Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (40128)	1/4/2010 6:20:41 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Glad to see your posted article completely agreeing with me about the twin factors It agreed about those factors being relevant, not about them being the only factors, or about the industry being healthy before or without them. Notice "Fifteen public policies that contributed to the S&L debacle", not "two...". and "Federal deposit insurance, which was extended to S&Ls in 1934, was the root cause of the S&L crisis. Deposit insurance was actuarially unsound from its inception, primarily because all S&Ls were charged the same Insurance premium rate regardless of how safe or risky they were. That is, deposit insurance provided by the federal government tolerated the unsound financial structure of S&Ls for decades." and "Raising the deposit-insurance limit in 1980 from $40,000 to $100,000 did not cause S&Ls to go haywire" and many other points, but there's no point in quoting almost the whole article when you can go back to look at it here ( econlib.org ) or here ( Message 26212784 ) -- Also see econlog.econlib.org Message 26212785