Sunday, September 28, 2008

Enter American Socialism, Stage Left.

"'Emergencies' have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded." Friedrich August von Hayek

I feel like I am in a dream. Am I seeing what I think I am seeing? How can the ideals of liberty and capitalism be so easily discarded in favor of brief economic stability? How have we become a nation of people that cherishes a non-volatile stock market over free enterprise?
This past week has witnessed a monumental event in American history. Suppossedly not since the days of the Great Depression and FDR's socialist program called the New Deal, has the American economy faced such government intrusiveness. Unfortunately, that is not the focus of those in Washington, the media, or the troubled financial insitutions facing dissolution. Instead, the key theme is 'saving an economy' that is on the precipise of disaster. As the quote from Friedrich Hayek suggests, however, there should be caution in succumbing to the cry for an immediate solution to an emergency. We should be especially cautious about this emergency because it was caused by the very government that wants to spend our money and inherit more power over the economy.
The current crisis, which first showed signs in the Bear Stearns bailout months ago, emerged when GSEs (Government sponsored enterprises) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac went belly up. Created in the 1930s as a way to help Americans buy a home in the midst of the Great Depression, these two GSEs took on a life of their own in the 1970s thanks to the Carter administrations signing of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). The CRA basically used Freddie and Fannie as a social engineering tool by giving mortgages to (primarily) minorities who had little or no credit and little or no chance of paying the bill. The insanity of this deal was overlooked because the government's intentions were good. The road to socialism is paved with good intentions! The lending practices of Fannie and Freddie allowed them to control, eventually, around 40% of US mortgages. What it also did was allow politically connected cronies to use these GSEs as a vote-buying mechanism. "Here is your mortgage Mr and Mrs Gonzales, just remember who helped you: the US government in general and the Democrats in particular!"
The hemorraghing of money out of Freddie and Fannie eventually caught the attention of liberal-minded, affirmative action community organizers (like Barrack Obama) who saw a way to gain community votes and money by forcing the GSEs to sign mortgages. When, in those rare cases, when they did not, the community action groups developed rating systems that could essentially black ball the non-compliant.
Under Bill Clinton, the excessiveness of Freddie and Fannie began to emerge, but was hidden by Democrats in Congress. Clinton has recently said that the problem we are facing today could have been solved back than, but the liberal Democrats stopped any consideration being done and lied about the solvency of these agencies (as recently as 2005 when Barney Frank, who is now one of the principle negotiators, said Frannie and Freddie were excellent organizations).
Now, these mortgages created by Frannie and Freddie were repackaged into invest tools called mortgage backed securities (MBS) that were than bought up by banks, investment firms, etc. Some back had bought so many of these MBS that when Freddie and Fannie collapsed, the effect rippled across the financial waters. Wall Street made the mistake of trusting government run GSEs, agreeing to insane accounting principles sponsored by the government (mark-to-market accounting), and being either unaware or indifferent to the cronies taking millions upon millions out of these companies in pensions and expenses.
To blame Wall Street solely for this is, I sincerely believe, an attempt by the government to shift the blame and grab more power over the economy. Those who used and abused these GSEs are now asking for our money ($2300 in tax increases per person amounting to $700 billion) and our trust. Even President Bush, whom I have always supported and believed in, has betrayed the American people. His eagerness to get a deal signed, despite the implications, reveals to me someone being misled by his Treasury Secretary or not trusting in the power of free enterprise to work out these problems.
IF THIS DEAL PASSES, IT MEANS THE END OF CAPITALISM IN THIS COUNTRY AND THE FULL EMERGENCE OF SOCIALISM!!!! We will have allowed our leaders to trade precious tenets of our Constitutional character for brief financial reprieve. We may breath a sigh of relief, but find our breath taken away when the full power grab of the governments actions are later revealed. I love this country, but I feel if this bailout passes, it means the beginning of the end.

No comments:

This Is My Soapbox.....So Shut Up and Listen!

Chaos Out of Order

Chaos. No rational person desires to exist in such a state, nor can one tolerate any sign of societal decline leading to this stage of hopelessness. This is one of the reasons that Barack Obama was elected; people perceived the free market operating chaotically due to a supposed lack of federal regulations and oversight. Houses were being foreclosed, the markets were tanking, pensions were being wiped out, investments and credit were drying up and vital industries were suddenly on the verge of insolvency. Chaos, it appeared, loomed on the horizon.Obama campaigned on ‘hope and change’. While an emotive and reformatory slogan, it lacked specifics. This should have signaled to any potential supporter, an ideology absent fundamental guiding principles. The demagoguery of a populist and its’ effects on a populace with a grand sense of entitlement is a topic for another time, what I wish to do is examine one aspect of Friedrich Hayek’s observations of collectivism (i.e. Leftism, socialism) as it relates to combating perceived politico-economic chaos.The attempt to restore order or avert a descent into chaos requires planning and implementation. Conservatives have long espoused the theory that individuals, unfettered by the restraints of unnecessary governmental intrusion, will make the best decisions for themselves and their family, which in turn will benefit society as a whole. Leftists have adhered to the misconception that the growing complexity of society REQUIRES increased central planning, on behalf of the government, in order to ensure a more equitable distribution of resources and opportunities. For hundreds of years, Leftist intellectuals have dismissed the individualist approach (i.e. conservative) as leaving too much to chance and being susceptible to greed. Central planning, these intellectuals insisted, allowed the State the power to ensure that the resources of the nation were being allocated to the common good. This line of thinking became crystallized thanks to Karl Marx’s collectivist cry of “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”.The housing market meltdown of last year that precipitated the financial chaos which has now gripped the world, was used as the latest example of ‘excessive capitalist greed’ undermining the social good. Obama was ushered into office to bring order to this anarchy, but how many people truly realize that Leftist ideologies address chaos with more chaos until tyranny results? And why is this? Consider the words of Hayek: “The planning authority cannot confine itself to providing opportunities for unknown people to make whatever use of them they like. It cannot tie itself down in advance to general and formal rules which prevent arbitrariness. It must provide for the actual needs of the people as they arise and then choose deliberately between them.” The key word in this quote was arbitrariness. Under the guise of regulating and providing oversight, which makes the average American feel like ‘something is being done’, the government is in effect opening up a Pandora’s box of arbitrarily-applied, constituent-based, policies, which will increase the uncertainty many citizens will eventually have with the direction of their economy and the application of their laws. Americans should have first been alerted to this when Obama moved to avoid contractual law during the uproar over executive bonuses, but the myth created about evil CEOs had at this point become too pervasive. The die was cast.This growing uncertainty begins us down the ‘road to serfdom’. As Hayek observed: “Yet agreement that planning is necessary, together with the inability of democratic assemblies to produce a plan, will evoke stronger and stronger demands that the government or some single individual should be given powers to act on their responsibility……The cry for an economic dictator is a characteristic stage in the movement toward planning.”Our nation has elected a President to address a financial disaster that arbitrary governmental policies created (affordable housing GSEs). This President, a disciple of socialism, has embarked on a plan that has injected more chaos into the system, leaving many future Americans susceptible to the appeal of an economic and political tyranny. If we do not change course, the worst is yet in store.