Principal among these, of course, is the mortgage. There is nothing inherently corrupt about mortgage lending. The problem comes in when the mortgage is set at a figure that does not correspond with economic reality.

Why should such a thing happen? It could be that, when the petitioner comes in with his hard-luck story, the man on the other side of the desk is Jimmy Stewart, who ends up granting a much more generous mortgage than if he were a tough hombre making the rules.

But there would be a limit to how many such mortgages even a Jimmy Stewart could write if it hadn't been for the folks who came up with a way to sell the mortgages to third parties. These might be other banks. Or insurance companies. If you persuade an obliging behemoth to take on just, say, one-millionth of the risk you undertook, well, that is prudent at every level. But the problem comes when the banks that were willing to take just a little bit of risk find themselves staring at the million people on whom they depended for ballast-IOUs in hand.

When that happens you have only the government to lean on. And fortunately for the improvident lender, there are so very many people now involved, the general mood is cooperative. Whether Congress goes with tax-rate cuts or with rebates or with subsidies, the public is not likely to grind the government on the wheels of economic orthodoxy.