Market Correction

6 April 2006

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

Dear Editor:

Writing about China's alleged policy of artificially devaluing the yuan, Lawrence Lindsey says that "[t]here are losers, of course, most notably American producers of goods that are now made in China" ("Yuan Compromise?" April 6). I disagree. This policy's most notable victims are Chinese citizens forced by their government to subsidize Americans' consumption.

That said, prudence requires that America remain steadfastly open to foreign goods and services regardless of whatever foolishness happens abroad. Keeping Uncle Sam from battering his own citizens with protectionism is difficult enough; he can't be trusted with the additional requirement of rescuing foreign citizens from their own scurrilous governments.

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

4 April 2006

The Editor, The New Yorker

To the Editor:

John Cassidy bolsters the hypothesis that people's health is harmed by relative (rather than absolute) deprivation by citing evidence from the animal kingdom ("Relatively Deprived," April 3). For example, "dominant rhesus monkeys have lower rates of atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries) than monkeys further down the social hierarchy."

Contrary to Cassidy's suggestion, however, such findings do not support policies to redistribute income. After all, animals with social hierarchies have no monetary income. Because status among humans is determined not only by income but also by traits such as political power, athletic prowess, military heroics, intellectual success, and good looks, equalizing incomes will intensify the importance of these non-pecuniary traits as sources of status. And there's no reason why persons with low status in these non-pecuniary categories will not suffer all the stress and envy now allegedly suffered by people with low incomes.

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

31 March 2006

The Editor, New York Times
229 West 43rd St.
New York, NY 10036

To the Editor:

Corinne Maier says that while 1968's Parisian protestors wanted to change society, 2006's protestors "simply want to be part of it" ("French Twist," March 31).

So why do they protest in favor of the status quo? With more than one in five of them unable to find jobs, do these 20-something middle-class French citizens fancy they are now well integrated into society? Key to enabling each young man and woman to become part of society is liberating each person to work on terms mutually agreeable to that person and to his or her employer.

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