Buy Local?
26 July 2006
Editor, The Christian Science Monitor
Dear Editor:
Snarling at those who challenge the notion that "buying local is always best," Robert Scott argues that "Local food producers are your neighbors, your taxpayers, and your local employers, and they are more accountable for their product than another producer half the world away" (Letters, July 26).
Well now. Folks who CONSUME food locally also are your neighbors and your taxpayers. Indeed, far more of our neighbors consume food than produce it. As for being employers, fewer than three percent of Americans work in agriculture, so local farmers and ranchers aren't hiring many workers. Finally, if someone dies from eating pathogen-laden spinach sold under, say, the Del Monte label, Del Monte Foods will be held accountable - and probably much more surely and aggressively than will farmer Brown with his ten acres outside of town whose tainted lettuce accidentally kills a diner.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Salvation By Force?
25 July 2006
The Editor, New York Times
229 West 43rd St.
New York, NY 10036
To the Editor:
Reading Michael Dukakis's and Daniel J. B. Mitchell's suggestions for helping the poor ("Raise Wages, Not Walls," July 25) - government should raise the minimum wage and mandate more generous fringe benefits - reveals to me the fundamental sameness of left-liberals and neo-conservatives. Impatient for the world to be ideal, both groups seek to make it so by using force. Ignoring the innumerable, complex, and inescapable details of reality, they dismiss the importance of process and the certainty of unintended consequences as they cling to their childish belief that desirable results require the forceful, fashioning hand of a conscious designer.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Ads Up?
24 July 2006
Editor, USA Today
Dear Editor:
Endorsing a higher minimum wage, you dismiss concerns that employers adjust to this mandate by hiring fewer low-skilled workers ("Where's Robin Hood when you need him?" July 24). But do you really believe that businesses saddled with government mandates do not respond by adjusting however they can to minimize the impact of these mandates?
Suppose government enacts a statute declaring that newspapers must reduce the prices they charge for ads run in their pages by small businesses. Would the amount of ad space you devote to small-business ads not fall? Asked differently, would the proportion of ad space you make available to big businesses not increase?
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
On Immigration
22 July 2006
Editor, The Wall Street Journal
200 Liberty Street
New York, NY 10281
Dear Editor:
Milton Friedman correctly says that immigration is "good for freedom. In principle, you ought to have completely open immigration" ("The Romance of Economics," July 22). But then he insists that government-provided welfare in America justifies immigration restrictions.
How can this great man who has long championed freedom as a moral imperative allow one unprincipled government intrusion (the welfare state) to excuse another unprincipled intrusion (limits on immigration)? By abandoning his principles when it comes to immigration, Friedman opens himself to the necessity of conceding at least the potential acceptability of further unprincipled government intrusions - such as allowing states with more-generous welfare benefits to close their borders to Americans from states with less-generous benefits, and criminalizing out-of-wedlock teen pregnancies (because young unwed mothers receive disproportionate amounts of government welfare). What principle will Friedman use to avoid slipping down this immoral slope?
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Business People on TV
21 July 2006
Editor, The Baltimore Sun
Dear Editor:
Not only does television portray business people as murderous (Clarence Page, "Are TV villains bad for business?" July 21), it also portrays them as bizarrely stupid.
I recall a scene from the 1980s series Dynasty in which the character played by Joan Collins attempted a hostile takeover of the corporation (privately!) owned by the character played by John Forsyth. When informed of this nefarious plot against his enterprise, Forsyth sprung into action! He telephoned one of his aides and, explaining that he needs fast cash to fight this takeover, ordered the aide to sell shares of his company.
No one that brainless could aim a gun straight much less build a business.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Separate School From State
19 July 2006
The Editor, USA Today
To the Editor:
To improve schooling you say that "Identifying true success means searching for schools that outperform their peers" ("Real estate vs. real education," July 19). This approach is all wrong.
Suppose government owned and operated most newspapers and magazines. Would you be confident that "searching for publications that outperform their peers" is the best way to assure truthful and relevant press coverage? Surely not. You understand that government-run news outlets inevitably are infected by politics and are too protected from competition to respond positively to consumers. So apply the same understanding to government schools - which inevitably are infected by politics and too protected from competition to respond positively to students.
Schools will never achieve their full potential until they are separated from the state.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
And Why Do Foreigners Want Dollars????
18 July 2006
Editor, The Washington Times
To the Editor:
Complaining about undocumented immigrants, Lynette Wood spews a barrage of undocumented "facts" (Letters, July 18). But her complaint about "the $20 billion-plus taken out of our economy and sent to Mexico every year" is downright silly.
Before persons living in Mexico can spend these dollars they must first convert them into pesos. Banks that exchange pesos for these dollars do so only because either they or their customers want dollars. And why does anyone want dollars? Answer: to spend or invest them in America. The $20 billion remitted annually by Mexicans living in the U.S. to their families south of the border return north as demand for American goods, services, and assets. These dollars are spent in America just as surely as they would be if the Mexicans who earn them while working in the U.S. had never sent any of their dollars to Mexico.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Thinking Outside of the (Flooded) Box
16 July 2006
The Editor, New Orleans Times-Picayune
To the Editor:
You say that "Louisiana's fortunes are also tied, for better or worse, to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers" ("Counting on corps reform," July 16). You then understandably bemoan how easily Washington politics can pervert reform of big bureaucracies such as the Corps.
So think outside of the box - or, rather, outside of Capitol Hill. Let Louisiana rebuild her own levees. The projected cost of $3.5 billion can be financed by bonds, with repayment spread over several decades.
Sure it would be nice for Louisianans to have this bill paid by Uncle Sam. But because the Army Corps is so infected with grotesque politicization - politicization that might well bungle the rebuilding - by assuming this responsibility themselves Louisianans would likely in the long-run save money and much heartbreak.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Human Possibility Versus Political Possibility
15 July 2006
The Editor, New Yorker
To the Editor:
George Packer classifies Bill Buckley's and George Will's skepticism of U.S. military operations in Iraq as an instance of "their creed's more cramped vision of human possibility" ("Fighting Faiths," July 10 & 17). Mr. Packer mistakes skepticism of social engineering for skepticism of human possibility.
Those of us who want to shrink the role of government in order to expand the scope of individual freedom believe that truly creative human energy is released only when people are sufficiently free from government regulations and taxation. Such freedom is prerequisite for any prosperous and dynamic civilization - such as ours that conquers hunger, builds skyscrapers, flies us routinely across vast oceans in thin metal tubes, and daily allows us to talk in real time to friends and loved ones thousands of miles away.
Drenched with its magnificence, how can we deny the reality of human possibility? What we deny is the reality of politician possibility.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Minimum Salary?
14 July 2006
The Editor, New York Times
229 West 43rd St.
New York, NY 10036
To the Editor:
Presumably rejecting the argument that raising the minimum-wage prices many low-skilled workers out of jobs, Paul Krugman wants to reduce income inequality by increasing the minimum-wage ("Left Behind Economics," July 14).
But if (as is plausible) workers' standards of living are determined more by their annual incomes than by their hourly wage rates - and if mandated higher pay prices no workers out of jobs - why doesn't Krugman demand for full-time workers a legislated minimum annual salary? Can it be that he doesn't really believe that government-mandated minimum pay helps low-paid workers?
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
His Fate Is In His Hands
10 July 2006
The Editor, USA Today
To the Editor:
Christopher Edwards wants stricter limits on immigration because he worries that growing population threatens Americans' "long-term quality of life" (Letters, July 10). But Mr. Edwards lives in New York City -- one of the most densely populated places on the planet.
If quality of life falls with higher population, it's a wonder than Mr. Edwards doesn't escape this problem by moving to Mississippi or Oklahoma where population density is much lower.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Invidualsim, Not Patriotism
8 July 2006
The Editor, The Washington Times
To the Editor:
Thomas Sowell laments many Americans' lack of patriotism ("Is Patriotism Obsolete?" July 8). But contrary to Dr. Sowell's suggestion, patriotism was never key to America's success. The founders certainly weren't patriotic: they took up arms against their government.
America's greatness lies in her culture of individualism and her deep suspicion of all political power. The patriotism longed for by Dr. Sowell is poison to the freedom that makes America worth defending.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
