Market Correction

16 February 2007

The Editor, USA Today

Dear Editor:

Al Neuharth rightly lists the current occupant of the White House as being, perhaps, America's worst-ever President ("Mea Culpa to Bush on Presidents Day," Feb. 16).

But on this holiday let's pay tribute to one of the few truly respectable men to hold that office - a man who, sadly, is not highly regarded by historians: Grover Cleveland. Unlike most of the other 41 Presidents, Cleveland actually respected the Constitution. These words from his first inaugural address actually describe the man's actions during his two terms: "In the discharge of my official duty I shall endeavor to be guided by a just and unstrained construction of the Constitution, a careful observance of the distinction between the powers granted to the Federal Government and those reserved to the states or to the people, and by a cautious appreciation of those functions which by the Constitution and laws have been especially assigned to the executive branch."

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

14 February 2007

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

Dear Editor:

U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab correctly suggests that more international trade means more exports ("Oil Prices, Imported Goods Push Trade Gap to Record," Feb. 14). But let's be clear: trade's benefits are measured by imports and not by exports. Exports are the price we pay for the goods and services that we consume from abroad. These goods and services - these imports - are the ultimate rationale for trade.

Those who doubt this truth should ask themselves if Americans would prosper if we regularly loaded ships with goods made in the USA and then sunk each of these cargo-laden ships in the middle of the ocean. Such a practice would generate a huge increase in the proportion of U.S. exports to imports, thereby giving America a substantial trade surplus. It would also impoverish us.

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

13 February 2007

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

Dear Editor:

E. J. Dionne writes: "As for the politicians, we have created a system that encourages many in their ranks to adjust their convictions to their political needs. And then we denounce them" ("Litmus Test for Hypocrisy," Feb. 13).

True, the political process does encourage unrealistic expectations among voters. But politicians nevertheless deserve unrelenting scorn. No one is forced to seek political office; the system attracts persons whose moral lights are especially dim and distorted. Ordinary people simply could not bear to behave in ways necessary to win elections.

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

12 February 2007

The Editor, The Baltimore Sun
--
To the Editor:

In "What Others Are Saying" (Feb. 12) you repeat part of a Boston Globe editorial that argues against the nomination of Susan Dudley to lead the agency charged with overseeing federal regulations. What you repeat asserts that "Only an undue faith in the ability of the market to correct problems created by industry could have led Ms. Dudley to oppose, as she did, EPA's efforts to keep arsenic out of drinking water."

If you want a deeper sense of what others are saying, read Prof. Cass Sunstein's writings on regulations designed to reduce arsenic in drinking water. Prof. Sunstein is a respected and energetic advocate of active government; he certainly has no "undue faith" in markets. Yet even he admits that the benefits of further reducing arsenic in drinking water might be swamped by the costs of doing so.

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

11 February 2007

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

To the Editor:

Reviewer Elizabeth Royte reports that Jay Griffiths, author of Wild, is utterly contemptuous of modern society - including being angry at such apparently heinous cultural innovations as "indoor sex, maps, clean fingernails, golf ('greenery made stupid'), missionaries and the measurement of land, money or time" ("Nature Girl," Feb. 11).

I notice, though, from Ms. Royte's superb review that the British Ms. Griffiths experiences nature in "the Amazon, the Arctic, the Australian desert, the mountains of West Papua and on the Indonesian seas." I wonder: does Ms. Griffiths walk, swim, or take a wooden raft from one of these exotic locations to the next? If not, perhaps she should temper her contempt for those of us who clean our nails and make love indoors and thank us for the airplanes, automobiles, vaccines and many other products that make possible her trips to the wilderness.

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

9 February 2007

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

To the Editor:

You are unduly mystified over the fact that Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott joined forces with labor-union leader Andy Stern to press for government-run health-care ("Andy Stern | Wal-Mart," Feb. 9). Such an alliance would be mysterious only if business people were generally champions of free markets. But most are not. The late Milton Friedman said it well:

"The two chief enemies of the free society or free enterprise are intellectuals on the one hand and businessmen on the other, for opposite reasons. Every intellectual believes in freedom for himself, but he's opposed to freedom for others.... He thinks ... there ought to be a central planning board that will establish social priorities.... The businessmen are just the opposite - every businessman is in favor of freedom for everybody else, but when it comes to himself that's a different question. He's always the special case. He ought to get special privileges from the government, a tariff, this, that."

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

8 February 2007

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

To the Editor:

David Brooks vividly explains that today's politicians, who are often sensible in private, camoflauge themselves in public: they routinely endorse policies that they really don't believe in ("Private Virtue, Public Vice," Feb. 8). Then Brooks strangely concludes "In private, we have a decent leadership class. In public, it's rotten."

Persons who are wise and steadfast only in private - only when they suffer no risks for sticking to their principles - are neither decent nor leaders. They are opportunists, posers, and rogues.

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

7 February 2007

Editor, The Boston Globe

To the Editor:

Opposing the nomination of Susan Dudley to lead the agency overseeing the regulations that Uncle Sam imposes on the economy, you assert that "Only an undue faith in the ability of the market to correct problems created by industry could have led Dudley to oppose, as she did, EPA's efforts to keep arsenic out of drinking water" ("A specific governing failure," Feb. 7).

Nonsense. Like Ms. Dudley, law professor Cass Sunstein - decidedly a man of the left - argues vigorously in favor of using cost-benefit analysis to guide regulatory policy. And Sunstein is quite clear that the proposal to reduce arsenic levels in drinking water might well create more harm than good.*

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

* Cass R. Sunstein, Laws of Fear (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2005), p. 28.

7 February 2007

Editor, The Washington Times

To the Editor:

Re Helle Dale's "Just the facts" (Feb. 7): Let's grant (if just for the sake of argument) that environmental scientists have proven that the earth's ideal average temperature was reached about a century ago, and that that temperature now is rising because of human activity.

The truth remains that these scientists have no expertise to judge whether or not government can be trusted with the power and resources to "combat" global warming. Nor can these scientists tell us how a free market would likely deal with global-warming's consequences.

Contrary to widespread belief, environmental scientists can legitimately say nothing about whether, or how, to respond to global warming.

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

6 February 2007

Editor, The Washington Times

To the Editor:

Brendan Conway is charmed by Philip Gold's notion that every American male "should spend some time in uniform as a normal part of life and of citizenship" ("Selective service," Feb. 6). I'm not so charmed.

Society remains primitive insofar as individuals are regarded as agents to butcher for - and to be butchered for - the collective. Society progresses only as the depraved romance of the collective gives way to respect for the individual - the individual whose life and property are never regarded as being at the disposal of the state.

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

1 February 2007

The Editor, The Boston Globe

To the Editor:

Re "Reseller argues ticket markups comply with law" (Feb. 1): Rather than waste resources enforcing legislated prohibitions on ticket "scalping," why not simply repeal these nutty statutes?

If Smith offers to pay $500 for a ticket to a Red Sox or a Bruins game, why should Jones - who legitimately owns such a ticket - be barred from selling it at that price? Put differently, the prices that people pay for entertainment is none of the legislatures' business.

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

31 January 2007

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

To the Editor:

You write about "the invasion of retail clothing stores" on the Champs-Élysées, and of how the French government decided "to ban the Swedish clothing giant H&M from opening a megastore on the avenue" ("Megastores March Up Avenue, and Paris Takes to Barricades," Jan. 31).

Invasions are done by armies that kill and coerce innocent people. Retailers neither invade nor coerce; they are invited by - and peacefully serve - consumers. A more accurate description of the government's new policy is that it "decided to ban consumers from enjoying the convenience and low prices offered by H&M."

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