Market Correction

15 October 2006

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

To the Editor:

David Brooks correctly notes that morality is a social phenomenon ("A Moral Philosophy for Middle-Class America," October 15). But when he writes that government cannot "be neutral on values issues" and that "[i]t's a chimera to believe individuals come up with solutions to moral questions alone" he reveals his mistaken belief that morality must be crafted consciously and centrally.

The same Adam Smith who Brooks praises later in his column famously explained how, while individuals don't come up with solutions to economic questions alone, they nevertheless together do find such solutions as they interact in commercial society. And, Smith showed, not only is government not needed to answer economic questions, its attempts to do so too often misfire. The same is true of morality. The fact that it is social does not mean that it must be created by government.

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

14 October 2006

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

Dear Editor:

Margo Wootan, of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, demands legislation requiring "fast-food and other chains to list calories and other nutrition information on menus" (Letters, October 14).

If diners at fast-food restaurants want such information, restaurants will supply it - just as these restaurants supply countless other things that customers demand such as napkins, tables, and early opening hours. The fact that such information isn't now supplied means that customers probably don't want it badly enough.

Must ordinary men and women continually be molested by the obnoxious, officious, overbearing presumptions of Ms. Wootan and her ilk? Why won't these people leave the rest of us alone to live as we choose even if our choices conflict with their notion of what is "scientifically" the best way to live?

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

13 October 2006

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

Dear Editor:

Re the current political campaigns: Every day I'm bombarded with e-mails, supposedly from Africa, written by strangers promising to make me rich while at the same time enabling me to serve a worthy cause. These messages drip with mock-sincerity and faux familiarity, each writer assuring me that I can trust him or her fully. All I need do is to give these correspondents ready access to my wealth by sending them my bank-account number.

Of course, I wouldn't dream of trusting such people. And for the same reason I wouldn't dream of trusting a similar gaggle of glib strangers who, at this time of year especially, assure me that if they have access to my wallet (and my liberties) they will make me richer while they also make the world a better place. Unfortunately, unlike with the first set of scoundrels, I can't easily hit a 'delete' button to rid my life of politicians.

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

11 October 2006

Editor, CNN.com

Dear Editor:

Lou Dobbs alleges that free trade hurts America's middle class ("Middle class needs to fight back now," Oct. 11).

Craziness. By implying that protectionism help ordinary Americans, Dobbs insinuates that the key to widespread prosperity is monopoly - producers shielded from competition. So for consistency's sake, Dobbs should demand not only an end to competition from abroad, he should demand also an end to competition at home. He should howl and growl disapprovingly - in his trademark bloviating manner - whenever any customer of one American firm seeks out and finds a better deal from another American firm.

He should express satisfaction with economic policy only when government forces each and every one of us never to change the way we spend our money. Only then would monopoly masquerading as economic security be complete.

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

5 October 2006

Editor, The New York Post

Dear Editor:

RE George Will's "House of Frauds" (October 5): I welcome the prospect of the GOP losing control of Congress. Not only is control by one party of both the Congress and Presidency dangerous to our liberties, the Democrats are less hypocritical than are the Republicans.

Both Republicans and Democrats are parties of big, hyperactive, and officious government. But only the Democrats are honest enough to admit it.

If a band of marauders are molesting and robbing me, I want at least to be spared their ridiculous assurances that they wouldn't dream of molesting and robbing me.

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

4 October 2006

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

To the Editor:

Alexis Hoffman says that New York City "must quickly develop a plan to retain the middle-class population" (Letters, October 4). NYC can start by abolishing rent control.

By decreasing the profitability of supplying units occupied by renters, these controls spawn condo conversions and prompt builders to construct fewer rental units and more units for sale to owner-occupiers. Persons who can't afford to buy housing are unnecessarily disadvantaged. Rent-control also encourages empty-nesters who enjoy below-market rents for their three- and four-bedroom apartments to stay put rather than move into smaller units - thus discouraging younger families with children from moving to the City.

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

3 October 2006

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

To the Editor:

Two errors infect Joseph Stiglitz's claim that "the United States borrows close to $3 billion a day" ("How to Fix the Global Economy," October 3). First, this figure - annually about $1 trillion - obviously is the sum of both the U.S. trade deficit and Uncle Sam's budget deficit. But insofar as the trade deficit increases because foreigners lend money to Washington, Stiglitz is double-counting.

Second, the trade deficit is not all debt. Indeed, as Floyd Norris reported in your pages on July 22, "a substantial portion" of recent foreign investment in the U.S. is in corporate equity. U.S. equity investments by foreigners - along with their U.S. real-estate purchases and dollar holdings - increase the U.S. trade deficit but do not increase Americans' indebtedness.

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

1 October 2006

Editor, Marketplace
American Public Media

To the Editor:

Paul Lette puts much of the blame for personal bankruptcies on credit-card companies (September 29). He alleges that these companies attract ever-larger number of customers by irresponsibly lending to people who cannot afford to borrow. Mr. Lette concludes that "there is nothing that makes [these companies] accountable in a bankruptcy."

Nonsense. Being unsecured creditors, credit-card issuers are last in line to be repaid. They lose money whenever a customer goes bankrupt - a harsh reality that holds credit-card issuers highly accountable.

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

30 September 2006

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

To the Editor:

Marcus Tye feels that "We should stop thinking of health care as a benefit to be earned from work and bought through middlemen (private insurers), and start treating it as a human right and a universal entitlement" (Letters, September 30).

This sentiment is quixotic. Because the resources necessary to produce it are not available in unlimited quantities, medical care is costly. There simply can never be enough medical care to satisfy every demand that every person has for it if it is free at the point of delivery. Attempts to distribute medical care free of charge - as a right - inevitably lead to its misuse and to bureaucrats deciding which patients get which treatments and which patients are to be denied their alleged "human right."

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

29 September 2006

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

To the Editor:

The pious whining about negative campaign ads (Letters, September 29) prompts me to wonder why private merchants never seek customer patronage using means commonly employed by politicians seeking votes. Why, for example, does Toyota not run ads featuring grainy black-and-white photos of Volkswagens that have been in fatal traffic accidents?

One reason is that, unlike in politics, consumers who dislike a popular make of automobile aren't forced by a majority of other consumers to buy and drive such cars. This greater consumer choice makes private markets much more responsive to consumer desires - and to a wider range of consumer desires - than politicians are to voter desires. Consumer goods, therefore, generally are of much higher quality than are politicians, resulting in few opportunities for private firms to win customers merely by pointing out the disappointing quality of competitors' wares.

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

26 September 2006

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

To the Editor:

Central to Mayor Bloomberg's poverty-fighting proposal are "incentive payments for better parenting" ("The Mayor's War on Poverty," September 26). This plan is utterly ridiculous. People who must be paid to take good care of their children are unlikely to become genuinely good parents (much less productive citizens). How many mothers and fathers can you name who are good parents only because they are bribed to practice "better parenting"?

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

25 September 2006

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

Dear Editor:

There might (or might not) be good reason to worry about the fact that now "the U.S. is paying noticeably more to its foreign creditors than it receives from its investments abroad" ("U.S. Foreign Debt Shows Its Teeth As Rates Climb," September 25). But this issue is clouded with misimpressions that fuel unnecessary concern.

Specifically, only because of the peculiar definitions used in international commercial accounting are you correct to write that "the nation's total foreign debt [includes] the value of all the U.S. stocks, bonds, real estate, businesses and other assets owned by non-U.S. residents." In fact, though, foreign owners of shares of Google or of tracts of land in Nevada or of a factory in Alabama are not creditors of Americans. Americans owe such foreigners nothing. To classify these foreign holdings as American debt ignites all manner of pointless fretting – and, worse, protectionist pressures.

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