> Daniel Ust wrote:
>
> <In the US, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Savings & Loans were
> "deregulated." Specifically, restrictions were loosened on what they could
> invest in. However, the FSLIC -- deposit insurance for the Savings &
> Loans -- was NOT disbanded. ... it's deposit insurance that is to
> blame and the particular deregulatory path taken with regards to the Savings
> and Loans enhanced the problems with deposit insurance.>
The S&L 'crisis' was not a 'proof' that deregulation was bad. The crisis
was an example of political appointees specifically engineering a
financial meltdown to change the ownership of the Presidency. It only
took one act: doubling the reserve rate S&Ls were required to retain in
cash. This forced S&Ls to call in massive numbers of loans, leading to
massive numbers of loan defaults, and the crash of the S&L industry.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:50 MDT