Nine years ago the New York Times published an article warning of the problems that could arise from US mortgage provider Fannie Mae's plans to ease credit requirements and offer up home ownership to anyone with a pulse.
"Fannie Mae has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stockholders to maintain its phenomenal growth," wrote author Steven Holmes.
"In moving, even tentatively into this area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times," he wrote.
"But the government-subsidised corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.
" This journalist was obviously a lot smarter than the politicians, but, of course, we know his words would have been brushed aside as nonsense.
Obviously, the problems we are facing today stem from what could be seen as benevolent government action to ensure the disadvantaged could share in the emerging global affluence.
Left wing commentators look for any opportunity to question the sustainability of the capitalist system, but the truth is that the system is only now finding itself in chaos following the infiltration of socialist ideas of equality.
The concept of capitalism has been bastardised and over-regulated by the statists who believe that an individual lives for the benefit of the state; viz.
"ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country" (John F Kennedy).
The original American experiment was, at least, intellectually founded upon the ideal of the supremacy of the individual and the smallest possible government.
But, within a few hundred years, the smallest possible government has grown into the largest conceivable government.
All this, notwithstanding that America was the first country in history to enshrine in its constitution subjugation of the state to the rights of the individual.
It is hard to imagine what kind of welfare state will control our Australian future.
All we have to show for massive inflows into our government's coffers from the resource led boom is an increase in the number of welfare recipients.
Some 42 per cent of the nation's families will pay no net income tax this financial year (where net tax means income taxes paid less benefits received).
Imagine the enormous administrative costs, and the inefficiencies, of collecting the income tax to only pay it out again.
The exponential legislative expansion of government and, its corollary, the erosion of our fundamental individual rights is our greatest threat and represents a statist victory by default.
Government, which has no right to participate in the private affairs of its citizens, either directly through force, or indirectly through legislation, is the norm in the western nations of today.
Regrettably, while its citizens believe that this is the natural order of things, it will continue to grow.
The only proper purpose of government is the protection of individual rights.
It has a monopoly on the legal use of force and therefore its actions must be rigidly defined, impersonally administered and not open to distortion by special interests.
All its laws must be objective so that men know in advance what they are entitled, and not entitled, to do.
To reverse that view is to make government the most dangerous violator of individual rights, not its protector.
"Fannie Mae has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stockholders to maintain its phenomenal growth," wrote author Steven Holmes.
"In moving, even tentatively into this area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times," he wrote.
"But the government-subsidised corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.
" This journalist was obviously a lot smarter than the politicians, but, of course, we know his words would have been brushed aside as nonsense.
Obviously, the problems we are facing today stem from what could be seen as benevolent government action to ensure the disadvantaged could share in the emerging global affluence.
Left wing commentators look for any opportunity to question the sustainability of the capitalist system, but the truth is that the system is only now finding itself in chaos following the infiltration of socialist ideas of equality.
The concept of capitalism has been bastardised and over-regulated by the statists who believe that an individual lives for the benefit of the state; viz.
"ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country" (John F Kennedy).
The original American experiment was, at least, intellectually founded upon the ideal of the supremacy of the individual and the smallest possible government.
But, within a few hundred years, the smallest possible government has grown into the largest conceivable government.
All this, notwithstanding that America was the first country in history to enshrine in its constitution subjugation of the state to the rights of the individual.
It is hard to imagine what kind of welfare state will control our Australian future.
All we have to show for massive inflows into our government's coffers from the resource led boom is an increase in the number of welfare recipients.
Some 42 per cent of the nation's families will pay no net income tax this financial year (where net tax means income taxes paid less benefits received).
Imagine the enormous administrative costs, and the inefficiencies, of collecting the income tax to only pay it out again.
The exponential legislative expansion of government and, its corollary, the erosion of our fundamental individual rights is our greatest threat and represents a statist victory by default.
Government, which has no right to participate in the private affairs of its citizens, either directly through force, or indirectly through legislation, is the norm in the western nations of today.
Regrettably, while its citizens believe that this is the natural order of things, it will continue to grow.
The only proper purpose of government is the protection of individual rights.
It has a monopoly on the legal use of force and therefore its actions must be rigidly defined, impersonally administered and not open to distortion by special interests.
All its laws must be objective so that men know in advance what they are entitled, and not entitled, to do.
To reverse that view is to make government the most dangerous violator of individual rights, not its protector.
SHARE
