Don’t get me wrong – I don’t want to defend sleazy lending practices that have hurt homeowners who have subprime mortgages.

But, as one mortgage expert told me the other day, there’s a difference between subprime lending and predatory lending: Subprime is good; predatory is bad.

You can hardly see the distinction these days, because so many news stories trace problems in the economy and financial markets to the “meltdown” in subprime loans, given to borrowers with low incomes or checkered credit, who cannot get ordinary “prime” mortgages.

There are problems: Most subprime loans carry higher interest rates than prime loans. And, after the first one, two or three years, those rates typically adjust every 12 months. Many borrowers are now seeing their payments jump 30 percent to 50 percent, to levels they cannot afford. And because the housing market has slowed, many troubled borrowers may not be able to sell their homes for as much as they owe.

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, said he would introduce legislation to assist homeowners facing foreclosure and to curb predatory-lending practices. And consumer groups have been pushing a variety of government-backed remedies.

Perhaps some measures would make sense, but let’s keep the problem in perspective.

Clearly, subprime loans are riskier than prime loans. But they are not much riskier than they used to be. In fact, subprime delinquency rates were higher in 2001 and 2002 than today, and they have exceeded 10 percent every quarter for the last decade.

What has changed is that more homeowners have subprime loans today, so the same failure rates affect more people. One consumers group estimates that 2.2 million homeowners are at risk of foreclosure over the next few years.

Today’s subprime loans have their roots in the federal Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, which pressured lenders to offer mortgages in poor communities. In the 1990s, Congress and the Clinton administration worked to encourage broader homeownership. It’s now at a near-record level, with about 69 percent of homes owned by their occupants.

Additionally, the 1990s saw a mushrooming of “securitization,” the bundling of mortgages into a form of bond that can be traded on the secondary market.

These factors, along with low interest rates and booming housing prices, fueled the growth in subprime lending. Basically, this was a good thing.

Certainly, there have been predatory practices in recent years – occasions when mortgage brokers or lenders have steered borrowers to subprime loans that were too risky for them. Experts say brokers’ commissions on subprime loans can be two to three times those on prime loans – a formula for abuse.

That should be disclosed to borrowers – as should all the special risks that come with subprime loans, such as the possibility that mortgage payments can soar. Regulators and legislators ought to strengthen disclosure rules and perhaps impose stronger penalties on brokers and lenders who conceal risks.

But they should not try to restrict creation and marketing of innovative products that allow millions of people to buy homes that they otherwise couldn’t. As long as borrowers go in with their eyes open, they have a right to take the risks that come with subprime mortgages.