Since the early 20th century it has been the initiative and policy of the federal government to lower the price of housing so every single family could own a home. Other arrangements that would commonly arise in a free market (such as renting) just don’t fit into the government’s version of the “American dream.” One of the first to lobby for governmental support of individual home ownership was President Herbert Hoover. On July 22, 1932 Hoover signed the Federal Home Loan Bank Act, and he explained the purpose of the bill “is to establish a series of discount banks for home mortgages.” In other words, the federal government would help organize the mortgage loan industry and provide cheaper loans for people to obtain, thus increasing home ownership. Hoover went on to explain:

“In the long view we need at all times to encourage homeownership and for such encouragement it must be possible for homeowners to obtain long-term loans payable in installments. These institutions should provide the method for bringing into continuous and steady action the great home loaning associations which is so greatly restricted due to present pressures.” — Herbert Hoover (Emphasis added.)

The “present pressures” of course being the Great Depression, an eensy-weensy economic slump that resulted in banks giving out fewer loans. Still, Hoover thought this was an appropriate time for government to encourage people to buy a house even if the economy was in dire circumstances. So began the history of the federal government’s intervention in the mortgage market, often subsidizing or forcing banks to lower their lending standards and give loans to people regardless of their ability to pay them back.

Taking Hoover’s actions a step further, President Franklin Roosevelt signed a bill that led to the formulation of Fannie Mae 1938. (Fannie Mae was split up into Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae as well under the Johnson Administration.) Interestingly, these government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) were created to help bail out banks who were faced with (wait for it…) a growing number of mortgage defaults.

Essentially the scenario looks like this: First the government organized banks to lower the price of mortgages in 1932; once people bought the loans, however, many were unable to pay them back and forced to default; upon seeing this flow of events, Roosevelt attempted to bail out the industry by creating Fannie Mae in 1938. This was the beginning of the secondary mortgage market, the practice where the GSEs (using taxpayer dollars) purchase mortgages from banks, thereby freeing up money for the banks to provide more mortgages.

“The GSEs are companies created by Congress to bring liquidity, stability, and affordability to the nation’s residential mortgage markets. Traditionally, we’ve fulfilled this role by purchasing mortgages in the secondary market and bundling them into mortgage-related securities that can be sold to investors or held in our portfolio.” — Ed Haldeman, Freddie Mac CEO

This new setup encouraged banks to offer loans to riskier clients who in an actual market scenario would not be eligible to purchase a mortgage. Because of government’s creation of the secondary mortgage market banks found themselves with extra liquidity, which was used to offer loans to financially-insecure individuals. It’s not tough to do the math: riskier customers lead to a higher likelihood of default. These policies have the least desirable impact on the poor people they are intended to help. In reality,  it is much more economically feasible and sensible for a poor person/family to rent a house or apartment than to buy a house. However, artificially low mortgage rates lure poor people into an investment they won’t possibly be able to pay back. Government’s intervention creates a market imbalance that pushes the poor into buying a house when it is almost certainly not in their long-term interest to do so.

The painful effects of foreclosure we see today are the inevitable consequence of ongoing government meddling in the mortgage market. Government either subsidized or forced banks to offer risky loans to risky customers, but when the entire scheme begins to collapse we’re told it is a failure of the free market. (As if Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Federal Housing Administration, and other such entities were created through free, voluntary exchange and not by politicians and bureaucrats.)

Before someone blames the current economic mess on “deregulation” and injustices of the free market, consider this action undertaken by the Clinton Administration, as explained by the New York Times:

“In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.”

…

“In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980′s.” — New York Times; September 30, 1999

Historical evidence clearly shows that government has led the endorsement of subprime mortgages and lower lending standards, with complete disregard for the economic misery that erupts out of such policies and programs. Increasing bailouts will merely delay and worsen the inevitable collapse of the modern mortgage industry that government has played a major role in creating and sustaining.

Even so, you might say, on September 24, 2008, John McCain suspended his presidential campaign with the selfless objective to pass emergency legislation to “protect taxpayers and homeowners,” so the government must know what it’s doing, right? What America got in September 2008 were the TARP bailouts which, given the situation of the mortgage market today, haven’t done squat to “protect homeowners.” Given the government’s miserable record of attempting to provide affordable housing, who in the world expects more government intervention to save homeowners this time around? You can’t save a drowning person by throwing more water on him, nor can you save a government-manipulated economy with more government intervention.

The free market is the best tool to save the housing market and actually provide affordable housing for those who need it. Allowing liquidation of the housing market is necessary and would bring a short-term correction, but it would end the ongoing misery homeowners are experiencing due to government manipulation in the first place. Housing prices would drop to levels most potential homeowners could actually afford, and it wouldn’t require one dollar of government intervention.

For a true recovery to take place you don’t need increased government spending, intervention, or control; all that’s needed is a return to the free market, where individuals will manage their lives and economic decisions far better than any politician or bureaucrat in Washington D.C. The free market is the only option for a sustainable, lasting, and prosperous recovery.

Share/Bookmark

The first problem with this proposal is that it completely disregards how this bubble and bust came about. “Lack of regulation” did not cause the bubble or the pain we feel today. In fact, it was the federal government and Federal Reserve who were actually encouraging banks and lenders to lower their lending standards to riskier customers. The government was pushing lower lending standards in the name of equality and the right for lower income families to own a home.

In Obama’s plan banks would be forced to hold the mortgage-backed securities they create and sell to investors, with the belief that they will be more conservative with their loans if their own money is on the line. The problem with this is that it ignores how mortgage-backed securities, or the secondary mortgage market, came about. For those who don’t know, the secondary mortgage market is where a bank sells a loan it made with a customer to another business, relieving the bank of the responsibility to maintain that loan. The business buying those loans from banks may hold them in its portfolio or group them into mortgage-backed securities and sell them to investors.

This market started with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) created in 1937. Fannie and Freddie have enjoyed special privileges and treatment since their creation. They created the secondary mortgage market to give banks the opportunity to give more loans (and thereby sell them to Fannie and Freddie) and therefore give more people the chance to borrow money to buy a house.

In the 1990s, the Clinton administration continually pressured Fannie and Freddie to buy riskier mortgages from banks. This would encourage banks to sell mortgages to lower income individuals regardless of the increased risk of foreclosure involved. In 1999, after pressure from the federal government, Fannie Mae lowered some of its previous standards so it could buy riskier mortgages from the banks.

We often hear today that it was greed, deception, and lack of regulation that pushed subprime mortgages onto the market, when in reality these risky loans were being openly encouraged by the federal government. The mortgage bubble would not have been possible had it not been for Fannie and Freddie and the special government treatment they have received since their creation. Any government agency involved in the housing market (in both the Clinton and Bush administrations) was pressured to lower mortgage standards, allow lower income individuals and families to get loans, and ignore the extra risks and consequences.

The very reason why many politicians didn’t want equal treatment and oversight for Fannie and Freddie was because they thought it would take away the GSEs’ ability to “commit” to riskier customers. The government was pushing “affordable housing” by lowering mortgage standards in any way possible, rejecting the market’s natural rates of risk, and ignoring the risks involved with increased loans to people who clearly couldn’t afford them.

No one in government pushing these practices believed they were adding to an unsustainable and deadly bubble, and no amount of government regulators would have had the nerve to ignore what Congress, the President, and the Federal Reserve were all pressing for. The push for decreased mortgage standards for lower-income people gradually spread into decreased standards for the mortgage industry as a whole. Subprime mortgages were not the only portion of the mortgage market that crashed, many “prime” mortgages faced high foreclosure rates because of the spillover of decreased lending standards.

Obama’s plan assumes that forcing businesses in the secondary mortgage market (mainly Fannie and Freddie) to own part of their own mortgage-backed securities will solve the problem. If the government suddenly has to jump into the secondary mortgage market to ease and control the industry, why are we not simply allowing Freddie and Fannie to compete on the free market, suffer the consequences of unreasonable practices, and go bankrupt if necessary? Instead allowing Freddie and Fannie to fail because of their poor practices, the government nationalized the two corporations last year. The secondary mortgage market would not have been possible had it not been for the government’s unending support for Fannie and Freddie. Rather than look at the root cause of the problem, Obama is taking an issue that the government essentially created and sustained and using it as an excuse to increase government regulatory power.

People rarely ask how banks suddenly got the money and ability to loan to people who obviously should not have gotten loans. In response to the bursting tech bubble and weak economy, then-Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan lowered the Fed’s interest rate to 1% for a full year starting in 2003. Greenspan kept rates artificially low for one purpose: lower rates mean banks can borrow more money, which they can loan out to more people (who otherwise couldn’t have gotten those loans) who will go out and spend those dollars. Lower interest rates encourage spending, borrowing, and discourage saving; if they are held at artificially low levels that money will drift to areas that it never would have gone before. By keeping rates at unsustainable and artificially low levels, the Fed gave banks the money and opportunity to loan cash to people who otherwise never could have gotten it (i.e. subprime mortgages).

The Federal Reserve’s easy money and cheap credit policy played a huge part in giving banks the chance to take advantage of their lowered lending standards. Lower lending standards coupled with the artificial credit from the Federal Reserve put the subprime mortgage market in full gear. Without the Fed, the banks could not have gotten that cash in the free market. It is frightening that the practices employed at the Fed, which were so instrumental in causing today’s mess, are now being looked upon as the solution. The leaders of the Fed are the very people who ignored the bubble forming from their own policies.

In 2005 Ben Bernanke said that rapidly rising housing prices “largely reflect strong economic fundamentals.” At the same time Greenspan said the housing market was merely experiencing “froth,” not a bubble, and would only correct in local markets. Why in the world would we want to give more power to the Fed and the people who manage it when they continually ignore the consequences of their easy money policies and denied for years that the housing bubble was unsustainable and irrational? Why are we listening to the people who helped create the problem, ignored the problem for as long as possible, and suddenly feel they have all the answers that will lead to massive economic damages if not put into place?

The fact that they see the same policies that brought us into this mess as the perfect solution should caution everyone about their judgment. Artificially low interest rates and cheap credit may boost the economy in the short-term – even for a few years as it did after the tech bubble burst until 2007 – but they will guarantee another bubble of this magnitude and a more disastrous bust several years down the road.

Because of the policies endlessly pursued by the Fed and the government over the past year (artificially low interest rates, bailouts, increased intervention) do not be surprised to see excessive malinvestment in the years ahead, a period of artificial wealth (just as the tech and house bubble “wealth” proved to be nonexistent after their respective bubbles popped), and a painful collapse.

Obama’s new regulatory plan is nothing more than a continuation and massive expansion of the exact policies that brought us to this point. More government and central control will not solve problems that they themselves were strongly supporting when the economy seemed to be in great shape. Obama’s plan simply hands buckets of gasoline to the arsonist watching the fire he started.

Share/Bookmark

GM has not done a thing to deserve special treatment. Mr. Henderson admits and suggests that the company needs to restructure, but would prefer it to be done without the usual bankruptcy protection. If the Big Three made bad decisions, paid unions an unsustainable amount, and can’t compete with foreign automakers, then bankruptcy should be encouraged. Smarter, smaller, and more sustainable businesses would emerge in the long run, and have a much better chance at competing with Toyota and Honda.

With the auto bailouts and interventions, the government is greatly strengthening its regulatory power over the consumers. In 1980, roughly 75% of all automobiles bought in the U.S. were built by Detroit. Last year, Detroit’s share fell to 48%. Consumers saw how lackluster Detroit’s vehicles were and decided to purchase better models made primarily by Toyota and Honda. Why does the government not like these decisions?

An often forgotten fact is that Toyota uses more American parts in its vehicles than GM, Ford, or Chrysler. Many of the Big Three use approximately 65% or less American components in their vehicles, while Toyota has models that are made up of 90% American parts. Detroit is no longer the “American auto industry” that many politicians use as an excuse for bailouts. Not only do Toyota and Honda make better cars, they manage to make them with more American components than Detroit could dream of.

What end result is the government hoping for? Are they saying that consumers are wrong in their decisions, and should be buying vehicles from Detroit? Are they saying that despite Detroit’s products being more inefficient, unreliable, and expensive than American-made vehicles from Toyota and Honda, that they still deserve unearned taxpayer dollars?

It should be remembered that new vehicles are not necessity items. People have several automakers to choose from for buying a new vehicle, but there is also the used market that presents a less expensive option. Were Detroit forced to restructure under bankruptcy like any other business, it would not be a disaster. People might buy more American vehicles from Toyota and Honda, they might save more money by purchasing a used vehicle, and they might realize that there are much better options, in terms of pricing and reliability, than Detroit has been able to provide.

Politicians go on and on about saving American jobs, but if they force unproductive, unreliable, mismanaged companies to stay in existence, is that really going to provide long-term stability for workers? Bailouts in the 1980s evidently didn’t solve the problems then and they certainly won’t today.

Most disturbing is the lack of legal grounds of the federal government’s intrusion. Where in the Constitution does it give the government authority to allocate “emergency” funds to the private sector? Where in the Constitution does government have any authority to allocate any amount of funds to the private sector, individuals, or groups? Where in the Constitution does it give authority to the government to fire and replace a CEO of a private business?

The regulation made by consumers through supply and demand will far outlast a government intervention, program, or agency. Consumers clearly showed that they didn’t believe their dollars were best spent buying a vehicle made in Detroit. But because the government can’t resist coming to the rescue, their forcefully extracted taxpayer dollars are being used to give special treatment to corporations who manage to have greater lobbying power than smaller businesses.

It’s as simple as that. Consumers showed that Detroit, AIG, Bear Stearns, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, hundreds of banks, and much of the financial establishment were not doing business with the individual in mind. Yet the government will not allow the businesses that were overcome with greed and stupidity in high places to come crashing down as the market consistently urges. Instead, politicians somehow see logic in condemning all the various corporations while funneling billions and trillions of dollars to those same corporations.

Supply and demand, put in the hands of free individuals, is what a strong economy and society is built upon. Government cannot change the course of an economy for good by taxing some and giving to others, attempting to spend, borrow, and print the economy out of a recession, or by assuming that it knows the solutions to the problems of individuals and the economy. This statement from George Washington ought to serve as an example of the best government can be in these matters:

“Our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing.”

Impartial Hand. Natural course of things. Forcing nothing. Does this resemble our government’s role in the economy today? Amazingly, some people think it does.

Washington, and many of the Founding Fathers, envisioned a government that largely stayed out of the affairs of the people and economy, and maintained a neutral balance. This neutrality and resistance to intervention is what strengthens the choices of the free men and women of this country; government intervention destroys that balance and ignores the long-term consequences of short-term actions.

The business of bailouts, intervention into private affairs of the economy, and special treatment for a select few do not come close to representing the impartial hand that Washington spoke about.

A truly impartial government, focused on providing equal justice for all individuals, gives greater ability for the laws of supply and demand to chisel at the risks, mistakes, successes, and opportunities created by a free people, economy, and society.

Share/Bookmark

Oppressive monopolies will never be created by consumers and free individuals. If a “monopoly” were to appear in a free society because people liked the product, low price, and high quality, why should that be considered illegal? If a business grows in size because people voluntarily buy its product, there is nothing in the least oppressive about it. Today, though, the government is on the hunt for companies who are too big and represent a danger to consumers.

In 1914, through the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was established. Its mission in a nutshell is to engage in “consumer protection” by patrolling for and breaking up anti-competitive monopolies. Sounds nice, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, the logic still doesn’t make sense.

In a free market economy people are given the freedom to use their money in the ways they see best. In nearly every case, this involves finding the best product for the lowest price. When companies like Wrigley’s, YouTube, Google, and countless others have a strong and growing market share, it is because people find their services and products the best value.

What the FTC assumes is that there are cases when a business will gain huge control over a market and use that to crush competition. The question you have to ask is, How did that business become that large in the first place? In a free market it would occur voluntarily from consumers, and its success would remain dependent on the people who got them there to begin with. If its customers were to back out and the company failed to change its practices, the business would not last. In a true, voluntary free market system it is the regulatory power of the individual, not a government agency, that controls the fate of a business.

“Consumer protection” is not something the government can empower through an agency. The one role the government has in protecting the consumer is protecting the consumer’s right to make its his own decisions without the hand of government influencing the decision through force. When the government starts making the regulatory decisions, the power of individual decisions (which a free market is built upon) becomes greatly diminished, skewed, and loses much of its influence.

A recent example of the FTC’s intrusion is its dealings with Whole Foods’ $565 million buyout of Wild Oats over the course of 2007 and 2008. The FTC charged that because of the buyout, Whole Foods would suddenly be able to dramatically increase prices, destroy competition, and essentially control the organic food retail market. There are several faults with the FTC’s theories.

For one thing, Whole Foods and Wild Oats, while some of the larger national organic food chains, do not have near that much influence over the organic food industry. The theory assumes that Whole Foods and Wild Oats purchase all the organic produce in the country, therefore controlling the supply. This in itself is ludicrous. Whole Foods’ revenue over the past year has totaled approximately $8 billion, while the sales of the organic food industry reached approximately $25 billion last year.

Secondly, Whole Foods brought on a good deal of debt to achieve the buyout. Raising prices beyond what consumers are willing to pay would lead to the company’s bankruptcy rather quickly. There is nothing forcing people to shop at Whole Foods, yet the FTC again makes this assumption.

Third, and most obviously, there are many stores where organic food is widely available as the industry quickly increases in size. The FTC made its attacks based on the strange idea that Whole Foods and Wild Oats controlled the organic food industry. There is no reasoning or statistic basis for these arguments, yet because it was the bidding of the FTC, the legal battles waged on for about one year.

What’s especially ironic here is that while this battle was being waged in the name of “consumer protection”, billions of dollars was being handed out to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two government-created corporations who you could say do have near monopolistic power over areas of mortgages. Don’t forget Bear Stearns, AIG, the auto businesses, and all the banks who were given billions of taxpayer dollars. Where was the FTC fighting for “consumer protection”?

When the government says that a company is “too big to fail,” doesn’t that mean it has a monopoly status? Since when does the government decide which companies can and can’t fail, all while funding the FTC to investigate, accuse, and battle individual businesses?

Anti-competitive businesses, which is the FTC’s stated purpose to prevent, are not created and do not succeed with a free market system. But they most certainly are created with a government-influenced economy where the government grants special favors to businesses, punishes others, and decides what companies succeed and fail. A free market, in which people can make their own decisions, will not and does not create harmful monopolies. Harmful monopolies can only be created with help from the government in one form or another.

With the escalation of unnecessary and abusive antitrust laws, government-supported and government-created corporations, and government bailouts, one thing is becoming much more clear. A business is no longer created for the benefit and liking of the customer, it is built for the approval and bidding of the government.

It is no longer the customers who control the fate of a business, but the government. It is no longer the individuals who have the supreme regulatory power, but the government. It is no longer the shareholders’ responsibility to control a business, but the government. It is no longer the people who rule the government, but the government who rules the people.

Truth, though, is never-ending and in the long run is the one thing that is sure to be victorious. Governments, tyrants, and central planners use everything in their power to destroy the laws of truth, freedom, and responsibility. But history has shown that it is those very laws of truth, freedom, and responsibility that lead to the inevitable destruction of deceitful principles, manipulation, and fraud, no matter if it is brought about by individual people or entire governments.

Therefore, it is these laws of truth, freedom, and responsibility, that will bring us back to our senses:

It is the customers who control the marketplace, not the government. It is the shareholders who make business decisions, not the government. A business is created to serve the people, not the government. Businesses answer to customers, not the government.

It is the people who know the best for themselves. Not the government.

Share/Bookmark

What is credit? Webster defines it as the “reliance on the truth or reality of something”. Simple enough. The Federal Reserve controls the supply and creation of money and credit in the United States. Credit creation is defined as the “collective abilities of lenders to make money available to borrowers”. The Federal Reserve, through its monopoly power over interest rates, is able to control the flow of credit. When interest rates are lowered, banks can borrow funds from the Fed at cheaper levels in order to lend it more easily to its customers.

The manipulation of interest rates is an important topic to understand today’s economic climate. For better or worse, the concentrated group of bankers that is the Federal Reserve dictates all monetary and credit policies. Over the past decade the Fed has kept interest rates at particularly artificial low levels in order to boost and stimulate the economy. But, lowering interest rates doesn’t just “stimulate” the economy. It cheapens money for banks to borrow. When the Fed lowers rates to levels that the market wouldn’t normally allow, it builds up a manipulated situation of wealth and credit, which then creates an artificial, short-sighted opportunity for people. While this may create a fantastic situation for the economy in the short-term, the bubble always bursts.

The subprime mortgage escalation that we saw over the past decade would not have been possible were it not for the Fed’s control over interest rates and therefore control of credit. Ordinarily, banks would not have had the capital to continue lending ridiculous loans to people who certainly could not afford them. However, when interest rates are kept low, the artificial creation of credit allowed banks to continue the unsustainable process much longer than the regulatory forces of the market would naturally allow. So, while the printing of money out of thin air is what causes the monetary inflation problems; it is the Fed’s control and manipulation of credit that allows banks to go down the road of unsustainable, irresponsible business decisions without immediately feeling the effects as they would in a free market.

The federal government’s role in this cannot be downsized, either. Primarily through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government supported the subprime loans and loans in general to people who normally couldn’t afford a loan. While this may be a worthy cause, intervening in the markets will not come without its consequences, usually over the long-term. Whether it comes from the government or a central bank, it is not possible to make the market more “fair” or level out the playing field, so to speak, with interventionist policies. Through cheap credit and government backed loans we have gotten to where we are today.

Just as money can’t be printed out of thin air without having substantial negative effects on the currency, neither can credit be artificially created without it coming back to bite the very hand that fed it. Today, the same path is being followed. The Fed has announced a new program “aimed at boosting the availability of credit to consumers and small businesses.” It seems that the Fed is either unable or unwilling to learn from its past mistakes that brought us here in the first place.

The Fed’s new program will “spur consumer lending” by loaning up to $200 billion, hopefully enough to dupe people into thinking they can once again afford things they thought they couldn’t before. Common sense will tell us that creating more cheap credit will not solve a problem created by cheap credit in the first place.

The problem with the government and Federal Reserve is shortsightedness. The short-term spending and performance of the economy is all they seem to pay any attention to. Therefore, the fed and the Fed (that is my cheap attempt at a pun) do what is in their power to get the economy stimulated for the next quarter, or focus on the next week’s unemployment numbers, rather than stepping back and look at what makes a sustainable economy.

Short-term spending is not what creates a prosperous and sustainable economy. We should be able to know this by now after everything we’ve gone through, but the constant federal and central interventions discourage people from looking at the larger scheme of events. We’re lead to believe that it’s okay for us to go deeply into debt and buy loans that we can’t afford, because the government is “backing” those loans. After the government and Fed’s relentless pursuit to prevent businesses and homeowners from failing, I have a hard time believing that people are going to come away from this crisis understanding the principles and benefits of individual responsibility and hard work.

Saving and investing are what sound economies are based upon, not spending. Rather than constantly spending money in the short-term on items that really are unnecessary and even irrelevant to our personal lives, as the government and Fed encourage, it is through wise saving and investing at one’s own discretion that funds are built up for children to go to school, for houses to be built, and have a sustainable lifestyle that will benefit the economy for years rather than quarters.

While saving and investing may not create an immediately noticeable effect, they will do far more in creating a sustainable, truly prosperous economy over the long run. Focusing on the short-term results and disregarding the long-term aspects of decisions played a major role in the messes that both individuals and governments around the world find themselves in today.

Credit cannot be created nor cheapened by a central bank sustainably over the long-term, as hard as it may try. True and sustainable credit is built from a strong reputation built on the foundations of living within one’s means, saving, investing, and at the heart of it, having a long-term focus. The laws and abilities of the free market are what promote these key qualities for the prosperity of both people, and nations. Federal and central control, manipulation, and intervention promote the opposite: a spending economy, a short-term focus, and living beyond one’s means in order to achieve greater wealth in the short-term, as unsustainable as it may be.

Let us solve our current problems not from more of the same, but a return to the principles of personal savings, hard work, and individual responsibility.

Share/Bookmark