The Costs of Kyoto
10 May 2006
Editor, The Washington Post
1150 15th St., NW
Washington, DC 20071
Dear Editor:
Cass Sunstein's argument for U.S. funding of the Kyoto Protocol is anemic ("It"s Only $300 Billion," May 10). The fact that his war in Iraq costs Uncle Sam about what he'd pay to fund Kyoto, and the fact that this war seems to be futile, is hardly reason for the U.S. to sign the Kyoto Protocol. As Sunstein himself said in his 2005 book, Laws of Fear, "even for the world, the Kyoto Protocol appears to impose costs in excess of benefits - and this is so even if improbable catastrophic risks are taken into account."*
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
* Cass R. Sunstein, Laws of Fear (Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 171.
The Real Addiction is to Power
9 May 2006
Editor, USA Today
Dear Editor:
Like George Bush, Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope asserts that Americans are "addicted" to oil ("Focus on cars, not gas type," May 9). I wonder why the political and intellectual elite insist on accusing us of being pathologically unable to exercise self-control. Does Mr. Pope and his ilk really not see the advantages that many people get from driving autos with lots of cargo space and horsepower? Or are Mr. Pope and Co. trying to convince us that we're so mindlessly irresponsible that we can be saved from ourselves only by turning even more control of our lives over to government?
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Properly Identifying the Costs and Benefits of Trade
8 May 2006
News Director, National Public Radio
Dear Editor:
Whatever are NAFTA's demerits, they don't include its reduction of the profits of subsistence farmers in Mexico ("Migrants' Job Search Empties Mexican Community," May 8). Freer trade is supposed to direct resources away from inefficient uses so that they are available for efficient uses. This result is driven by the greater freedom of choice that consumers have under free trade. As consumers stop patronizing inefficient producers, these producers' profits fall, while the profits of efficient producers rise.
Mud-splattered subsistence farmers hurt by NAFTA offer heart-tugging sound bites. But do you really want to return to the days when many ordinary Mexicans had little choice but to buy corn from local farmers who are so inefficient that (according to the expert quoted in your report) they require 72 hours to produce as much corn as a U.S. corn farmer produces in one hour?
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
If We CALL the Rotten Egg a Rose, Maybe It Will Smell Sweet
6 May 2006
The Editor, New York Times
229 West 43rd St.
New York, NY 10036
To the Editor:
William Powers argues that nationalization of the Bolivian oil and gas industry might well have good results ("All Smoke, No Fire in Bolivia," May 6). Powers' optimism centers on the government's claim that this is "nationalization without confiscation" - the government confiscated only 51 percent of the private companies - and Evo Morales's promise not to expel foreign companies.
Suppose Uncle Sam expropriated 51 percent of the assets of the New York Times and other news organizations, promising not to expel former owners from the newsrooms. Would news still be reported independently? Would entrepreneurs launch upstart newspapers? Would truth thrive? No. Powers' enchantment with the cosmetic modesty of this particular instance of nationalization is outrageous.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Counting the Value of Housework (Regardless of Who, or What, Performs It)
5 May 2006
Editor, The New York Review of Books
Dear Editor:
In his generally admirable essay on income inequality, Andrew Hacker discounts the significance of the 23 percent rise in median family incomes between 1982 and 2004 by saying that "this growth was almost entirely the result of the presence of additional earners, with more wives turning to full-time work" ("The Rich and Everyone Else, May 25, 2006).
True. But to the extent that women were released from housework by the greater availability of electrical appliances and better prepared foods, these gains in median household earnings represent real improvements for ordinary Americans. After all, housework - although uncompensated - has genuine and considerable value. Because much of the housework that in the past was done by "non-working" women is now done by appliances, supermarkets, and the like, the typical American household today still receives the value of housework PLUS the additional income women earn by working outside of the home.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Galbraith at Gstaad
4 May 2006
Editor, The New York Post
Dear Editor:
George Will is correct: John Kenneth Galbraith believed that capitalism turns ordinary people into contemptible materialists ("Galbraith’s Groupthink," May 4). It's worth adding to Mr. Will’s excellent analysis that Galbraith wrote The Affluent Society, his broadside against individuals' quests for modern amenities and creature comforts, while at his ski chalet in Gstaad, Switzerland.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
From Research By My Colleague David Levy
3 May 2006
Editor, The Washington Post
1150 15th St., NW
Washington, DC 20071
Dear Editor:
Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., repeats Thomas Carlyle's famous dismissal of economists as being practitioners of "the dismal science" ("J.K. Galbraith's Towering Spirit," May 3). But Mr. Schlesinger seems unaware of Carlyle's reason, in 1849, for issuing this criticism. Carlyle was a reactionary who supported slavery; he was furious at economists for being outspoken proponents of abolition.
Far from a black mark on my profession, being called a dismal scientist by the likes of Thomas Carlyle is a badge of honor.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Counting Our Blessings In Our Trash
2 May 2006
Editor, The Christian Science Monitor
Dear Editor:
I realize that it's de rigueur among the literary classes to bewail the gizmos and gadgets that so prominently facilitate the convenience of modern life. But reading Giles Slade's warning that we are throwing away too many cell-phones and iPods ("Technology made to be broken," May 2) puts a smile on my face and makes me thankful - thankful to live in an economy so staggeringly productive that we enjoy enough leisure and wealth actually to worry about the contents of landfills.
Such concerns are a blessing.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
