What is the subprime mortgage crisis have in common with the savings and loan crisis in the 80s?

Deal Score0

Savings and loan crisis Http: / / en.wikipedia.org / wiki / Savings_and_loan_crisis
If the government buys the bank, the mortgage, the bank should not participate in any further loss stattfindet.Warum taxpayers to absorb the entire loss?

20 Comments
  1. Reply
    brother jon
    February 24, 2011 at 4:30 am

    the word crisis..does it feel nice to say crisis?

  2. Reply
    sitizenxxx
    February 24, 2011 at 5:23 am

    That’s pretty clever… can you say cooked books? Every time there are 10 losers, there are one or two winners… so it is with Darwinian Capitalism….

  3. Reply
    mtchndjnmtch
    February 24, 2011 at 6:13 am

    Too much out, not enough in!

  4. Reply
    Massive Mann
    February 24, 2011 at 7:04 am

    In the 80’s they were lying to each other..this time they lied to us.

  5. Reply
    pat from ohio
    February 24, 2011 at 7:08 am

    Both were caused by bad banking practices and it looks like both are going to have been solved at the taxpayer’s expense by a huge government bailout program..

  6. Reply
    TheOnlyBeldin
    February 24, 2011 at 7:43 am

    I believe it has more in common with the dot-com bubble of the late 1990’s-early 2000’s than it does with the S&L scandal. Just like stocks then were massively oversold vs. actual growth, the housing market was oversold vs. actual economic growth, and to continue that overselling, people unqualified to purchase homes or to purchase homes as expensive as they were sold were given loans that they could not afford to fulfill.

  7. Reply
    vtjames7433
    February 24, 2011 at 8:14 am

    irresponsible and reckless behavior, including fraudulent activities that the government proposes to bail out??? Sorry dont have the desire to read wiki right now

  8. Reply
    dogsngoat
    February 24, 2011 at 8:18 am

    They have the same cause (deregulation and lack of oversight of the lending industry) but this “crisis” has a larger scope and comes at a time when the country’s massive overspending has already slowed the economy and collapsed the dollar. These converging factors will make the effects much more dire pushing us toward a deeper recession and increasing inflation.

  9. Reply
    Al K. Holic
    February 24, 2011 at 8:36 am

    Republican Presidents

  10. Reply
    hispano
    February 24, 2011 at 9:24 am

    What crisis are you talking about?

  11. Reply
    Willis Jeffords
    February 24, 2011 at 10:19 am

    The federal government is under no obligation to bail anyone out of this crisis. Let people on all sides of the issue live with the bad choices they made.

  12. Reply
    Salsa Shark
    February 24, 2011 at 10:21 am

    The only crisis in the news I can see is the hyperbolic use of the word “crisis” everytime we have to deal with an issue.

  13. Reply
    It's That Guy
    February 24, 2011 at 10:22 am

    They resulted from unwise deregulation. Reagan and his crowd believed that regulation was bad, that -all- regulation was bad. But a certain amount of regulation is necessary for capitalism to work at all. The trick is to do it right, not too much, not too little. In Reagan’s case,he took advice only from the bankers who wanted more freedom to risk their bank’s funds, and from large corporations who wanted to buy S&Ls and use all the money themselves.

    The deregulation left FDIC in place (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) so it really was a no-risk situation for the bankers. They could put the money in risky investments and if they lost, the federal govt. would take up the slack. It cost the American people over half a trillion dollars. The problem was clearly developing during Reagan’s second term but he never mentioned it, not once.

    The Sub Prime mortgage crisis is similar. The govt. should have been riding herd on the banks, but instead it allowed them to farm out loans to maximize their short-term earnings at the cost of long-term risk. Since banks were going to sell the loans to other investors, instead of lending their -own- money, as they always had, they lent much more readily to people who were not as good of a risk. It worked fine so long as real estate kept rising in price, but as soon as property began going down in value the whole system collapsed. This time -both- lenders and borrowers lost money.

  14. Reply
    Last tango
    February 24, 2011 at 10:34 am

    While I loathe Wiki and think you are better off quoting an opinion instead of quoting wiki I’ve come to expect people to use the easiest, yet least credible form. The two events do have one thing in common and I’m sure the next one in 2020 will share the same common denominator. That is that there are dumb people in the world and they don’t bother to learn about what they sign. The other thing that holds true is that there are people in the world like me who will happily profit off those people’s ignorance.

  15. Reply
    LadySnowbird
    February 24, 2011 at 10:57 am

    The Bushes have been involved in both.

    Silverado Savings and Loan collapsed in 1988, costing taxpayers $ 1.6 billion. Director of Silverado S&L, Neil Bush was accused of giving himself a loan from Silverado, he denied all wrongdoing. Neil Bush is a son of President George H.W. Bush, who became president in 1989.

    and

    George W. Bush is President during the current Sub Prime Mortgage Crisis.

  16. Reply
    RedBad M
    February 24, 2011 at 11:31 am

    Simple : a Republican (with the last name of BUSH) in the White House.

  17. Reply
    eat me hillary
    February 24, 2011 at 11:50 am

    The common thread is that ‘tards want to bail them out.

    I say let them eat the losses. If your bank loses $ 30 billion because of bad loans there is a lesson to be learned: stricter standards.

    If the government bails your bank out the lesson is that risk has no downside.

  18. Reply
    B.Kevorkian
    February 24, 2011 at 11:52 am

    They involve mortgages.

    Asside from that, the two are very different. The root of the S&L crisis was inflation. S&Ls borrowed short (deposits) and lent long (mortagages) inflation destroyed the value of thier assets. Thier debtors had no problem paying off thier mortgages, there wasn’t a rash of forclosures, or anything, but the S&Ls faced huge real losses. In response, they took to some riskly lending practices (such as junk bonds) to make a better return, which didn’t work out. In other cases, panicked execs simply ‘raided’ thier S&L, sucking as much money out of it as they could before it failed.

    But, the root cause was fixed-rate mortgages and runaway inflation.

    Today, the sub-prime fiasco was fueled by /low/ interest rates, low inflation, and a booming housing market. Once the market went bust, sub-prime borrowers began to default. On paper, the mortgages are valuable, but the rate of defaults has erroded that value.

  19. Reply
    Agent Smith
    February 24, 2011 at 12:03 pm

    Who wants a million dollar home that should have never been built in the first place?

  20. Reply
    Comrade Coleman's Cousin
    February 24, 2011 at 12:51 pm

    The answer is yes, the bank should. But guess what, It ain’t.

    And no. The taxpayer should not pay any of it,
    The bankers took a risk in making these loans and now are going to be taken care to by Bush and Company.

    Some want to call this socialism, but let’s call it what it really is, Fascism! (Control of the government by private business)

    Leave a reply

    Register New Account
    Reset Password