Market Correction

2 July 2009

Editor, The New York Times
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018

To the Editor:

Nicholas Kristof argues that we're not as frightened of climate change as science counsels that we should be, and that our fear's inadequacy is rooted in our evolutionary past ("When Our Brains Short-Circuit," July 2). We are, Mr. Kristof correctly says, evolved to fear immediate, visible threats and not so much those threats - such as climate change - that are more distant and less visible.

Contrary to Mr. Kristof's conclusion, though, this fact doesn't necessarily justify climate-change regulation. The same evolved structure of our brains that causes us to discount relatively distant climate-change effects also causes us to discount relatively distant economic effects. So this economist, trained to see the invisible hand, points out that too many people are insufficiently aware of - and, hence, insufficiently fearful of - those relatively distant and invisible threats posed to a healthy economy by government regulation.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University

1 July 2009

Editor, Washington Post
1150 15th St., NW
Washington, DC 20071

Dear Editor:

You report that the "International Trade Commission recommended on Monday that President Barack Obama impose additional duties for three years on imports of low-cost Chinese tires the panel says are harming U.S. industry" ("U.S. trade panel favors stiffer duties on Chinese tires," June 29).

Such a move by Mr. Obama would not save U.S. jobs on net, because fewer dollars spent on imports means fewer dollars that foreigners have to spend on U.S. exports or to invest in the U.S.

More importantly, in this case higher duties would actually kill people. Higher duties mean higher tire prices, and higher tire prices will prompt many motorists to ride longer than otherwise on tires that are threadbare. Because riding on older tires is more dangerous than riding on new tires, Mr. Obama will have blood on his hands if he accepts the I.T.C.'s recommendation to stiffen duties on low-cost tires.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University

30 June 2009

Editor, The Wall Street Journal
200 Liberty Street
New York, NY 10281

To the Editor:

Steve Simpson says that regulators fail not so much because they are especially bad people but because they face especially bad incentives (Letters, June 30). He's correct.

But I think that Mr. Simpson misunderstands Thomas Frank. Mr. Frank's enthusiasm for big, intrusive government likely comes less from a belief "that mankind is not good enough to be free" and comes more from a romantic notion that mankind is in fact far more good and trustworthy than our species really is. After all, no one in their right mind would wish to give concentrated power to persons who are less than incredibly wise, incorruptible, and selfless.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University

28 June 2009

Editor, Detroit Free Press

Dear Editor:

Mitch Albom is correct that "We're wacko in how we view Jacko" (June 28). But not all of us are wacko. I, for one, am no more touched by Mr. Jackson's death than I am by the death of any of the thousands of other Americans who died last week, all of whom - like Mr. Jackson - are strangers to me and to the vast majority of people now so self-indulgently and flamboyantly grieving for a man they never met.

Americans' proclivity to mass hysteria causes me to want government to have as little power as possible. I neither can nor wish to stop other persons from doing with their lives as they wish. But I also damn sure despise the fact that, through their votes, so many persons prone to such childish sentiments and displays have a say in how I lead my life.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

27 June 2009

Editor, Boston Globe

Dear Editor:

Scott Lehigh argues that "infidelities shouldn't end political careers" (June 26) - to which I say: it depends.

A politician who holds himself or herself out as a savior - as such a paragon of virtue that he or she can be trusted with vast swaths of our lives and property - certainly should NOT be suffered to remain in office once that person is revealed to be simply another human being as faulty as the rest of us.

In the case of Gov. Mark Sanford, however, he's that rare politician who does not fancy himself to be more sagacious or virtuous than the rest of us. While not excusing Mr. Sanford's broken promises to his wife and family (and certainly not his apparent misuse of public funds), I regret the likely loss to the public of an official who never posed as being worthy to lord it over ordinary human beings.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

25 June 2009

Editor, USA Today

Dear Editor:

Although you suspect that Steve Jobs received special consideration to move to the front of the line of the many Americans seeking liver transplants, you agree that "Paying for organs is properly banned in the U.S." ("Wanted: organ donors," June 25).

What's proper about a policy that reduces the supply of life-giving transplant procedures and, thus, artificially raises the cost of such procedures? What's proper about condemning tens of thousands of people to lives of misery, and very often to premature death, when many of them would otherwise agree to mutually beneficial exchanges with willing donors? What's proper about allowing real people to suffer real agony and real death simply to protect an aesthetic sensibility that is hostile to certain kinds of voluntary commercial contracts?

Far from being proper, this ban on organ sales is pitiless.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University

24 June 2009

Editor, Los Angeles Times

Dear Editor:

Harold Meyerson believes that California should more vigorously demand a bailout from Washington ("California has to lean harder on Obama," June 24). And with unintentional irony, he supports his case by quoting the Jewish sage Hillel, who asked "If I am not for myself, who shall be for me?"

I, too, find wisdom in Hillel's question. So taking it to heart, I resist being taxed even further to support a government whose childish inattention to costs and unintended consequences led it into its current troubles. Why should those of us who don't live in California pay to save that state from the ill consequences of its own irresponsibility? After all, if I am not for myself, who shall be for me?

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University

23 June 2009

Editor, The New York Times
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018

To the Editor:

Ryan Bubb and Alex Kaufman conclude that restrictions imposed by the brand new Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act will "bring about moderate, and even positive, changes" ("A Fairer Credit Card? Priceles," June 23). This conclusion rests on the fact that cards issued by credit unions (as opposed to investor-owned banks) have long offered terms that meet the requirements of the Act. So if credit unions can profitably offer such terms, so too can investor-owned banks, right?

Not necessarily. As Bubb and Kaufman themselves argue, "Card issuers, after all, need to retain customers. Any bank that attempts to pad its bottom line by, say, levying large annual fees will likely see its customers flee to credit unions or to banks that emulate the credit union model."

So why haven't we seen any such flight or emulation? Could it be that banks' customers have needs and profiles different from those of credit-unions' customers - differences that prevent banks' customers from being profitably served under the terms offered by credit unions?

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University

22 June 2009

Editor, Los Angeles Times

Dear Editor:

You want to "Keep the politics out of UC" (Editorial, June 22). Impossible, as the UC system is a government entity. And a government entity free of politics is, as my colleague Russ Roberts says, quite as unthinkable as is a ham sandwich free of pork.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University

19 June 2009

Editor, Los Angeles Times

Dear Editor:

Seth Hill writes that "Every time I'm surfing channels and I happen by mistake to land there [on the Fox News channel], I have to watch a commentary by [Newt] Gingrich or former Vice President Dick Cheney. That channel makes me long for the days of the Fairness Doctrine" (Letters, June 19).

Mr. Hill's attitude is the seed of totalitarianism: unable to distinguish what he does voluntarily from what he is coerced into doing, he wants to use force to save himself from the annoyance of fleetingly encountering disagreeable ideas as he flips his channel changer - and to use force to hamper other persons' access to those ideas.

There's nothing fair about that.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University

Editor, New Orleans Times-Picayune

Dear Editor:

Befuddled that many Louisianans don't wish to force motorcyclists to wear helmets, Nicholette Shannon suggests that safety is always more important than what she dismisses as "convenience" (Letters, June 19).

Safety, however, clearly does not always trump convenience. If it did, no one would ever ride a motorcycle to begin with. Indeed, no one would ride in automobiles, jaywalk, or eat fast food. Each of us routinely trades-off some safety to get more convenience. And no one, including Ms. Shannon, should presume that her preferred balance between safety and convenience is or ought to be the preferred balance for other persons.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University

18 June 2009

Editor, The New York Times
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018

To the Editor:

It's heartening that so many of your readers support drug legalization (Letters, June 18). As they, and columnist Nicholas Kristof, point out, there are indeed many practical reasons to end the cruel and futile 'war on drugs.' But there's also an ethical reason to do so: each adult owns his or her life and only his or her life. It's none of my business what you ingest. Nor is it the business of my neighbor or of my co-workers. This fact does not change if my neighbor, co-workers, and I form a coalition and vote to govern your ingestion.

A society truly free tolerates all peaceful actions, from the sublime through the self-destructive.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University

17 June 2009

News Editor, WWL Radio
New Orleans, LA

Dear Sir or Madam:

A listener called in today during the one o'clock hour to assert that "health care isn't like other services" - and so it can't be supplied reliably on the market because people are willing to "incur any cost to save their lives."

First, if this assertion is true, it's unclear how matters would be improved by socializing the payment of medical expenses. Second, everyday experience shows that this assertion, in fact, is false. If people really are desperate to save their lives at all costs, then everyone would exercise regularly, eat only healthy foods, and completely avoid rock climbing, horseback riding, snow skiing, and tanning booths. No one would smoke, drink to excess, or have unsafe sex. Women would never get pregnant, as there's still some positive chance of dying while giving birth.

Unless and until people stop behaving in ways that reduce their life-expectancies, it's mistaken to believe that each of us is committed to living longer at all costs.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University

17 June 2009

Editor, The New York Times
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018

To the Editor:

Maureen Dowd wants President Obama to display his healthy, low-fat eating habits more publicly ("Hold the Fries," June 17). The idea is that Our Leader's ostentatious display of his preferred diet will inspire ordinary Americans to eat better.

What has become of Americans? How different are we now from Louis XIV's French subjects who gazed in awe upon him at his table? And are we so childish that our dietary choices are directed by political celebrities?

If we Americans are indeed such mindless lemmings as Ms. Dowd assumes, I'd prefer that Pres. Obama spend lots of time being filmed gobbling Big Macs while, between bites, he puffs on his cigarette and insists that each of us take control of our own individual lives.

We would do well to reject the stupid cult of celebrity that now surrounds high government officials.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University

14 June 2009

Editor, Baltimore Sun

Dear Editor:

Diana Schaub rightly argues that no judge should allow empathy for parties in a courtroom to dilute his or her commitment to apply the law dispassionately ("Why empathy is the enemy of justice," June 14). But the need for judicial impartiality does not imply that judges should avoid engaging with the real-world contexts and details that surround every legal dispute.

In a free society, law isn't simply a set of explicit commands handed down from a sovereign (be it a monarch or a democratically elected legislature). A great deal of law - indeed, MOST law - emerges undesigned from the daily practices of ordinary people interacting with, and sometimes bumping into, each other. People on their own often find ways to minimize these conflicts, and these ways become embedded in people's expectations. These expectations, in turn, become unwritten law - law that good judges find and enforce impartially.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University—

13 June 2009

News Editor, WTOP Radio
Washington, DC

Dear Editor:

Interviewing a guest this morning, anchor Nathan Roberts suggested that California's fiscal problems would have been avoided had Proposition 13, enacted in 1978, not "tied the hands of local governments to raise revenue by taxing property values."

Not so. In 1980-81 (the earliest date for which consistent data are available), property-tax revenues in California were (in 2009 dollars) $16.86 billion. In 2006-07 these revenues were $45.47 billion (again in 2009 dollars). This fact means that inflation-adjusted property-tax revenues were, in 2007, higher than they were in 1981 by 170 percent. Over these same years, California's population increased by 58 percent.*

Whatever the causes of California's current fiscal fiasco, a lack of adequate property-tax revenues isn't one of them.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University

* http://weblog.signonsandiego.com/weblogs/afb/archives/034048.html

12 June 2009

Editor, The New York Times
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018

To the Editor:

Paul Krugman is angry that media such as Fox News and the Washington Times often make unsubstantiated, over-the-top claims about Democrats and left-liberal causes ("The Big Hate," June 12).

Prof. Krugman should chill. These media - no less than the likes of CBS and your own paper - are in business not to inform but to entertain. And presumably the fictions that so irritate Mr. Krugman entertain their intended audiences - entertain these audiences no less than do the fictions that are routinely emitted by 'progressive' media entertain THEIR intended audiences.

How else, for example, to explain the routine accusation that members of the Chicago school of economics applauded Pinochet's tyranny in Chile? Or the incessant refrain, from outlets such as The Nation, that multinational corporations (and many economists) seek to 'impose' free trade as a means of enslaving workers? Or the common assertion that persons who endorse free markets are really just mean-spirited mercenaries paid in some coin to protect the privileges of the rich with cynical arguments that confuse and confound ordinary folk?

Aren't these arguments just as incendiary and unsubstantiated as are those that Mr. Krugman attacks?

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University

10 June 2009

Editor, The New York Times
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018

To the Editor:

Geoff Berg blames the high price of medical care on fee-for-service: "The problem with fee-for-service is not merely that it pays providers to provide service; it pays them to create service as well" (Letters, June 10).

This explanation cannot be correct. If it were, we would see, say, the prices of consumer electronics rising ever higher as consumers mindlessly purchase each new gadget marketed by the likes of Sony, Apple, and Dell. These producers, after all, are paid according to the quantities and qualities they supply, and they have incentives to keep creating new gadgets. And yet, the real prices of consumer electronics - as well as of many of the other products supplied according to fee-for-service (which is the vast majority of the economy) - continue to fall.

A better explanation for the high and rising price of medical care is found in Americans' heavy reliance on tax-subsidized third-party payments.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University

9 June 2009

Editor, Baltimore Sun

Dear Editor:

Bravo for British ambassador Nigel Sheinwald's case for freer trade ("The peril of protectionism," June 9).

One clarification, though: he says that "our globalized economy has not come about by accident. It is the result of our collective choice for openness." If Mr. Sheinwald is referring to multilateral trade agreements such as the GATT, he's correct as matter of history, but he should also point out that any country would gain from free trade even if it tears down its customs walls unilaterally.

If instead Mr. Sheinwald is referring to each government's choice to move toward freer trade, his words unintentionally mislead. What requires government action - what requires "collective choice" - is protectionism. Free trade exists naturally. Free trade is simply the absence of trade restrictions - the absence of officious interference into the affairs of those engaged in consensual capitalist acts.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University

8 June 2009

Editor, New York Post

Dear Editor:

George Will is understandably frightened by the administration's and Congress's massive infusion of politics into the operation of the U.S. auto industry - and he is understandably angered by these politicians' blatant lies about how they wish to keep politics out of the operation of this industry ("G.M.: That's 'Gov't Mandate' to you," June 8). Unfortunately, the "leaders" of this industry invited this cancerous intrusion by seeking handouts.

How sad it is that America has too few persons who really, deeply agree with the poet Shelley that

"The man
Of virtuous soul commands not, nor obeys.
Power, like a desolating pestilence,
Pollutes whate’er it touches."*

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University

* Percy Bysshe Shelley, "Queen Mab" (1813).