Market Correction

1 June 2007

The Editor, Washington Times

To the Editor:

Michelle Malkin is hot'n'bothered by the booing of Miss USA at the Miss Universe pageant in Mexico City ("Hostility ...and hypocrisy," June 1). She even wants President Bush to "speak out against" this dissing of America.

But actions speak louder than boos. The actions of millions of Mexicans who come to America seeking opportunity demonstrate a profound affection for American civilization - a civilization rooted in an openness and optimism that Ms. Malkin and her xenophobic comrades seek to replace with a nativist nationalism rooted in ignorance and fear.

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

31 May 2007

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

Dear Editor:

George Will's eloquent "Case for Conservatism" (May 31) really is the case for liberalism - the liberalism of Adam Smith, Turgot, Madison, Mencken, and Hayek. This true liberalism has at its core a genuine respect individual autonomy. It rejects as a dangerous delusion the belief in salvation by Great Leaders or Big Plans. True liberals understand that great societies are not constructed according to blueprints. They understand also that our world can never be perfect and that attempts to create heaven on earth inevitably produce hell.

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

30 May 2007

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

To the Editor:

David Leonhardt says correctly that Lou Dobbs "has a somewhat flexible relationship with reality" ("Truth, Fiction, and Lou Dobbs," May 30). Not only does the ostentatiously populist Mr. Dobbs misconstrue the reality of immigration, he's equally fanciful on matters of trade. In his 2004 book "Exporting America" Dobbs asserts that international trade is beneficial only when it is "balanced" - that is, produces no trade deficits - and then assures his readers that Adam Smith would agree with him.

Funny, that. In The Wealth of Nations Smith observed that "Nothing, however, can be more absurd than this whole doctrine of the balance of trade."

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

29 May 2007

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

To the Editor:

With both the spunk and the insight of the Energizer Bunny, Sen. Charles Schumer keeps insisting that the value of the Chinese yuan is too low and that this (alleged) fact is a benefit to China (Letters, May 29).

China can lower the value of the yuan against the dollar only by increasing the supply of yuan relative to the dollar - a policy that causes inflation in China. This result hardly benefits the Chinese people or strengthens their economy. Also, by increasing nominal prices in China relative to those in the U.S., yuan inflation ensures that Americans do not buy Chinese goods and services at prices kept artificially low.

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

28 May 2007

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

Dear Editor:

Re Congressional Democrats' penchant for earmarks (Robert Novak, "Murtha's Friends," May 28): When pigs second in line at the trough accuse pigs first in line of being shameful gluttons, it is a dimwitted farmer indeed who fantasizes that the squealing accusers will be any less gluttonous when they gain favored access to the slopping pit.

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

28 May 2007

Editor, Washington Times

To the Editor:

So the DC government now prohibits persons and businesses located outside of the District from registering taxicabs in the District ("D.C. cab law would rule out 80% of taxis," May 28). The goal, I presume, is to "create" jobs for DC citizens by "protecting" them from having to compete with non-DC citizens.

Inspired! But why stop with cabs? Imagine the jobs and prosperity that Mayor Fenty and the DC Council would create if they prohibit non-DC residents also from selling in the District the likes of vegetables, coffee, wine, books, clothing, furniture, artworks, computers, medical care, legal advice - the list is long. Doesn't consistency require that the DC government apply to all goods and services the economic principle that it now applies to taxi service?

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

26 May 2007

Editor, Baltimore Sun

Dear Editor:

Two of your readers - both opposed to immigration and at least one opposed also to imports - are unaware of a central fact of international commerce (Letters, May 26). When people in America buy imports or send money to family members abroad, they are not "removing that money from our economy." Dollars are valuable to foreigners only because those dollars can be spent or invested in America. If dollars, upon leaving the U.S., became irredeemable here, no foreign producer would sell products to Americans and no immigrants to America would bother sending dollars to their home countries.

Foreigners want dollars for the same reason that Americans want dollars: to buy American-made products and to invest in the American economy.

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

24 May 2007

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

To the Editor:

Kings of yore occasionally killed messengers bringing bad news. By voting to outlaw so-called "price gouging," the House of Representatives proves that its members are just as irrational as these ancient monarchs ("Tipping-Point Shock," May 24).

Higher prices report an underlying reality such as constrained refining capacity, rising demand, higher taxes, and more regulations. Statutes that prevent prices from rising do nothing to improve the underlying reality. Indeed, by silencing information about reality, restraints on price hikes keep consumers and producers acting in ignorance - thus making matters worse.

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

Here's one of the very few letters I've ever written to a politician -- DBx
..........

23 May 2007

Mr. Tom Davis, U.S. Rep.
U.S. House of Representatives
2348 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-4611

Dear Rep. Davis:

I am employed by George Mason University. My fellow faculty members and I today were reminded by a University administrator of the requirements of the "Fly America Act." I confess that I'd never before heard of this statute. As explained by the GMU administrator, this Act "requires Federal employees and their dependents, consultants, contractors, grantees, and others performing United States Government financed foreign air travel to travel by U.S. flag air carriers." Because college professors often receive research grants from Uncle Sam, it's good that administrators at my school warned us not to commit a federal offense unwittingly by using, say, NSF grant funds to pay for air travel on the likes of Lufthansa or Taca.

I applaud your brilliant scheme! Even if it costs taxpayers more money, obviously this Act helps to protect American carriers from the nefarious competition of foreign airlines.

But why stop there? I propose a "Study America Act." The Congressional wisdom and spirit behind the Fly America Act, I submit, requires also that "Federal employees and their dependents, consultants, contractors, grantees, and others performing United States Government financed research to buy books, journals, articles, magazines, data sets, and all other scholarly materials produced only by U.S. scholars" (such as myself).

Why must hard-working, high-wage American researchers compete against foreign researchers - a competition that undoubtedly jeopardizes our nation's defense? Why, for example, should researchers at the Centers for Disease Control use American tax dollars to pay for subscriptions to the British medical journal The Lancet? Doing so shrinks the market for American medical research and thereby hurts America's health-care industry and, ultimately, America's children. Or why should federally funded social-science researchers use tax dollars to buy books on international trade written by foreigners when my own book on globalization will soon be out? My book, I assure you, is as good a product as any rival tome penned by a foreign scholar.

I look forward to your consideration and response.

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