When I pleaded for our industries to stop the practice of devouring our children's flesh, I made a few references to the fact that we have never lived in a free market economy.  Historically, the march to Collectivism started in the 1930s with FDR's New Deal.  FDR introduced hundreds of Socialists into the Government and started the concept of a planned economy with the New Deal.  Chesly Manly outlines this in The Twenty Year Revolution:  From Roosevelt to Eisenhower (just read Chapter 3 and 4 for the meat of his argument).

While this wasn't a complete Marxist transformation, it introduced the concept of crony capitalism or, as Greg Swann calls it, Rotarian Socialism:

We are apt to think of Communism as being Capitalism’s natural enemy, but there is another, perhaps more insidious foe to unfettered laissez faire. I call it Rotarian Socialism, just to give it a name. Rotarian Socialism is legislation written by and for the membership of a politically-powerful elite. Most of the criticisms you hear about Capitalism are in fact criticisms of Rotarian Socialism.

Adam Smith warned, in Wealth of Nations, that when businesspeople get together, they are likely to collude against the populus for their benefit.  It is when they enlist the aid of the State, to conspire to defraud the populus through legislation towards price-fixing and protectionism; that crony capitalism has a more insidious effect than Marxism.  

The NAR's shameless push for Congress to extend or expand the home buyer tax credits are just that; crony capitalism.  This video, produced by the Acton Institute does a nice job outlining how far we've regressed since the Reagan Era:

The crony capitalism practiced by the NAR (and MBAA, for that matter) is a conspiracy to defraud the public by "rigging the game against the little guy".  It "devours the flesh" of our children because it adds to the federal budget deficit, saddling them with bills they can hardly pay.  When their flesh is eaten, the carcass will be a nation of indentured servants, cowering to a political class.

The moral relativist's argument is "the Government is spending all this money, why not give it to buyers so I can earn some commissions ?".  Please know that I understand the short-term rationalization that comes with an increased paycheck but I beseech you to wonder how much better our industry would be if we didn't have to rely on the Government anymore.  In short, theft is theft; ask Duke Cunningham what happens when the rationalizations come unglued.

You have most likely NEVER truly lived in a free market society (unless you're 90 years old).  Please consider what could be if you did, before commenting.