Market Correction

15 March 2006

The Editor, USA Today

To the Editor:

You quote Clyde Prestowitz's lament that "our economy is on life support from foreign lenders and investors" ("Some would like to build a wall around U.S. economy," March 15). Such investment does indeed help the U.S. economy. But why call it "life support"? If investment in the U.S. were supplied only by Americans, would Mr. Prestowitz say that "our economy is on life support from domestic lenders and investors"?

Foreigners, like Americans, invest here not to rescue the economy but because such investments offer attractive returns. And these attractive returns exist because the U.S. economy is healthy rather than ailing.

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

14 March 2006

Editor, The Boston Globe

Dear Editor:

I do not object to gay and lesbian couples adopting children. But I disagree with Joyce Kauffman that Catholic Charities is acting immorally by ending its adoption services in light of the Massachusetts legislature's command that no adoption agency discriminate against homosexual couples ("Ignoring children's needs is true immorality," March 14).

Catholic Charities is a voluntary faith-based institution. Why should adherents to that faith be forced to choose between remaining true to their Catholic creed - which objects to adoption by gays and lesbians - and continuing to facilitate adoptions? Why should government impose this especially onerous tax on persons who generously give their time and resources to others? Are orphaned children now better off in Massachusetts?

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

13 March 2006

Editor, The Atlantic Monthly
600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037

Dear Editor:

To help commemorate The Atlantic’s sesquicentennial (April 2006), you reprint part of Henry Demarest Lloyd’s muckraking attack on Standard Oil.

The thesis of Lloyd’s "Monopoly on the March" - first published in the March 1881 issue of your magazine - is that Standard Oil was a dangerous monopolist that could be controlled only by the national government. But the very first sentence of Lloyd's essay is evidence against his thesis: "Kerosene has become, by its cheapness, the people’s light the world over." Indeed.

A true monopolist raises prices and restricts output. Standard Oil did the opposite. Between 1870 and 1890 - the year the Sherman Antitrust Act was passed - kerosene's price fell 72 percent, from 26 cents per gallon to seven and three-eighths cents per gallon. The large market share that Standard Oil enjoyed during this era resulted from nothing more than Rockefeller's intrepid quest for efficiencies that enabled his firm to keep cutting its prices.

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

9 March 2006

Editor, The Boston Globe

Dear Editor:

Arguing that the "long downward trend in mine deaths...is attributable to the mechanization of mining that has occurred in recent years" rather than to the adequacy of mine-safety regulations, you insist that such regulations be stiffened ("When lax rules are deadly," March 9).

But mechanization doesn't happen automatically and for no reason. One reason mine owners mechanize is to reduce the number of workers put in harm's way - a strategy that is more attractive the stricter are mine-safety regulations. The very mechanization that you dismiss as irrelevant to the discussion is promoted, in part, by the regulations that you assume to be too lax.

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