[brenden2]

Yikes, this is kind of scary. This could magnify the losses dramatically as lenders start to implode due to the cascade of defaults. If anything, they should increase the reserve requirements to prevent instability and encourage a flight from risky assets. Yes, this will make the stocks go down now, but it would probably result in fewer people getting laid off and going broke in the future.

I'd rather see highly leveraged companies go under quickly, rather than postponing it. A small bang now is less bad than a massive explosion later.

[ouid]

It is bold of you to assume that there are any non-highly leveraged companies, or that their going under would not already cause a cascade of defaults.

[Red_Leaves_Flyy]

In other words we, as a country, would be rise to rip the bandaid off. Instead, we're slowly tugging at the edges. This is going to be a long, and drawn out recovery. I hope everyone followed the general consensus and has their retirement properly adjusted to their risk tolerance. This recovery is probably going to take years, from the time we get the economy restarted.

[WillPostForFood]

We are following Japan’s path to stagnation.

[toomuchtodo]

What other way is there? Japan and Europe is a preview, but there are few paths available as your structural demographics change and your economy tilts towards services instead of manufacturing.

Civilization matures, the foundational economics change, this is the result. Past performance does not guarantee future returns [1]. We can't rip the bandaid off because there are still too many people desperately clinging to a model of growth and wealth that is running out of runway. The bandaid will be ripped off for us. How many of those over 55 are likely to keep their jobs through this economic contraction [2] [3]? 48% of those folks (55 years old and older) in the US have zero retirement savings [4], and will rely entirely on Social Security (which will exhaust its trust fund in 2035 [5], reducing benefits to 75%; Social Security keeps 15 million seniors out of poverty at current entitlement levels [6], not to mention over 1 million children). 10k people a day turn 65 in the US. This, fortunately, entitles them to Medicare, but their consumption pattern will be reduced for the remainder of their lives and our Medicare costs are going to skyrocket.

You need leadership, political and monetary, that will attempt bold changes to accommodate these realities. The longer we wait, the more radical the measures will need to be when the time for implementation is at hand. Change happens slowly, and then all of a sudden.

[1] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/700-year-decline-of-interes...

[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/local/2017/03/30/disabled-o...

[3] https://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/

[4] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/05/these-people-are-on-the-verg...

[5] https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/policy-basics-...

[6] https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/social-securit...

[Red_Leaves_Flyy]

We, the national we, need to have hard conversations about what changes must occur to balance the needs of all with our ability to provide. This obviously means some people will see reductions, others will see increases. The net result is overall more equitable society. The longer we delay the more hardship we all will have to endure. The mere fact that we have gone decades kicking cans is evidence of a deeply broken society without foresight and without leadership. I am not saying we do not have foresight or leaders, merely that our government is failing to foresee and lead.

These changes should have happened decades ago. Every day we delay is another day picking the edges of the bandaid while the wound beneath is septic.

I can suggest my ignorant idealsof potential solutions and delve into the weeds over things but that's a waste of effort. The people have spoken, and they are saying they would rather suffer more than consider how else the country could function.

[jeffdavis]

I think the general consensus is that it's fine for bad companies to go under. But we have a situation here where a lot of reasonably good companies could go under just because of the social distance on a global scale.

The 2008 crunch was almost purely financial. Let's get past this pandemic and then see where the businesses shake out financially.

[brenden2]

The CEOs will probably just take the money and use it for more stock buybacks and pay themselves bonuses. It's 2008 all over again.

They put themselves in this position by being fiscally irresponsible in order to pump and dump their stock. They should be held responsible by experiencing the joys of bankruptcy.

[ilaksh]

Could it lead to insolvency of banks and a potential bank run?