Talk:Corporate debt bubble

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... that a characteristic of the corporate debt bubble is that one-sixth of all publicly-traded companies in the U.S. do not make enough profit to cover the interest on their own corporate bonds? Source: "Access to low-cost credit helped many companies grow and hire. But it also enabled some that weren’t profitable to survive by repeatedly refinancing their debt. These “zombie” firms, which do not earn enough to cover their interest payments, account for 1 in 6 publicly traded U.S. companies" (Washington Post)
    • ALT1:... that the
      2019–20 coronavirus pandemic threatens to pop the corporate debt bubble? Source: "The coronavirus panic could threaten a $10 trillion mountain of corporate debt, unleashing a cycle of layoffs and business spending cuts that would hit the economy just as some analysts are warning of a recession." (Washington Post
      )
      • ALT2:... that the Chinese government encouraged lending to soften the impact of the trade war with the U.S., contributing to the corporate debt bubble?Source: "China’s economic growth slowed to 6.2% in the second quarter, its weakest pace in at least 27 years, as demand at home and abroad faltered in the face of mounting U.S. trade pressure. To revive investment and protect jobs, Beijing has been encouraging banks to lend more, particularly to struggling smaller firms." (Reuters)

Created by

Featous (talk). Self-nominated at 00:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC).[reply
]

  • tc) 22:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The quick and easy way to fix this is to move it to Corporate debt bubble in the United States or similar, Johnbod (talk) 11:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe 10-20% of the problem was/is in European markets (speaking very loosely), so I haven't begun to think about how to discuss that if the title changes. Maybe sticking in its own non-US section (?). Absolutely unthinkable things have happened on this topic since the nom, and I haven't sat down and done the additional research for a high-level structural edit for the before times. -
Featous (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
If you change the title you wouldn't need to change anything, I think. My comment when adding the tag was "Good article, but apart from one short para is all about the US - a rename might be best. The text & captions need liberal sprinkling with clarification as to whether only the US is meant, as mostly seems to be the case." This still seems about right, & the few references to Europe would still be ok with a US title. I realize the article has been moving to reflect current events, & there's no rush I think. I still think it's a very good article! Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree on this, putting a US-centric article on the front page that is purportedly a general article on the subject could be very irritating for non-US readers. SpinningSpark 12:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have reworked the article, making it explicit that the bubble is centered in but not limited to the US market. China had an entirely different set of factors for their bubble that required a separate section. Can I get a re-look, esp from
Featous (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I haven't reviewed the article (either before or after) to see if I think it is US-centric, but for DYK purposes it needs to be improved to the point where the template can be removed. SpinningSpark 16:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And I think that it is at that point. But, I'd rather not get yelled at for removing it myself if a DYK reviewer disagrees. -
Featous (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]