Market Correction

11 July 2007

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

To the Editor:

Economists Alan Blinder and Dani Rodrik pose as courageous, clear-eyed dissenters from the benighted mainstream support for free trade ("In Economics Departments, a Growing Will to Debate Fundamental Assumptions," July 11). Courageous they might be; clear-eyed they are not.

First, the case for free trade relies upon the fact that trade destroys some particular jobs in order to release workers for newly created ones. So while Blinder might be correct that trade will eliminate 40 million particular American jobs, this possibility doesn't begin to undermine the case for free trade.

Second, if "faith" explains why most economists insist that political borders are economically irrelevant, perhaps it also explains why Dani Rodrik never argues that, say, the economy of Massachusetts might be strengthened if that state were to restrict its citizens' freedom to buy products from Connecticut, Maine, and other states. If protecting producers from competitors outside of their political unit can create prosperity, surely an open-minded scholar should explore how individual states, even individual cities, can create prosperity through such protection.

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

10 July 2007

Editor, International Herald Tribune

Dear Editor:

You report that "U.S. politicians are planning new duties on exports from countries that use their currencies to put American companies at a disadvantage" ("U.S. lawmakers still not satisfied with pace of Yuan rise," July 9).

If the U.S. economy truly is best served by protecting the welfare of American companies, why do politicians worry only about the prices of foreign currencies? Why not prohibit ALL foreign trade? After all, by allowing some trade, Uncle Sam enables foreign producers to put some American companies "at a disadvantage." And why not also clamp down on advances in technology? Such advances very often harm some American companies.

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

10 July 2007

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

Dear Editor:

Jay Markowitz defends the FDA's drug-review process by asserting that, without it, "doctors and patients would be faced with a bewildering array of choices with no way to tell which is best" (Letters, July 10). Dr. Markowitz is mistaken.

First, there is no objective 'best' treatment for any illness. One patient's tolerance for risk differs from another patient's tolerance, and her illness might be more advanced than his. Second, if persons closest to each case - each patient and his or her physician - will be paralyzed by "a bewildering array" of treatment choices, why suppose that FDA staffers are immune to such bewilderment? The process for discovering effective drugs is stymied, not enhanced, by funneling a "bewildering" number of choices through a politically influenced bureaucracy.

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

9 July 2007

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

Dear Editor:

In "Garage Bands No More" (July 9) you write that "As Sprawl Packs Residents Ever Tighter, Suburban Rockers Seek Space to Jam."

Huh? So-called sprawl occurs when people spread out - when they buy houses or rent apartments farther and farther from city centers - to enjoy living spaces larger than those that are affordable in neighborhoods close to downtowns. Residents would be "packed" ever tighter if, instead of sprawling out, people chose (or were forced) to live in housing near to city centers.

"Sprawl" is not a synonym for population growth.

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

7 July 2007

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

To the Editor:

Arnie Celnicker argues that the FTC's challenge of Whole Food's merger with Wild Oats is justified by various "market nuances" (Letters, July 7). Among these is the fact that "financial markets have deprived Wild Oats of the capital to compete head on with Whole Foods" and the fact that consumer demand for organic foods is skyrocketing.

How in the name of free-range chicken do these facts justify government blocking this merger? Precisely because consumers now want more and more organic products, financial markets have every incentive to invest in firms catering to this growing market IF these firms are well-managed. Wild Oats' inability to get adequate private financing in this growing market is strong evidence that its assets now are poorly managed. It's only natural that Whole Foods spots and seizes this opportunity to use these assets more effectively at meeting consumer demands. The FTC's interference - an unwholesome additive to the market - jeopardizes consumer well-being.

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

6 July 2007

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

Dear Editor:

Michael Gerson mischaracterizes the theory of spontaneous order by writing that, according to this theory, "society should be the product of uncoordinated human choices instead of human design" ("Where the Avatars Roam," July 6).

This theory does not recommend, as an alternative to society being designed, choices that are "uncoordinated." Rather, it explains that in societies with rules of private property, choices made in markets and in other decentralized institutions will be coordinated far better than when government "designs" society. The theory reveals that the greatest source of discoordination is the attempt to achieve coordination centrally. The fact that the computer game "Second Life" is chaotic and ugly proves nothing, for in that game no one really dies or otherwise encounters the many consequences of personal actions that we all experience in reality. It is these real and personal consequences, and our reactions to them, that fuel the spontaneous coordination characteristic of free societies.

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

4 July 2007

The Editor, The Washington Times

To the Editor:

Thank you for reprinting the Declaration of Independence (July 4). I encourage especially you, with your hostility to immigration, to read it carefully, noting that Jefferson explicitly condemned King George III's restrictive immigration policy: "He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither."

Back then when America covered vastly fewer square miles than it covers today, when each parcel of land fed many fewer mouths than land feeds today, when the amount of capital per worker was a tiny fraction of what it is now, and when Americans' standard of living was far lower than today's standard, America's wise founders nevertheless wanted more open immigration.

Why is it that today, the wealthiest time in our history, so many Americans fear immigration? Why do so few Americans today not share Jefferson's understanding that more free people in America mean an even more prosperous America?

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

3 July 2007

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

To the Editor:

Like many others, Professor Hendrik Van den Berg insists that "we need to raise the price of gasoline by introducing a tax that reflects the congestion, environmental and national security costs of oil" (Letters, July 3). I disagree.

First, government already taxes oil production and gasoline. How does Prof. Van den Berg know that the current level of taxation is inadequate? Second, government itself is a steamy swamp of negative externalities. Not only do politicians and bureaucrats spend other people's money, they do so overwhelmingly while under the influence of special-interest groups. The only tax that we should raise is one that increases the cost of using government.

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

2 July 2007

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

To the Editor:

For his Presidential bid, Barack Obama has raised a record sum of money - as you describe it, "a whopping $31 million" - in the last quarter ("Record Number of Donors Heartens Obama," July 2).

I don't begrudge the Senator's skill at attracting money to support his ambition. But this is the same politician who just over a month ago called for Senate hearings to investigate allegedly excessive pay for corporate CEOs. Sen. Obama somehow discerns that private-sector CEOs are paid too much despite the fact that those who pay these salaries do so voluntarily. Were he ethically consistent, Sen. Obama would call also for an investigation into his own bulging campaign chest. It, too, is full of lots of dollars contributed voluntarily.

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

30 June 2007

Editor, Washington Post 82126177 12909018
1150 15th St., NW
Washington, DC 20071

Dear Editor:

It is unfortunate that Congress refuses to renew the President's fast-track trade authority ("End Nears for Era of Presidential Trade Authority," June 30). And it is insulting for protectionists, such as Kevin Kearns, to justify this refusal with the argument that freer trade has encouraged "footloose multinational companies" to flee the U.S. for "penny-wage, regulation-free foreign production sites like Mexico."

The facts are difficult to square with this claim. In 2006, per capita foreign direct investment in Mexico was $174; in the U.S. it was $612 - two and a half times as much as in Mexico.

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

Editor, The Washington Times

Dear Editor:

Americans should reserve their applause for the FDA's prohibition on imports of all Chinese seafood ("FDA blocks China's seafood, cites chemicals," June 29). Even if we unrealistically assume that the FDA's decision is uncontaminated by pressure from protectionists, it's troubling that the FDA's own Director of Food Safety and Security admits that Chinese seafood raises "no acute health concern."

Because 17 percent of the seafood Americans now consume comes from China, banning these imports will significantly raise the price of seafood relative to beef and pork. Americans will then consume less fish and more red meat. Are the speculative health risks of consuming seafood from China worse than the real risks of diets heavier in red meat?

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

.

28 June 2007

Editor, Chicago Tribune

Dear Editor:

By detailing the long waiting lists and other problems suffered by the British, nurse Helen Evans usefully reminds us of the perils of so-called "universal health care" ("What Michael Moore left on the cutting room floor," June 26). Just yesterday I heard a sad story that suggests that the French suffer similarly.

Visiting friends in Arles, I learned that their 60-year-old neighbor recently died. Although this man had a history of heart trouble, when a few weeks ago he experienced severe chest pains and went to the hospital for treatment, he was told that the hospital was full. "Go home and call back later to see if a room has opened up." He did so. A room never opened up. He died.

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

26 June 2007

Editor, The Washington Times

Dear Editor:

Arguing that the theory of natural selection is no more scientific than is the creed of creationism, Robert Wilcox asks rhetorically about natural selection: "does a scientific theory that not only has not been demonstrated in the laboratory, but, by its own admission, cannot be demonstrated in a laboratory, strike you as scientific?" (Letters, June 26).

Mr. Wilcox's question fails to make his point. Unlike objective evidence, dispassionate inquiry, and reason, laboratory demonstration is not a sine qua non of science. For example, Copernicus's and Galileo's unlocking of many truths about the solar system were not done in laboratories.

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

25 June 2007

Editor, The Washington Times

Dear Editor:

Arguing that the theory of natural selection is no more scientific than is the creed of creationism, Robert Wilcox asks rhetorically about natural selection: "does a scientific theory that not only has not been demonstrated in the laboratory, but, by its own admission, cannot be demonstrated in a laboratory, strike you as scientific?" (Letters, June 26).

Mr. Wilcox's question fails to make his point. Unlike objective evidence, dispassionate inquiry, and reason, laboratory demonstration is not a sine qua non of science. For example, Copernicus's and Galileo's unlocking of many truths about the solar system were not done in laboratories.

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

25 June 2007

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

Dear Editor:

Bravo for Emily Yoffe's sensible skepticism of the fervid environmental creed preached by the likes of Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio ("Gloom and Doom in a Sunny Day," June 25). In pouring their obloquy on industrial society - a society unmatched in its achievement of extending life spans and enriching lives - politician Gore and actor DiCaprio remind me of Jean-Jacques Rousseau who, as described by historian Will Durant, "found it pleasant to give his imagination free rein, unhampered by experience."*

May we be saved from such saviors.

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

* Will and Ariel Durant, Rousseau and Revolution (1967), pp. 178-179.