Ironic, Don't You Think?
22 April 2007
Editor, New York Times Book Review
229 West 43rd St.
New York, NY 10036
To the Editor:
That scold of modernity, Bill McKibben, has written a new book advocating the replacement of globalization with local economies - described by reviewer Lance Morrow as "small, localized, communitarian, neighborly" ("Be My Neighbor," April 22).
Surely I'm not the only reader who finds great irony in Mr. Morrow's description of McKibben as "a widely traveled writer."
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Look at the Facts of Foreign Direct Investment
21 April 2007
Editor, The Nation
To the Editor:
Inspired by the controversial work of William Baumol and Ralph Gomory, William Greider argues that those of us who oppose protectionism today are mindless members of a "the church of global free trade" ("The Establishment Rethinks Globalization," April 30). But it is Mr. Greider and his ilk who are blinded by a faith wholly at odds with reality.
If it were true that the developing world's large supply of highly skilled but low-paid workers inevitably attracts capital away from high-wage countries such as the U.S., foreign direct investment in open developing countries should be higher than in the U.S. It's not - and not by a long shot. In 2006, China attracted $46 of FDI per capita; India attracted just over $14 per capita; the United States attracted $578 per capita.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Nature Boys and Girls
21 April 2007
Editor, New York Post
To the Editor:
Max Schulz reveals how their adulation of nature often impels environmentalists to disregard facts and reason ("Green Myths: Enviro 'Facts' that Aren't," April 21). I'm reminded of historian Will Durant who, when describing 18th-century opponents of European industrialization, observed that "Word peddlers tend to idealize the countryside, if they are exempt from its harassments, boredom, insects, and toil."*
Ironically, environmentalists' deep affection for nature is made possible by the very commerce and industry that they so mindlessly disdain.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
* Will & Ariel Durant, The Age of Voltaire (New York: MJF Books, 1965), p. 45.
War on Drugs
16 January 1999
To the Editor, New York Times:
The heartless and dangerous interference of United States narcotics laws with Daniel Felber's ability to get the drugs he needs to relieve his pain (Op-Ed, Jan. 16) is only one reason for ending the war on drugs.
Other reasons include stopping the violence that inevitably accompanies prohibition, stripping law enforcement agencies of an excuse for violating people's civil rights, and keeping the Government's nose out of places where it doesn't belong.
DONALD J. BOUDREAUX
Irvington-on-Hudson, N.Y.
Globalization and Risk
22 March 1998
To the Editor, New York Times:
Although a favorite of economic pundits, Roger Altman's argument that globalization exposes economies to greater risks makes little sense. Just as investors reduce their risks by diversifying their portfolios, economies reduce their risks by diversifying their customer bases and sources of supplies. A global economy permits greater diversification.
The real risk to global economic security is, ironically, the very cure prescribed by Altman: bureaucratic, taxpayer-financed lending institutions like the I.M.F. Nations and firms are far more likely to invest and regulate recklessly if they are confident that the I.M.F. will bail them out when the days of reckoning dawn.
Donald J. Boudreaux
Irvington-on-Hudson, N.Y.
Don't Discriminate
17 June 2001
To the Editor, New York Times:
In ''Of Politics, Free Markets and Tending to Society'' (Economic View, June 17) Tom Redburn said free-trade economists might overlook the plight of workers who lost their jobs to foreign competitors.
In fact, most of us economists care deeply about the plight of all workers (in addition to that of consumers). We oppose trade restrictions on, say, steel in large part because we refuse to discriminate in favor of some domestic workers and against others.
Trade restraints that protect steel workers threaten the livelihoods of other domestic workers whose jobs depend on imported steel or on the health of other industries supported generally by imports.
Job loss is indeed a disagreeable -- sometimes ravaging -- experience. But trade restraints that protect some domestic workers from job loss unavoidably eliminate the jobs of other domestic workers. Economists see no good reason to use the political process to favor one group over another.
DONALD J. BOUDREAUX
Irvington-on-Hudson, N.Y., June 17
More Regressive "Progressives"
20 April 2007
Editor, The Washington Times
To the Editor:
So Europe is increasingly jingoist ("Ultranationalist fervor hits Europe," April 20). What a contrast with that region's reputation for being progressive, humane, and cosmopolitan. Alas, the same modern European policies and attitudes that delude many people to admire those countries - vast welfare states, strict "protections" for workers, and disdain for commercial culture - promote in Europeans an ugly nationalism.
These policies and attitudes stymie economic growth and put a premium on being able to suckle the states' teats. It's unsurprising, then, that Europeans detest foreigners who move there. These foreigners compete not only for hard-to-find jobs but also for opportunities to suckle before the teats run dry.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
A Silver Lining
19 April 2007
Editor, The Wall Street Journal
200 Liberty Street
New York, NY 10281
To the Editor:
Three cheers for Bill Archer's and Charles Stenholm's clear case against government-imposed price controls ("Gasbags," April 19). The only upside of such controls is that they make teaching easier for us economics professors. Our students can't help but see the shortages, queues, and corruption that inevitably accompany price caps. All economics professors must then do is to point out that such troubles and perversities are absent from markets in which prices aren't controlled. Students' appreciation of the power of supply and demand - and of the coordinative role of prices - is assured.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Not Funny
18 April 2007
Editor, The Boston Globe
To the Editor:
Dan Wasserman's cartoon shows economists "reexamining" their support of globalization when they notice the low "pay scale of economists in India" (April 18).
Overlooking his gratuitous presumption that economists are rogues, I direct Mr. Wasserman's attention to an April 6th report in the Globe entitled "India High-Tech Industry Out of Workers." He'll learn there that wages earned by skilled Indian workers are rising. This fact lends yet more credence to economists' prediction that as low-wage countries become wealthier through trade, wages in those countries rise. This fact means that workers in wealthy countries have much less to fear from globalization than the likes of Lou Dobbs and some political cartoonists would have us believe.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Here's Hoping Uncle Sam Won't Destroy this Advantage
17 April 2007
Editor, The Atlantic
To the Editor:
The usually astute Clive Crook misunderstands the U.S. trade deficit ("When the Buck Stops," May). First, it is untrue that the trade deficit "has to be financed by borrowing." If, for example, Toyota sells a Camry to an American and uses the sales proceeds to buy more land for expansion of its factory in Kentucky, America's trade deficit rises without any American borrowing a cent. The trade deficit is not synonymous with debt.
Second, much of what we offer to foreigners in exchange for their goods and services is our combination of relatively low taxes, secure property rights, skilled workers, culture of entrepreneurship, and - as economist John Makin points out - our "sometimes bewildering yet attractive array of wealth-storage facilities." America enjoys a comparative advantage as a haven for investment.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Quoting Mencken: "What Is the Sweating Professor Trying to Say?"
15 April 2007
Editor, Baltimore Sun
To the Editor:
Benjamin Barber laments the great diversity and abundance of products available in modern market economies ("Overselling capitalism with consumerism," April 15). His lamentation reaches its crescendo when he proclaims that "When we see politics permeate every sector of life, we call it totalitarianism. When religion rules all, we call it theocracy. But when commerce dominates everything, we call it liberty."
He compares rifles to roses. Totalitarianism and theocracy are evil because, under them, persons with power bend innocent people to their will though the use of violence. Commerce is the opposite. It is a peaceful series of voluntary offers to buy and to sell. It IS liberty - and it is profoundly good.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
