe he's referring to the SLR (he has specifically spoken about the SLR previously).
So like, in a general sense, the SLR is a burden on banks, and one that's detrimental to the financial system's efficiency at the moment. So yeah, removing that would unburden them, but does it create risk? There's still dozens of other liquidity and capital requirements in place, so I'm not sure that it does.
>For example, in Dimon's view, the fed stepping into repo markets is implied as something to be avoided. JPM could have been there to save the day instead.
I think this is a sorta valid view, but one that makes the central bank's fundamental role change. The Fed is mandated to be the lender of last resort, that's really the entire core reason it exists, however if the lender of last resort is needing to be the only lender in markets on an ongoing basis would you not say that's indicative of a flaw in the system?
I think of central banks like training wheels, they're there in case you fall, they inspire confidence, but you shouldn't be bouncing off them during normal operations.
At a core level, what the SLR has done was prevented banks (not just JPM, although JPM has historically been a major player in overnight funding) from being able to do something as simple as a treasury secured overnight loan. That's not a risky operation, you're lending cash, getting a treasury for the full value, swapping the items back, and taking a small spread. Treasuries are fully liquid, but because of their categorization within the SLR they count against you - therefore enacting treasury secured loans is prevented.
I'm very pro regulation, but I'm pro intelligent regulation, and if something isn't working we should examine it and ask what we can do better. I see that happening right now with the SLR.
Boyhowdy107 | 12 hours ago
That's me, I'm the bad debt. My gf was making 60% of the household income a year ago when she lost her job. I had some savings and the better credit score but was still upside down on my credit cards when it hit. We made it about 7 months before I started having to choose what I paid. Now get about 4 angry calls a day I send to a full mailbox. Already seen some stuff get charged off and sent to a collection agency. Can't even bear to look at my credit score. Still making a good salary but 2/3 of my paycheck goes to keeping my landlords happy for our 1 bedroom priced just below median rent in our city since the startup cost to move is expensive and requires a credit score check.
I spend my days working comms for a white collar lawfirm as a non-lawyer, reviewing client alerts explaining various deregulation opportunities. I also heard from yet another friend (in various non-legal industries) who got laid off yesterday who I hope were in better shape than me. Feels like an ironic front row seat to the next big crisis, where some day I'll be watching Margot Robbie in a bathtub in an Adam McKay film explain how it went down again, and I'll hear some term or regulation I read at work but didn't have the knowledge to process and say "oh right, that's what did it this time."
OccamsRabbit | 10 hours ago
Same happened to us, except I'm the one who was laid off. Look into ACCC debt restructuring or some other non profit (stay away from the corporations). They'll at least negotiate with the card companies for lower rates (which makes you realize they're changing as much as they want, because they can clearly afford to offer lower rates).
We now have a single monthly payment and have cut back on spending, living like we're in a Monastary and our credit score is already starting to recover. It will still be a long time, but at least ita moving in the right direction.
Natural-Hospital-140 | 7 hours ago
Bankruptcy was amazing for us. Got to keep our house and vehicles, went down to a $400 monthly payment for 5 years with student loans deferred no interest until it was completed. We’re able to sell our home and finance another during that time. This was California. Bankruptcy attorneys are highly regulated and so are their fees, unlike debt consolidators.
New-Association5536 | 5 hours ago
Wow, this seems kind of crazy to me. How did you buy another house after declaring bankruptcy? Did you get reamed on interest rates or something?
This also makes me feel my life of never doing anything I want to ensure I don't go into debt was kind of pointless, if bankruptcy is this simple. Should of been putting everything on credit, living to the fullest, and just gone into bankruptcy when it all fell apart.
bk7f2 | 12 hours ago
More scam! Greed is good! /s
HIASHELL247 | 10 hours ago
Nor don’t worry the tax payers will bail the banks out.
OverallElephant7576 | 9 hours ago
If you haven’t noticed, the tax payers can’t even afford to pay the government’s annual bills to the tune of 2 trillion a year. It won’t be the taxpayers that pay, it will be debt that does, which the United States has so much of right now and investors are slowly not buying this debt anymore because of the countries foreign policies.
Old-Buffalo-5151 | 9 hours ago
Fun fact. Not this time ... The tax intake isn't enough to cover the cost and there isn't enough money left in people's account TOO tax in the first place.
If a bank pops noone is coming to save it. If they all pop its game over for the dollar (as in it will be worthless over night)
Maxpowr9 | 7 hours ago
That's why I roll my eyes at people that think all these billionaires are gonna end up buying stuff cheap. Some will have the liquidity, but most are also leveraged up to their eyeballs against their own assets. Those creditors will come calling and they too will have to sell to save themselves.
I feel the ouroboros that is private equity will be the first domino to fall when the market goes to shit. They won't get a bailout though and I don't see traditional banks having any appetite to buy their debt up cheap either; since most of them shun private equity. They're essentially loan sharks.
Easy-Marsupial3268 | 10 hours ago
I thought that was Chinese money.
OverallElephant7576 | 9 hours ago
They have been selling their US Treasury Bonds for years now, not buying
Easy-Marsupial3268 | 9 hours ago
In 2008? I thought that was the year they started selling bonds because all we did was bailout banks and corporations.
OverallElephant7576 | 9 hours ago
More so after the US sanctioned Russia and seized all their US assets, which included their Treasury bonds.
Easy-Marsupial3268 | 9 hours ago
Ah okay. Yeah, China has been looking ahead for a while.
LifeTradition4716 | 10 hours ago
Thank you for your informative fact based comment. Its obvious that faith and trust in US as global financial leader is eroding. Would you care to share what these "other schools of thought" are saying in response to what's unfolded?
Old-Buffalo-5151 | 9 hours ago
By removing the rules it would allow banks to lend at will which would stimulate growth via business, housing (other construction)
However this would dramatically amp up the risks on their books and basically be a rerun of the 2000,2008 economics
RIP_Soulja_Slim | 2 hours ago
Which regulation is in question that changes lending standards or risk controls?
TheProfessional9 | 11 hours ago
Yep. Would mean more bank bailouts
Easy-Marsupial3268 | 10 hours ago
We bailed out the banks in 2008 with Chinese money. After which they started the process of decoupling the economy. They aren’t lending that to us again.
gimmickypuppet | 10 hours ago
I’m more concerned that on a team of people with direct experience that rules and regulations are controversial. That alone means it’s fucked
WestCoastBestCoast01 | 3 hours ago
Our entire financial industry is filled to the brim with people who don't believe they should be regulated. The company I work at is constantly reeling the c-suite in from marketing things in illegal ways. Lawmakers and internal compliance teams are pretty much the only people standing between you and being thoroughly scammed by every financial institution you interact with.
Easy-Marsupial3268 | 10 hours ago
Eh, America is cooked. Let it happen. Maybe we can all make a little money from the fire sale.
Psychological-Cry221 | 8 hours ago
I am having a far different experience. I think banks are going to be fine unless real estate dumps more than 25%. Even then, lots of older loans willl still be ok. I don’t get how you can make so many bad loans under the current regulatory regime without committing outright fraud.
The issue as I see it, is that regulations are so tight that a lot of lending has moved to private lenders.
Compliance_Crip | 8 hours ago
Agree! Loosening controls lead to a wild west mentality.
Think_Sugar_7658 | 6 hours ago
Is it a play ti bilk all the money from the country ala Putin?
FoogYllis | 6 hours ago
Also remember that Bessent failed at his own hedge fund when the markets were giving massive returns.
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/how-trumps-treasury-secretary-crashed
I wouldn’t trust him to run a hot dog stand.
ForMoreYears | 6 hours ago
Also in capital markets. Our teams are saying basically the same thing.
LakeSun | 5 hours ago
That's why they vote Republican.
More Fraud!
Bindle- | 31 minutes ago
Bro, just one less regulation, bro. They'll be fine after that, bro. Promise, bro.
livestrong2109 | 10 hours ago
Cool so you fully understand what they're plan and intentions are for the country.
JonnyBravoII | 13 hours ago
They seem hellbent on destroying the dollar and this is just one bullet in their arsenal. Did we learn nothing from the 2008 collapse? I'm reminded of when one of the Fed members sent his wife to the ATM and told her to remove as much cash as she could. That's how close we came to total collapse.
ZanzerFineSuits | 13 hours ago
The last year has been filled with “zomg bubble!” rhetoric, as if that’s the big risk to crashing markets and/or the economy.
History shows it’s not bubbles that crash the economy, it’s shady financial deals resulting from inadequate regulations, or the collapse of “new” yet shady financial instruments designed to bypass regulations or too complex for regulators to spot. That’s the stuff that kills banks and then lending and then the economy, not people ramping up the price on niche markets due to exuberance.
TryptaMagiciaN | 12 hours ago
>shady financial deals resulting from inadequate regulations, or the collapse of “new” yet shady financial instruments designed to bypass regulations or too complex for regulators to spot.
centralized planning. the center being the small class of people making those deals and pushing to implement those instruments. The rest of us just try to respond to the economy they have control over.
If we are going to go for a planned economy, then I prefer it be democratic as possible and let my coworkers and I decide how best to handle running the business. Instead of private lobbying lets just expand the number of things like house reps and senators to numbers that would actually capture a better picture of the general population and get rid the pay to play scheme set in place by the DNC and RNC.
But ffs can we please stop pretending we operate in a free market that we can apply economic theory to? We don't the invisible hand has become pretty fkn visible imo. How many quacks do we need to hear before we stop letting ducks shit on our heads?
jellyhessman | 6 hours ago
Yea the "free hand of the market" gets pretty gimpy when you have enough VC funding to push every competitor out of the market before jacking up prices to try and break even.
TryptaMagiciaN | 6 hours ago
the hand is freely up my ass, is what it feels like.
Yanking me round by my guts like I'm a puppet. Even if it were invisible, it's pretty damn obvious when it's fuckin ya up to it's invisible elbow.
Rmans | 4 hours ago
>History shows it’s not bubbles that crash the economy, it’s shady financial deals resulting from inadequate regulations, or the collapse of “new” yet shady financial instruments designed to bypass regulations or too complex for regulators to spot.
Funny you mention that, because the recent Epstein docs have an overwhelming amount of subjective evidence suggesting the SEC is fully compromised and controlled by billionaires who have used it to kill competitive businesses and exploit trade loop holes for decades.
https://youtu.be/soxT47Bx1sI?si=KYx-6qNS-_je3yg-
So yeah, the reason many countries see the US as risky is because we haven't had adequate regulations for decades, and the Epstein files kinda prove we were just making empty promises about fixing big problems billionaires have been exploiting for so long. What we're seeing politically is the result of this lack of regulatory control, with the guilty party literally taking over politics to hide their financial crimes by dismantling the DOJ.
I would consider believing our financial markets have better regulations if our politics did too. One always begets the other. So there's now absolutley no reason anyone should simply assume the SEC is any better than the DOJ. Especially with this recent Epstein leak that basically suggests we've been compromised for over a decade.
Elegant-Lawfulness25 | 11 hours ago
So they did learn but the opposite end. They want the market to crash as they have a bunch of money on the side to pick up cheap assets. Also if the house of cards doesn't blow apart during this presidency the Democrats get the blame.
neomech | 10 hours ago
The collapse worked out very well for billionaires.
SMUHypeMachine | 8 hours ago
It always does. Crashing the economy gives billionaires incredible purchasing power since it strong arms competition out and they get a steep discount.
limebite | 7 hours ago
Hey guys not to rain on the parade but how would the billionaires who borrow money against their stocks be able to buy everything if their stocks crash? Also bank mergers wouldn’t be such a bad idea right now it could help prevent issues from deregulation. I would prefer not to deregulate because US banks can be dumber than rocks sometimes.
SMUHypeMachine | 6 hours ago
Billionaires don’t leverage their assets entirely and would be largely unaffected. The likelihood of a billionaire being margin called is also significantly lower than your average Joe simply because they have the resources to make it a huge hassle on the banks.
limebite | 5 hours ago
That’s not how margin calls work. Either you pony up the cash or we sell your assets. Like you gotta think about this, if a billionaire gives one institution a problem with collecting very few institutions would want to do business with them. That’s why Trump had to go to Deutsche bank when borrowing cash they were the only ones willing take on that risk. If you’re thinking “oh but they would make an exception” no they won’t and thats why it’s never been tested. No rich person would be dumb enough to bite the hand that loans you millions of dollars against your stocks. The few cases of a rich person sueing to get out of a margin call have some very complicated situations beyond “stock market dropped, margin requirement not met.”
-chewie | 10 hours ago
There's no real way out of this without destroying and completely depreciating the dollar.
zzen11223344 | 11 hours ago
First thing will happen is probably more bank merges. This is something US government can loose the regulation immediately without congressional act. US government can signal the willingness of allowing merges and speed up the approval.
CrissBliss | 7 hours ago
What would total collapse have looked like?
gc3 | 6 hours ago
The parable of the sower by Octavia Butler
_lIlI_lIlI_ | 6 hours ago
A FED member didn't say this. A manager at an investing firm said it. Also if he thought there was "total collapse" why would he care about taking money out? The context was obviously he thought banks would be closed for a few days
JonnyBravoII | 5 hours ago
I stand partially corrected. It wasn't a member of the Fed, it was Mohamed El-Erian who was not a mere manager at an investing firm.
Beautiful_Finger4566 | 6 hours ago
yeah, we learned that overregulation causes financial systems to crash
Clinton never should have forced banks to lend to the subprime
JonnyBravoII | 6 hours ago
That's not what happened and we both know that so please don't spread misinformation. Was Countrywide Financial a bank? It was not and they were the biggest lender of all. The vast majority of loans were coming from companies like them and you and I both know that. So please leave your political agenda out of this.
Beautiful_Finger4566 | 3 hours ago
it absolutely is what happened
he also repealed the Glass–Steagall Act
without those two actions, the Great Recession would never have occurred
DramaticSimple4315 | 13 hours ago
The arsonist is calling for more dry wood to come to the party
There is possibly only one iron rule in 400 years of economic analysis: finacial deregulation leads to financial disasters.
These people do not care, as they believe that a good old crisis is a healthy free market system correction.
Too bad it wrecks millions of lives across the world every time.
lack_of_communicatio | 11 hours ago
"- It's all gonna fall apart, anyway, eventually, so what's so bad about making a buck or two off it?" - patented excuses for core voters.
cmack | 10 hours ago
core republican voters
lack_of_communicatio | 10 hours ago
yep^thatwastheimplication
TryptaMagiciaN | 12 hours ago
>There is possibly only one iron rule in 400 years on economic analysis: finacial deregulation leads to financial disasters.
See, that's not even a financial rule. That's just how entropy works in a system. If you remove all the things that hold a certain amount of "x" in place, then it's gonna fall apart into waste. Whether its information, currency, etc. The rest of economics is just sophistry. people just playing games convincing others to join and we all love games. Just a big roleplaying game for whatever reason. Don't know why we all act like economic theory is anything else.
Just because monkeys can trade food for sex doesn't mean a dog playing tug of war comprehends game theory even if we can explain his behavior using it or explain the monkey's using economic theory. That just isn't how theory works, but we all pretend so for the sake of something I can't seem to understand. The only time we can ever make reliable economic predicitions is when there are stable controls in place.. otherwise no predictions. this is why the "free market" is a myth. It's a controlled economy and always has been.
RashmaDu | 10 hours ago
It's really funny state "Economic theory is just pretense that doesn't apply to anything in real life" and in the same breath say "Obviously entropy applies to socioeconomic systems"...
When you do choice theory and the deriving game theory etc, you don't assume the agent chooses according to game theory. You posit that the behaviour you do observe would be the same if they did use game theory, which is not the same thing! This is a fundamental and common misunderstanding of how economic theory works.
TryptaMagiciaN | 10 hours ago
Right. It is a common misunderstanding. So common in fact, it seems to be a sort of rule.
and why use quotations and not quote what I say. Just a weird way to speak. I didnt say it doesnt apply. I moreorless said it is applied poorly. Same with most religions. they apply to life a plenty, people apply them all sorts of ways, usually harmful ones
viv_savage11 | 9 hours ago
It’s insanity. These losers seem willfully blind to something irrefutable.
handsoapdispenser | 9 hours ago
It's also then asking for less regulation from Congress and agencies while simultaneously reserving the right for the president to call up any CEO and make specific demands under threat of tariffs or other targeted punishment.
flickh | 6 hours ago
Yet another reason Canadians like me have been divesting of US assets!
A friend of mine told me he grew up in Windsor, Ontario, and he remembers looking over the border and seeing the glow of Detroit burning in 1967.
Kinda how we all feel up here these days.
samandiriel | 44 minutes ago
This was literally the counsel given to Hoover during the Great Depression, and he said letting that attitude inform policy was his single biggest regret
AeliusRogimus | 13 hours ago
Is there a type of arsonist that doesn't cause fires? 🤔
I do get what you're saying though.
DramaticSimple4315 | 13 hours ago
Lol had a bad sleep
Arcturus_Nova | 13 hours ago
Mr. Bessent seems to have a rigorous grasp on economics just like many of his former predecessors: McDuck, Wile. E. Coyote, snake oil sellers, etc. Micro and Macroeconomics were taught on the days he was absent perhaps. Past financial meltdowns aside, it’s great to be able to pretend to learn (lol) on the job.
Xyrus2000 | 10 hours ago
As I've said before, the only way for the actions of this administration makes sense is if you view it through the lens of wanting to deliberately destroy the country.
I'm a big believer in Hanlon's Razor, but the actions of this administration cannot be explained by just incompetence and/or stupidity. There is deliberate intent.
BishlovesSquish | 6 hours ago
Heritage Foundation and Project 2025 have entered the chat.
“We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected,” Vought said in a video revealed by ProPublica and the research group Documented in October. “When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work, because they are increasingly viewed as the villains. We want their funding to be shut down … We want to put them in trauma.” -Russell Vought, OMB Director
Solartude | 12 hours ago
This dirtbag comes from the Chicago School of Moral Hazards: It's ok for Wall Street to take on more risk because another party (i.e., the taxpayers) will always bear the consequences of that risk.
Fickle-Pool-8852 | 12 hours ago
Dems create rules, people vote them out. Repubs change rules, things get bad, people elect Dems. Dems create rules, people vote them out. Repubs change rules, things get bad… our (lack of) knowledge of history continues to fail us.
At least we finally have a balanced budget and states rights are thriving! The hallmark of the conservative belief system. Right? Right?!
Winter_Whole2080 | 11 hours ago
Rules for thee and not for me. — Republicans
averyrose2010 | 5 hours ago
First paragraph made me think of this:
"God creates dinosaurs. God destroys dinosaurs. God creates man. Man destroys God. Man creates dinosaurs".
cmack | 10 hours ago
Nazis say no
NitWhittler | 10 hours ago
Several months ago, Trump said he wanted to end the FDIC and have the U.S. Treasury handle bank failures.
If Trump follows through, there could be an old fashion run on the banks which would further collapse our currency.
Why do I get the feeling he's trying to push us into using crypto? I hate the direction Trump is taking us, with looser regulation and less oversight, especially at a time when our currency has already plummeted 11%.
FrankAdamGabe | 9 hours ago
I’d at bare minimum move extra cash at a few different institutions to my credit union as they did not need a bailout in 2008.
4thdementia | 11 hours ago
This is coming straight from the top… Peter Thiel. That MF wants to see this whole thing burn so that be can bring about the second coming of Christ. He’s absolutely psycho. Let it be known who is out to destroy America.
cmack | 10 hours ago
The Republicans obviously as they are and have been in complete control the entire twenty-first century sans 72 days in 2009 which created ACA. If you think the past thirty year trend is shite....there is only one group to blame. Republican voters.
Started with being pissed about a dude getting a blowjob...really ramped up when a black man became president....and finally they chose to install a russian puppet.
americanspirit64 | 11 hours ago
How much looser could it be. The corporate grift is unbelievable, banking regulations non-existent. The system rigged and one-sided towards propping up large corporations above and huge profits nothing else matters. Individual financial rights have fallen by the wayside in the face of nameless, lawless companies who no longer deal with customers, but see people as numbers in a shell game. Looser regulations, is seen by corporations as another way to avoid accountability to consumers.
baymenintown | 10 hours ago
I’m starting to think that this administration is just trying to pad their own pockets at all costs.
I’m starting to think that this administration is just trying to pad their own pockets at all costs.
I’m starting to think that this administration is just trying to pad their own pockets at all costs.
ImDriftwood | 12 hours ago
An outsize portion of any benefit produced by deregulation will go toward powerful financial institutions and the inevitable consequences of a financial shock will be borne by us all.
Bessent is essentially saying “what if we do pre-2008 finance, but knowingly and intentionally.”
Sea-Sir2754 | 6 hours ago
This has ended so well the last few times we tried it.
Seriously this should be a dog whistle for the fact that they want a crash. This is not a good idea, at all.
lifeat24fps | 6 hours ago
How much looser, Scott? You and your friends and the donor class already run roughshod over the regulations we have in place with absolutely zero accountability. You commit white collar crimes daily while our justice department and regulatory agencies shrug. So how much more leeway do you need, buddy?
Oilpaintcha | 9 hours ago
These are the kinds of monsters we should have been warned about as children. Deregulation of the finance industry has led to scandal after scandal. Corruption and malfeasance have increased and become simply a cost/benefit line in corporate reports, with poor prosecution and lax oversight commonplace. The intentional destruction of our country continues unabated, and so many people who know better applaud. Unbelievable.
not-on-your-nelly | 7 hours ago
Yeah, that'll work. The Canadian banking system didn't experience the same fallout that the US banks did in 2008. Why? We have strong regulations. We also had a strong Bank of Canada Governor at the time. I think his name was Mark Carney. Apparently he knows something about economics.
ledow | 6 hours ago
Yeah, that's what you need in the current climate of everyone starting to divest from the US, and taking on enormous national debt, and making the country unstable, and devaluing the currency, and losing trade deals, and slapping on stupid tariffs everywhere, and tech bubbles...
Yeah, less financial regulation so there's more corruption, instability, uncertainty, ... that'll solve it.
Xeynon | 9 hours ago
Apparently they think the crash that's going to result when the AI and crypto bubbles pop isn't going to be damaging enough as it is.
It's bad enough being governed by criminals. Why do they have to be such dumb criminals?
handytendonitis | 9 hours ago
When the Dems get back in power after the Twinkie Wars of 2105 I hope they'll push for an Amendment to the Constitution preventing bailouts of the financial institutions that will fail because of this. It'd be nice to imprison everyone who profits, but I know that's a reach
Olderpostie | 8 hours ago
Wall Street always wants rules loosened. So it can repeat the scams of the past and make a clique rich, and the rest of the investors, the Main Street, not Wall Street type, much poorer.
Guess what sector Bessent comes from?
128-NotePolyVA | 8 hours ago
““too often in the past, efforts to safeguard the financial system have resulted in burdensome and often duplicative regulations.”
It’s the same BS every time these types are in control. They deregulate, take advantage with excessive risks and cause a recession.
Ghostrider556 | 5 hours ago
This feels like an incredibly risky game to play because the US barely has the ability to bail itself out anymore without incurring immediate repayment problems
Avunculardonkey | 2 hours ago
This is a terrible idea. Prepare to watch the wealth disparity get greater. The only silver lining might be if folks begin to react like they did in the French Revolution, which came about due in large part to the wealth disparity.
SpitefulSeagull | 13 hours ago
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Comment length comment length comment length comment length comment length comment length comment length comment length comment length comment length
Hahahahahaha
Panthollow | 13 hours ago
Regulations do nothing but help protect average investors from getting swindled, but they're deeply harmful to the people and organizations who are attempting to swindle. It's time we ease the limitations on the American financial system and allow institutions to return to the more fluid and flexible approach that allows for more creative financial maneuvering against these burdensome regulations.
lopix | 9 hours ago
Wow... because that has never almost collapsed the US economy before. From the Clinton-era Savings & Loans Scandal through to the subprime BS of 2008-2009. Good idea Scotty Boy, because that won't further encourage other country to dump US treasuries and bonds as you become ever more of a economic liability.
PatientHelicopter123 | 5 hours ago
Epstein, Jack Smith, January 6th, ICE ices taxpayers
YEAR ONE - US Taxpayer Pays:
$858 Million in ICE signing bonuses, $170 Billion to Stephen Miller Immigration enforcement, $40 billion to Argentinian Farmers, $110 Million for Trump golfing, $30 million for Trump birthday parade, and
$40 Million for JD Vance’s 8 vacations, $200 Million for Kristi Noem private jets, $62 Million plane with security detail used for Kash Patel girlfriend visits, $135 Billion in Musk DOGE costs (including Musk getting all your personal info), $500 Billion additional to military, and
Trump says $100 to $150 Billion reimbursement to oil companies for repairing Venezuelan infrastructure, $2.5 Billion contract to Peter Thiel owned Palantir Technologies whose tech is used for mass surveillance on US citizens. Plus $2,100 more in taxes paid per year per household for trump tariffs and
Pete Hegseths $400 Million retrofitting of Trumps Qatari jet, $6 million for bringing all generals to Washington for a speech, and a $50,000 paint job for his home.
Kristi Noem is spending $115 Million on a drone program to use against US citizens
Trumps personal wealth increased $3 Billion in this one year.
In one year Trump added $1.8 Trillion to the federal deficit in 2025 and $7.2 Trillion in his first 4 year term.
Trump placed unqualified armed masked men on the street who ask to see your papers.
$14 Billion for ICE immigration detention in 2025. Republican controlled Congress approved $45 Billion for new immigration detention centers.
$38 Billon in Elon Musk government contracts
DOGE cuts wasted $10 Billion on paid leave for federal workers.
Trumps $400 Million White House ballroom project is said to be paid by rich private donors looking for business favors, companies seeking mergers, the crypto folks desire for scam expansion, and it also allows them to pay less taxes because they can deduct their contributions from their taxable income. This will affect the individual taxpayer with reduced public services and increased individual taxes as well as the tax payer paying for the ballrooms expanded maintenance.
Small US business importers have paid about $25,000 more per month because of Trump tariffs.
Trumps shut down of USAID has led to 600 thousand deaths worldwide, two thirds of them children, with an estimated 14 million deaths possible through 2030.
Trump implemented funding cuts for environmental science, scientific research, the EPA, medicine, healthcare, the postal service, National Parks, public broadcasting and education.
Hedge fund manager Paul Singer gave $15 Million to Trumps PAC’s and $37 Million to republicans running for congress, he purchased Venezuelan oil company Citgo Oil for cheap in a well-timed transaction - 2 months before the illegal US invasion of Venezuela. He is expected to make billions.
2.2026 Trump announces the closure (for restoration) of the Kennedy Center. Artists cancel scheduled shows due to Trump takeover and restructure of the board of directors and appointment of unqualified leadership. Ticket sales tank...
There is MUCH more...
Impeach - Depose - Convict - Imprison tRump...
sylbug | 5 hours ago
Americans are going to be shocked when this whole thing implodes and there’s no money for any bailouts. You’re all going to be left holding the bag this time and it’s going to get ugly.
KierONeil_the_Elder | 3 hours ago
2026 It’s looking more & more like 2006. W has his foot mashed to the floor for GDP growth at any cost, and then it all collapsed in 2008. These people never learn. They drive the economy like a rented mule and are surprised when it dies.
marasaidw | 2 hours ago
They really really want to do everything to postpone the bubble burst until after midterms. If it pops before then the shift will be so bad they wont have a way to reelection short of deploying troops and fabricating the whole thing.
RMarch21 | an hour ago
2008 here we come…..give the keys to the criminals…..this is about current policies not working….this administration has already added 2.2 Trillion to the national debt since they took office….tariffs creating uncertainty(which is the plan) and not helping, the economy is showing signs of being overheated and prices for the average person are high….cheap money will only pump liquidity into this shit-show…..maybe, just maybe temporarily prop up the market for the midterms…..it wont work as the market and voters have other plans
Psyclist80 | 10 hours ago
2008 comin in hot! Jesus these goons don't learn... Or they do learn but know they can benefit huge so don't care that it will do damage to the overall system as folks over extend themselves in thier social media fueled, dopamine driven buying sprees... SMDH
artisanrox | 5 hours ago
i'm thinking they want a little further back than 2008 here
International-Ant174 | 9 hours ago
I've seen this movie before, and it didn't end well for the main character.
Is treason still a thing on the books? Because these are acts to destroy America.
jankyt | 11 hours ago
Something created after '08 financial crisis is probably a good thing and a needed check and balance. Especially with Trump wanting higher home prices and his overt messaging around selling Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Trying to heat the housing market up
Counterpoint-4 | 10 hours ago
US doesn't top the countries for money laundering so plenty of scope for improvement? Is Trump not taking in enough baksheesh?
And these words are just to pad it out so it isn't too short so gets removed!
Grimjack2 | 10 hours ago
If someone asked him to name a single example, he'd have one, maybe two, tops. And you'd know exactly who is nudging him to remove that regulation, and exactly how it benefits that company, and really that company alone.
Not the public. Not the masses. As those people would definitely be hurt from removing the regulations.
demagogueffxiv | 9 hours ago
Oh yeah, that's what we need. As AI companies are currently plowing us towards the next bubble and the president is enriching himself with crypto scams. Less regulation. Great idea.
shwarma_heaven | 7 hours ago
Yes, because that worked great for housing 1994 - 2007...
Regulation is in place not just for the safety of the customer. As we saw in the run up to the 2007/2008 crash, banks were handing out mortgages left and right. Stated income mortgages for strawberry pickers in which the loan officer wrote they were making $250K a year. Interest only, zero down, negative amortization loans... ARMS...
The banks didn't care, because they were making all their money on the loan fees selling them to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But when they stopped buying these tainted mortgages, the banks were left holding the bag. They crumbled in record numbers.
We are primed for just such a calamity right now. A smart administration would slowly deflate the balloon, rather than pushing more air into it.
Distinct-Response907 | 5 hours ago
I don’t pretend to know the details of the regulations under discussion, but this administration ought to be focused on enforcing existing regulations as-is. The clumsy tariff rollout (highly charitable description), unwarranted disputes with the federal reserve, and completely unconstitutional actions in Venezuela have made them completely untrustworthy to make other changes.
artisanrox | 5 hours ago
Hooo boy. They were quiet about this for a while considering everything else and so I thought they forgot about it.
Guess not.
Gettin' closer to stuffing-the-mattress time.
Memory_Less | 5 hours ago
Translation
We cannot f**king launder our illegal money for Trump et al, and oligarchs and tech boys easily if these nuisance rules stay in place.
Kershiser22 | 4 hours ago
The linked article is garbage. It just says the rules should be relaxed. No details about what that might mean. Did he have more specifics about what he wants, or did he just say he wants fewer rules in general?
CQscene | 13 hours ago
Here comes the Here comes the Here comes the Y'all really want it now (Boom!) Here comes the (Boom!) Here comes the (Boom!) Here comes the Y'all really want it now (Boom!) Here comes the (Boom!) Here comes the (Boom!) Here comes the Y'all really want it now (Boom!).