US Bankruptcy Filings Surge In First Half Of 2023

[Irag8er]

US bankruptcy filings surge in first half of 2023

Bankruptcies filings for individuals and businesses in the U.S. jumped markedly in the first six months of 2023 compared to the year before as debt levels surge.

www.foxbusiness.com

 

[Spadders]

Nothing at all disingenuous about using a period that had one of Americas lowest ever periods of bankruptcy filings as a comparator. m)

Business bankruptcies U.S. 2025| Statista

In 2025, there were ****** cases of business bankruptcy filed nationwide in the United States.

www.statista.com

I just want decent reporting. Not to assume an economics piece is actually a political piece and im going to have to sieve through the journalist political bias thats determined his economic arguments. I also feel that if youre sharing an article like this, you should make your own comments on it. I dont know if youre sharing this as a concern, if youre ridiculing it or if you want some input. Because for me, that article is a joke but im guessing your intention is more around trying to forewarn people about something. It might have something in there but the immediate an obvious lies, damned lies and statistics makes it near unusable for anyone to be considered informed having read it.

 

[william]

"the immediate an obvious lies, damned lies and statistics makes it near unusable for anyone to be considered informed having read it". Wow!

The first link compares the first half of 2023 to 2022. The second link stops at 2022. Where is the lie?

 

[Irag8er]

Bankruptcy filings in the U.S. jumped markedly in the first six months of 2023 compared to the same period last year

Nothing at all disingenuous about using a period that had one of Americas lowest ever periods of bankruptcy filings as a comparator. m)

Business bankruptcies U.S. 2025| Statista

In 2025, there were ****** cases of business bankruptcy filed nationwide in the United States.

www.statista.com

I just want decent reporting. Not to assume an economics piece is actually a political piece and im going to have to sieve through the journalist political bias thats determined his economic arguments. I also feel that if youre sharing an article like this, you should make your own comments on it. I dont know if youre sharing this as a concern, if youre ridiculing it or if you want some input. Because for me, that article is a joke but im guessing your intention is more around trying to forewarn people about something. It might have something in there but the immediate an obvious lies, damned lies and statistics makes it near unusable for anyone to be considered informed having read it.

Bankruptcy filings in the U.S. jumped markedly in the first six months of 2023 compared to the same period last year
I'm not sure, maybe you didn't see the time comparison. 1st. six months, year vs. year. Not 22 yrs. Where is the political bias let alone obvious and damned lies.

One valid point you make is that the article uses "statistics" and yes , one can work statistics to achieve whatever results one wants.

I myself, at this stage in my life reap a MUCH greater value in viewing economic trends over monthly/yearly periods than something that started trending 20yrs ago. If one is 18 yrs old, then those stats might become beneficial.
The only political aspect that I take away is maybe you're a little sore because this happening during an administration that you might favor, but that's JMO>

 

[Irag8er]

I also feel that if youre sharing an article like this, you should make your own comments on it.

I'm more than happy to. In my opinion, it's a sure sign that all that free moneys have dried up, and have now been used up. Once again showing that lot's of people spend and live way over their means.
It's just a natural progression that when personal bankruptcies continue, then follow the business bankruptcies, once again, because the waterfall of free money is no longer there to feed the businesses.
It doesn't take 20 yrs. of] economic stats to show that.
Beware the next year over year stats.
JMHO

 

[Spadders]

"the immediate an obvious lies, damned lies and statistics makes it near unusable for anyone to be considered informed having read it". Wow!

The first link compares the first half of 2023 to 2022. The second link stops at 2022. Where is the lie?

lies, damned lies and statistics is a common saying that alludes to the fact that statistics get used to tell lies. The lie is one of omission. By not including the whole story, youre not telling it truthfully are you?

 

[Spadders]

Bankruptcy filings in the U.S. jumped markedly in the first six months of 2023 compared to the same period last year

Bankruptcy filings in the U.S. jumped markedly in the first six months of 2023 compared to the same period last year
I'm not sure, maybe you didn't see the time comparison. 1st. six months, year vs. year. Not 22 yrs. Where is the political bias let alone obvious and damned lies.

One valid point you make is that the article uses "statistics" and yes , one can work statistics to achieve whatever results one wants.

I myself, at this stage in my life reap a MUCH greater value in viewing economic trends over monthly/yearly periods than something that started trending 20yrs ago. If one is 18 yrs old, then those stats might become beneficial.
The only political aspect that I take away is maybe you're a little sore because this happening during an administration that you might favor, but that's JMO>

Im British, Trump or Biden make absolutely zero difference. I also tend to lie on indifferent end of the political spectrum, theyre all the same to me. I just like economics and numbers. So when i see reporting that deliberately omits information that would otherwise undermine it, i call it out for what it is, disingenuous.

So youll dismiss Trump enacting the CARE act (rightly or wrongly (see im indifferent), which one is it, republican giving away free money for private enterprise isnt very republican is it?), which staved off thousands of businesses going bankrupt leading to record falls in bankruptcy that consequentially lead to record rises as it returns to normal levels of bankruptcies once the stimulus ends because its beyond your 6 month time limit. All explained in a sentence. Completely undermines the article and offers the relevant context. And no need for trying to angle some kind of politcal win as 'the economy is bad' but better than it was under trump (in terms of bankruptcies)?! So go figure.

 

[Spadders]

I'm more than happy to. In my opinion, it's a sure sign that all that free moneys have dried up, and have now been used up. Once again showing that lot's of people spend and live way over their means.
It's just a natural progression that when personal bankruptcies continue, then follow the business bankruptcies, once again, because the waterfall of free money is no longer there to feed the businesses.
It doesn't take 20 yrs. of] economic stats to show that.
Beware the next year over year stats.
JMHO

Thats all economcis stats do, show things. Its the interpretation that makes it political, whats the desirebale outcome. Hence this being nothing to do with economics. Youll have a state department releasing your required statistics that are completely apolitical (unless your on the path of institutional corruption).

From the POV of this reporter im pretty sure the desirable outcome is to show the perspective of a struggling economy. Theyve done it using figures that are better than theyve ever been if you just exclude last years. Of course, thats worse than last year. But its loads better than every other year before that. And if you do genuinely believe that, im struggling not to think that you should be thinking that bankruptcies are actually a good thing. This is just a reigning in of over indulgence and as such is necessitated? But do you? Because it always comes across as being a bad thing when bankruptcies are reported.

 

[Irag8er]

Im British, Trump or Biden make absolutely zero difference. I also tend to lie on indifferent end of the political spectrum, theyre all the same to me. I just like economics and numbers. So when i see reporting that deliberately omits information that would otherwise undermine it, i call it out for what it is, disingenuous.

So youll dismiss Trump enacting the CARE act (rightly or wrongly (see im indifferent), which one is it, republican giving away free money for private enterprise isnt very republican is it?), which staved off thousands of businesses going bankrupt leading to record falls in bankruptcy that consequentially lead to record rises as it returns to normal levels of bankruptcies once the stimulus ends because its beyond your 6 month time limit. All explained in a sentence. Completely undermines the article and offers the relevant context. And no need for trying to angle some kind of politcal win as 'the economy is bad' but better than it was under trump (in terms of bankruptcies)?! So go figure.

At the time, the world faced uncertainty, the CARE Act SEEMED like a good idea. But the issuing of free money ,time and time again, proved it not to be so. Trump, Biden, someones grandparent. When a continuation of free money is ongoing the recipient and the businesses they spread their money to had better make wise decisions, because the end result will always be the same. No matter what time frame you use. Which, if the time frame used in the article isn't acceptable there is this:

Bankruptcy filings are creeping back up in early 2022

Bankruptcy filings have started to increase this year and the number of new cases filed in March jumped significantly from February, but remain below last year's numbers, according to data released on Tuesday by legal research firm Epiq.

www.reuters.com

 

[Irag8er]

im struggling not to think that you should be thinking that bankruptcies are actually a good thing. This is just a reigning in of over indulgence and as such is necessitated?

It's hard to use the term "good thing" in reference to bankruptcies. But overall, you are correct here.

 

[Spadders]

It's hard to use the term "good thing" in reference to bankruptcies. But overall, you are correct here.

So do you think theres nothing at all in the article that steers people to think a certain way about the economy? And it does little, if anything to address the actual underlying causes of those.

It is. Its political and its disingenuous. Im not saying those thigns arent happening, not at all. But understanding the context around it requires nuances of which most of the readership simply arent interested or capable of understanding.

Me reading that with my economist head on its basically saying passing the care act, giving away free money was apparently a mistake that prevented a load of bankruptcies in 20/21/22 which has led them to increase massively today. And well thats just meaningless, isnt it? Its preying on ignorance. Its going for Economy bad today = bidens fault, when reality is economy bad today = because decades of everyone being shit has led to this.

 

[Irag8er]

So do you think theres nothing at all in the article that steers people to think a certain way about the economy? And it does little, if anything to address the actual underlying causes of those.

It is. Its political and its disingenuous. Im not saying those thigns arent happening, not at all. But understanding the context around it requires nuances of which most of the readership simply arent interested or capable of understanding.

Me reading that with my economist head on its basically saying passing the care act, giving away free money was apparently a mistake that prevented a load of bankruptcies in 20/21/22 which has led them to increase massively today. And well thats just meaningless, isnt it? Its preying on ignorance. Its going for Economy bad today = bidens fault, when reality is economy bad today = because decades of everyone being shit has led to this.

Here is a good article, put out be a current administration leaning site. It shows that the increase in current bankruptcies is a thing.
However, the most important takeaways from the article....that root causes for them are a lot deeper, and include a lot more current factors, than just the end of free money.
So my conclusion, is neither article is meaningless, and the trend is something everyone should pay heed to.

 

[Publius]

Me thinks someone has a political bias

 

[Spadders]

Here is a good article, put out be a current administration leaning site. It shows that the increase in current bankruptcies is a thing.
However, the most important takeaways from the article....that root causes for them are a lot deeper, and include a lot more current factors, than just the end of free money.
So my conclusion, is neither article is meaningless, and the trend is something everyone should pay heed to.

Were well past playing political blame games for our economics issues. A large part of the issue being the inevitable nature of politics to lack consistency and being able to allow forward thinking economic policy.

 

[Publius]

Were well past playing political blame games for our economics issues. A large part of the issue being the inevitable nature of politics to lack consistency and being able to allow forward thinking economic policy.

What is forward thinking economic policy

 

[Spadders]

What is forward thinking economic policy

Clear, unambiguous policy that can be relied on over at least a generation or two irrespective of incumbent political leadership. Obviously therell be a certain amount of needing to account for unexpected 'needs' of the day.

Can of worms, but for me, itd be something in the form of an automated payment transaction tax. Beyond that, im completely stumped if im honest.

 

[teekay99]

Clear, unambiguous policy that can be relied on over at least a generation or two irrespective of incumbent political leadership. Obviously therell be a certain amount of needing to account for unexpected 'needs' of the day.

Can of worms, but for me, itd be something in the form of an automated payment transaction tax. Beyond that, im completely stumped if im honest.

Transaction taxes are inherently inefficient as they negatively impact the demand of the good or services associated with the transaction. They increase the cost of the good or service and inevitably price some people out of the market. If you are seeking something efficient, how about the most efficient tax there is - a head tax?
I am confused by "forward thinking economic policy" as described above. Is this specific to fiscal policy, monetary policy, or both? For fiscal policy, is this based on a Keynesian model, classical model, or something else? Or are you saying fiscal policy should be based on positive economics vs normative economics?

 

[Spadders]

Transaction taxes are inherently inefficient as they negatively impact the demand of the good or services associated with the transaction. They increase the cost of the good or service and inevitably price some people out of the market. If you are seeking something efficient, how about the most efficient tax there is - a head tax?
I am confused by "forward thinking economic policy" as described above. Is this specific to fiscal policy, monetary policy, or both? For fiscal policy, is this based on a Keynesian model, classical model, or something else? Or are you saying fiscal policy should be based on positive economics vs normative economics?

Presumably that's only considering transaction taxes as an addition to existing tax systems? The APT tax system replaces all other taxes. So at the moment the poorest in America pay an effective tax rate of 20% ish, going up to 35% for the top 1%. APT would make everyone's effective tax rate about 1%. As much as it sounds impossible its doable because transactions are the most abundant thing in the economy and most of them arent taxed as it is. Its the profit/income thats taxed, the end result after its been hidden, shifted, offset, devalued etc etc etc. Its also the point of wealth creation. Head taxes work that well, we need a whole industry to work it out and to change them every few years because they inevitably never work out how they where expected to. And criminals and clever (well rich people who employ clever people) people get to avoid them.

Tend to be more along the lines of Friedmans economic thinking. It was Feige, one of Friedmans students, who proposed the APT tax system.

Im assuming forward thinking has been taken to mean progressive. I meant it literally in this sense, i mean thinking forward, long term, pragmatic, that kind of thing. The irony being that the left and right seem to reject the idea of APT whenever i mention it which, if im honest, pushes me to double down on thinking its a really good idea. Its fiscal policy, its for the government of the day (via the electorate) to decide. Thats politics. At the end of the day though, a government needs money, you can try and pick and choose who you get that money from, but youre almost certainly going to do a terrible job of it and practically no one will have any idea of what it actually was that determined whatever outcome. The current tax system cuts the rope at both ends and portrays a solution but the reality is its just that convoluted, its near impossible to know the effects.

 

[teekay99]

Presumably that's only considering transaction taxes as an addition to existing tax systems? The APT tax system replaces all other taxes. So at the moment the poorest in America pay an effective tax rate of 20% ish, going up to 35% for the top 1%. APT would make everyone's effective tax rate about 1%. As much as it sounds impossible its doable because transactions are the most abundant thing in the economy and most of them arent taxed as it is. Its the profit/income thats taxed, the end result after its been hidden, shifted, offset, devalued etc etc etc. Its also the point of wealth creation. Head taxes work that well, we need a whole industry to work it out and to change them every few years because they inevitably never work out how they where expected to. And criminals and clever (well rich people who employ clever people) people get to avoid them.

Tend to be more along the lines of Friedmans economic thinking. It was Feige, one of Friedmans students, who proposed the APT tax system.

Im assuming forward thinking has been taken to mean progressive. I meant it literally in this sense, i mean thinking forward, long term, pragmatic, that kind of thing. The irony being that the left and right seem to reject the idea of APT whenever i mention it which, if im honest, pushes me to double down on thinking its a really good idea. Its fiscal policy, its for the government of the day (via the electorate) to decide. Thats politics. At the end of the day though, a government needs money, you can try and pick and choose who you get that money from, but youre almost certainly going to do a terrible job of it and practically no one will have any idea of what it actually was that determined whatever outcome. The current tax system cuts the rope at both ends and portrays a solution but the reality is its just that convoluted, its near impossible to know the effects.

Milton Friedman.... nice choice (and somewhat unexpected, I do admit). I do like some of Friedman's research. Politically, he was more libertarian towards the right side of the spectrum. I also find his economic positions to be more from the classical perspective, and that he shuns Keynesian models. He received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Regan.

It seems to me that maybe you are not necessarily disagreeing with the content of the article, but rather, you seek a stronger argument that mitigates some of the potential post-hoc fallacy concerns that might be present within. It does not appear that initial article about an increase in bankruptcies was meant to be an academic economics article. But for me, had the article compared the current period's rate of bankruptcies against the long-term "normal level" or a long-term historical trend of bankruptcies, we might be in a better position to see if the current increase is of some kind of "statistical significance" or just a blip on the radar. If the author is trying to identify an increase in inflation as the driver behind the increase in bankruptcies, perhaps a line-chart that compares inflation rates and bankruptcy rates augments the argument.

If the increase in bankruptcies proves to be statistically significant (which a statistical hypothesis test could prove), I will argue that that is inherently bad, regardless of the cause. IMO, this is because any bankruptcy that results in the write-down or charge-off of liabilities (debt) is effectively an economic loss or a removal of wealth from the economy.

 

[Publius]

Clear, unambiguous policy that can be relied on over at least a generation or two irrespective of incumbent political leadership. Obviously therell be a certain amount of needing to account for unexpected 'needs' of the day.

Can of worms, but for me, itd be something in the form of an automated payment transaction tax. Beyond that, im completely stumped if im honest.

Well it’s honest and I’m good with that. Rather than touting a policy talking point.

Here is my problem with the tax system.
Roll the federal back to federal responsibilities. Defense, diplomacy, foreign aid, and administrative issues relating to interstate commerce, boarder control, and limited federal crimes (interstate crime).

The rest of the government responsibilities go back to the states.
Your idea regarding the means to collect taxes is certainly open to consider.