Market Correction

8 September 2007

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

Dear Editor:

In February Sen. Hillary Clinton openly worried about, as she put it, "exposure of our economy to economic developments in countries like China." And you report today that Ms. Clinton "told students in New Hampshire that she hated 'seeing U.S. telemarketing jobs done in remote locations far, far from our shores'" ("Unions Press Clinton on Outsourcing Of U.S. Jobs," Sept. 8).

So I dispute your description of Ms. Clinton as "a dedicated free-trader." Sure, on certain occasions she vows allegiance to the principle. But when seeking the political affections of desirable protectionists, she's happy to be partner to at least the subtler trade-restricting positions (if not yet the full-thrust positions that are the fetish of protectomanics such as Lou Dobbs).

Calling Hillary Clinton "a dedicated free-trader" is no more accurate than calling Bill Clinton "a dedicated husband."

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

7 September 2007

Richard Rhorer
Marketing Director, Henry Holt And Company Publishers
175 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10010

To Mr. Rhorer:

Thank you for your e-mail offer of a free copy of Naomi Klein's latest book attacking capitalism. I accept.

I note, though, that Ms. Klein's previous best-seller, NO LOGO - which you call "groundbreaking" - was praised by the PBS show Frontline as "an impassioned critique of marketing's effects on culture and citizenship." Is Ms. Klein aware that the major American corporation publishing her new book is trying to drum up sales with mass e-mails from - of all people! - its director of Marketing?

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

6 September 2007

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

Dear Editor:

George Will draws several valuable lessons from the failure of Ford's Edsel ("Ford's '57 Titanic," Sept. 6). Here's another: market economies are engines of discovery that cost consumers nothing. No one knows beforehand which new products will, and which ones won't, satisfy consumers. So entrepreneurs experiment on their own nickels. The cost of each unsuccessful experiment is borne exclusively by the entrepreneur, but the benefits of each successful experiment are shared by the entrepreneur (in the form of profits) with consumers (in the form of desirable new products).

Quite a bargain!

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

30 August 2007

Editor, Baltimore Sun

To the Editor:

Appalled that some corporations doing business in Maryland sometimes legally avoid paying state income taxes, state senators Lisa Gladden and Paul Pinsky assert that these companies "give nothing back to the state" ("Make corporations pay fair share," August 30).

I have no idea if Maryland's tax code should be revamped, but I do know that avoiding taxes is not equivalent to "giving nothing back." Even corporations that pay no taxes make valuable goods and services available to Marylanders. This commercial activity is a genuine contribution to the public welfare. If you're doubtful, ask whether Marylanders would be better off if each corporation in that state would pay lots of taxes but also shut down all operations there, OR if each corporation were to pay no taxes but also were to continue to hire workers, produce outputs, and sell these outputs to Marylanders. If you even suspect that the latter option is the one that is best for the public, then you must reject the notion that businesses contribute to society only what the state extracts from them in taxes.

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

USA Today asked its regular letter writers to comment - in celebration of that newspaper's 25th anniversary in September - on how 2007 differs from 1982. Here's my submission.
............

29 August 2007

Editor, USA Today

To the Editor:

The Internet, cell phones, GPS navigation, and the Boston Red Sox's 2004 World Series victory are just some of the happy marvels of the past quarter-century. Alas, 2007 differs from 1982 also in ways less happy - one of which is the re-emergence of xenophobia. 9/11 fueled this ugly trend. But even before that awful September day Americans were growing more overtly hostile to immigrants. Groundless fears over jobs and threats to America's culture are stoked successfully today by nativist rabble-rousers such as Lou Dobbs and Michelle Malkin. Modern "Minutemen" officiously "guard" Americans against immigrants. A 700-mile-long wall is being built to "protect" us from Latin Americans seeking work. Across the land there spreads a disquieting "us-versus-them" mentality.

Take note, though: All great societies are open societies. They fear neither competition nor different cultures. They are stimulated by contrasts and they welcome new perspectives. They are optimistic, tolerant, confident, and, as a result, dynamic, strong, and prosperous. They avoid the stupidity of tribalism.

My fervent hope is that by 2032 Americans will have rejected once and for all the ignorant intolerance of today's bigoted. big-mouthed, and benighted xenophobes.

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

27 August 2007

Editor, Chicago Tribune

To the Editor:

You're correct that free trade likely would create more opportunities for workers in Illinois to produce goods for export ("How free trade boosts Illinois," August 25). Never forget, though, that the ultimate benefit of trade lies not in what people must sacrifice - not in the creation of opportunities to produce output for others ("jobs") - but in the greater quantity, quality, and variety of goods and services that free trade makes possible for ordinary people to consume.

Free trade's bountiful harvest is not its exports; it is its imports.

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

27 August 2007

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

To the Editor:

Paul Krugman believes that children's health insurance should be a government-supplied "right" for the same reasons that K-12 education today is a government-supplied "right" ("A Socialist Plot," August 27).

Let's hope that government would insure children better than it educates them. After all, a front-page report appearing in the very same edition of your paper that features Prof. Krugman's column describes the difficulty many government schools face in retaining competent teachers ("With Turnover High, Schools Fight for Teachers," August 27). In that report we learn that Tim Daly, president of the New Teacher Project, regards the hiring of teachers for urban school districts as "a conspiracy of dysfunction."

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

26 August 2007

Dear Anonymous,

You heatedly disagree with my letter in which I argue that Democrats' policy proposals are as juvenile as those of Republicans. Specifically, you say that "conservatives' [policy proposals] amount to nothing more than 'keep your hands off my money.' Mr. Boudreaux, that is selfish, ignorant and simple minded."

Well, I have precious little affection for conservatives, but if indeed conservatives' policies are summarized by the battle cry "I want mine!" I find that to be a more admirable position than the battle cry of so-called "liberals" who shout "I want yours!"

The former position might well be that of a narrow-minded shopkeeper, but the latter position is that of a thief.

Don Boudreaux
Georeg Mason University

26 August 2007

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

To the Editor:

Reviewing Drew Westen's The Political Brain, David Brooks raises many sound objections to Westen's thesis that Democrats face an electoral disadvantage because their policies are too rational and sophisticated for ordinary voters to grasp ("Stop Making Sense," August 26). But Brooks fails to challenge Westen's core premise that Democratic policies are wise and complex.

Democrats are as simple-minded as their Republican opponents. Democrats typically propose to "solve" every problem, real or imaginary, with stricter regulations, higher taxes, or more spending. Are gasoline prices too high? Cap 'em! Do Americans buy too many imports? Raise tariffs! Are low-skilled workers paid to little? Increase the minimum-wage! Do many Americans have no health insurance? Uncle Sam will provide it! Do Americans sometimes consume unhealthy foods and drugs? Increase the FDA’s budget and power! Are government schools failing? Shovel in more funding! Are Africans very poor? Send more foreign aid!

These "solutions" are as simple-minded as those that any eight-year old of ordinary intelligence would devise.

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

26 August 2007

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

To the Editor:

William Boyd rightly advises French winemakers that profitably supplying products that consumers want "requires skill, energy, talent and, obviously, a certain amount of luck" ("Make Wine, Not War," August 26). Mr. Boyd also correctly notes that satisfying consumers "may be harder than throwing homemade bombs."

Alas, many French winemakers remain intent on protecting their markets not by creatively pleasing consumers but by destructively threatening competitors with violence. But before we Americans self-righteously dismiss such greedy brutality as uniquely French, recognize that too many American producers profit from the very same sort of violence. The only difference is that American producers almost always inflict these threats through a heavily armed hireling called Uncle Sam.

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