Market Correction

8 June 2007

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

To the Editor:

I was flabbergasted to read David Brooks's complaint that "the market is failing to supply enough human capital. Despite all the incentives, 30 percent of kids drop out of high school and the college graduation rate has been flat for a generation" ("Reviving the Hamilton Agenda," June 8).

News flash: Nine out of every ten kids in the U.S. in grades K-12 are enrolled in schools owned and operated by the government. It's not the market that's failing. Any failure here surely is the fault of the very government that Mr. Brooks mysteriously believes should be more active in building human capital.

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

6 June 2007

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

To the Editor:

Your report "Years of Global Growth Raise Inflation Worries" (June 6) is confused and confusing. It's incorrect to say that "global growth is fueling inflation rather than restraining it." Inflation - as the old saw goes - is caused by too much money chasing too few goods. Because economic growth creates more goods, such growth moves the price level downward. If economies are growing and also experiencing inflation, you can be darn sure that central banks are pumping out money too fast.

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

6 June 2007

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

Dear Editor:

The moral of your report on the decline of family weavers in India is that globalization and modernization are suspect because they eliminate many ancient, home-based occupations ("An Ancient Indian Craft Left in Tatters," June 6). And your quotations from out-of-work sari weavers are indeed moving.

Nowhere in this report, however, do you interview those Indians who now can buy machine-made saris at lower prices - thus improving their standard of living by enabling them to purchase other goods whose production creates new jobs for many Indians who would otherwise remain mired in poverty. Yes, India has a long way to go. But the notion that most Indians' lives would be better if that economy were frozen in its past ways is foolish.

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

5 June 2007

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

To the Editor:

It's inspiring to read Linda Chavez's report on how well Hispanics assimilate into America's society and economy ("The Great Assimilation Machine," June 5). This achievement is especially remarkable given that the employment in America of several million Hispanics - the "illegals" - is formally prohibited. Imagine how much higher still their earnings and their rates of employment, homeownership, and education would be if no employer had to fear prosecution for the "crime" of hiring any willing worker.

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

4 June 2007

Editor, USA Today

To the Editor:

Dale Powers argues that the hiring of foreign skilled workers "wastes" the brainpower of Americans ("Don't waste U.S. brainpower by hiring foreign workers for coveted jobs," June 4). Mr. Powers' brainpower as an aerospace engineer might be awesome, but it's weak in economics.

The number and kinds of jobs in a market economy aren't fixed. They expand and change as entrepreneurs seek to use all available talent as productively as possible. Consider the microchip - which, after all, is a substitute for lots of human brainpower. If Mr. Powers' argument were correct, the advent of this device would have cast millions of smart, educated Americans into low-skilled jobs. Instead, of course, the microchip has created for talented Americans countless high-wage jobs whose existence was inconceivable thirty years ago.

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

3 June 2007

The Editor, The Baltimore Sun

To the Editor:

There's much anger over the Supreme Court ruling that strictly limits the window of opportunity for workers to bring pay-bias lawsuits (Letters, June 3). I can't join in this orgy of outrage.

Comparing pay from one worker to the next is difficult. Even employees with the same job title often have different informal agreements with their employer. One worker, for example, might never be called for weekend work because of his family situation while a fellow worker is frequently called upon to work unusual hours. If the first worker is paid less than the second, is he a victim of discrimination? If so, another employer likely would eventually bid him away by offering him a salary closer to his true worth. But if this first worker continues working for the same employer at the lower wage, the best bet is that he is a less-productive worker than his colleague.

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

2 June 2007

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

To the Editor:

The Federal Trade Commission might stop Google from merging with DoubleClick ("Inquiry Into Deal," June 2). Google's rivals support this obstruction; as you report, "Rivals of Google contend that the merger would give Google immense power in Internet advertising in both search ads and display ads online."

A good rule of thumb is that when rivals of any company support antitrust action against that company, those actions should be dismissed pronto. If the company's behavior really threatens to harm consumers with higher prices or lower quality, rivals generally benefit. Rivals squawk for antitrust actions against other firms in their industries only when those other firms innovate and re-organize in ways likely to intensify competition.

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