Nutty
Although reviewed in the Washington Post Book World's "Economics" section, Naomi Klein's book is to economics what Spiderman comic books are to arachnology.
..................
25 November 2007
Editor, Washington Post
1150 15th St., NW
Washington, DC 20071
Dear Editor:
In her new book, Naomi Klein reveals what she sees as a smoking gun in the hands of the late Milton Friedman. It's true that Mr. Friedman wrote that "only a crisis - actual or perceived - produces real change" ("Doing Well by Doing Ill," November 25). From these words Ms. Klein draws the fantastically mistaken conclusion that Mr. Friedman was summoning capitalists to wreak havoc upon an unsuspecting world. Unfortunately, reviewer Shashi Tharoor's defense of Mr. Friedman - that he should not be read literally - also misses the point.
Ms. Klein's mistake is the sophomoric one of confusing description with prescription. Mr. Friedman's claim was descriptive. It is of the same genre as the claim made to my family years ago by a physician who shared our frustration at my overweight father's refusal to eat a healthier diet: "It'll likely take a heart attack to convince him to eat less and exercise more." If Ms. Klein had heard this statement, I suspect that she would have warned us that my dad's doctor was prescribing for him a heart attack!
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
On Ron Paul
24 November 2007
Editor, The New York Post
To the Editor:
Like National Review's Jonah Goldberg, I'm frightened by Mike Huckabee's itch to regulate (“Who’s Extreme?” November 24). Also like Goldberg, I admire Ron Paul for being that rare politician of principle.
But I disagree with Goldberg's prediction Ron Paul's noninterventionist foreign policy would be "disastrous." "Disastrous" compared to what? To Bush's failed and bloody effort to remake Iraqi society? To Bush being obliged now to side with Pakistan's reigning strongman? To the neocons' - and National Review's - strange notion that the same government that is inherently incompetent to regulate the economy here at home is ordained by history with the obligation, wisdom, and ability to re-engineer whole societies elsewhere?
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
The Price of Paradise
23 November 2007
The Editor, New York Times
229 West 43rd St.
New York, NY 10036
To the Editor:
Opposed to globalization, Jeff Milchen asserts that "The only truly sustainable path for business in the 21st century is localization" (Letters, November 23). Mr. Milchen should learn some history. He can begin with Fernand Braudel's 1981 book The Structures of Everyday Life, which details the living standards of ordinary Europeans during the late middle ages. This era was emphatically one of localization: people consumed only locally grown foods and locally made clothing. All building materials were local. There were no highways, railways, or CO2-emitting engines to pollute the local atmosphere with greenhouse gases or with foreign goods and foreign ideas.
But paradise had its price. Starvation was common, as was death by plague. Giving birth was more dangerous for women than a game of Russian Roulette. People lived in tiny one-room dirt-floor huts without indoor plumbing. During the winter, some of the farm animals (all local!) shared these accommodations.
What little "business" there was during the long era of localization - subsistence farming - might have been sustainable, but human dignity and human life certainly were not.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Fishy Assumptions
22 November 2007
The Editor, New York Times
229 West 43rd St.
New York, NY 10036
To the Editor:
In Katrina's aftermath, the New Orleans Audubon Aquarium restocked its fish collection at a cost of $99,766. But FEMA, on the hook to pay for this restocking, long insisted that the Aquarium should have achieved the same end by spending $618,849. FEMA took 17 months to conclude that saving taxpayers nearly a half-million dollars is acceptable ("Aquarium Wins FEMA Pay for Fishing Trips," November 22).
Given this incident - which is common - on what realistic basis do "Progressives" conclude that Americans will benefit if Uncle Sam supplies universal health insurance? On what realistic basis do neocons conclude that non-Americans will benefit if Uncle Sam remakes their societies? I realize that Serious People dismiss the reality of blatant, almost comical, instances of bureaucratic bungling as an intellectually unsound reason for skepticism of expanded government power. But why? Why do so many "reality-based" folks dismiss reality as a guide to how government really operates?
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
On the Falling Dollar
21 November 2007
Editor, The Wall Street Journal
200 Liberty Street
New York, NY 10281
To the Editor:
Anyone seeking at least one good reason for the dollar's falling value should ponder your report on how Iowans benefit from globalization and yet nevertheless increasingly clamor for protectionism ("A Globalization Winner Joins in Trade Backlash," November 21). With politicians brazenly pandering to this economic ignorance, America very likely will soon become less open to international commerce. And being less open to trade not only makes Americans poorer, it makes America a less attractive place to invest. As investors seek relatively greener pastures, demand for the dollar falls.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
I'll Take 'Em!
20 November 2007
Editor, The New York Post
To the Editor:
Iran’s president Ahmadinejad insists that the dollar is "a worthless piece of paper." I'm happy to relieve him of the burden of holding valueless scrip. I invite Mr. Ahmadinejad, and everyone else who shares his assessment of the dollar, to mail to me every one of their worthless pieces of paper. I'll even pay the postage.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
No Farm Bill
19 November 2007
Editor, The Washington Times
To the Editor:
Among the jobs of any Secretary of Agriculture is to portray the administration as smart, fiscally responsible, and in awe of farmers' goodness and wisdom. Secretary Chuck Connor tries to do his duty in "Farmers deserve better" (November 19).
But those of us who don't work for the Beltway circus should ignore the corny debate over the relative merits of the Bush administration's offensively expensive farm bill against those of Congress's obscenely expensive alternative bill. We should instead tell our "leaders" that the best farm bill is no farm bill. There is no sound reason for government to subsidize farmers or to protect them from foreign competitors. Any farmer or rancher too incompetent to produce food that consumers pay for voluntarily should find other employment.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
A Great Scholar: Harold Berman
18 November 2007
The Editor, New York Times
229 West 43rd St.
New York, NY 10036
To the Editor:
Douglas Martin's obituary of Harold Berman is eloquent and wise ("Harold J. Berman, 89, Who Altered Beliefs About Origins of Western Law, Dies," November 18). But in describing the thrust of Professor Berman's most celebrated work - his 1983 book Law and Revolution - Mr. Martin misses that work's central point.
That point is not so much that today's western legal tradition began earlier than the 16th century. Rather, the point is that law in the west emerged from the competition between popes and princes for sovereign power - and from the competition of both church and state with manors, cities, and merchants for jurisdiction over a wide variety of disputes. Mr. Berman's momentous scholarship revealed that our modern conception of law as being exclusively the dictate of a sovereign power is mistaken.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Empty and Mindless
17 November 2007
Editor, Baltimore Sun
To the Editor:
Although de rigueur among "progressives," Jim Salvucci is mistaken to describes bourgeois values as "empty" and consumerism as "mindless" (Letters, November 17). Bourgeois values encourage the substantive and mindful traits of hard work, sobriety, thrift, honesty, and self-reliance - all of which earn their practitioners the ability over time to enjoy greater material comforts and amusements.
What is truly empty is the value that counsels A to live off of the wealth given to him by B and which B confiscated from C. And what is truly mindless is the notion that society progresses as greater numbers of us live as "A"s or as "B"s, and all the while thinking of "C"s as being nothing more than contemptible cows to be milked for the "general good."
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
What Ails
16 November 2007
The Editor, New York Times
229 West 43rd St.
New York, NY 10036
To the Editor:
Paul Krugman asserts that Social Security faces no financial crisis ("Played for a Sucker," November 16). His only evidence? Peter Orszag's and Philip Ellis's statement that the largest fiscal problem confronting Uncle Sam is the projected growth in health-care costs.
Mr. Krugman's logic is as compelling as would be that of a physician who concludes that tuberculosis isn't a serious illness because pancreatic cancer is even more lethal.
In 2005 testimony before Congress, the eminent economist Thomas Saving - appointed by President Clinton to serve as a Public Trustee of the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds - acknowledged that Medicare and Medicaid are in worse financial shape than is Social Security. But Mr. Saving also warned that Social Security's financial condition is precarious. Speaking for the Trustees, Mr. Saving said that action to fix Social Security's coming insolvency "should not be deferred any longer than necessary for due deliberation and decision."*
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
* http://mysocialsecurity.org/main/news.php?ItemsID=115
A Shameful Episode
15 November 2007
Editor, The Wall Street Journal
200 Liberty Street
New York, NY 10281
To the Editor:
Rafael Medoff makes a good case that Churchill's politics prevented him from saving as many Jewish lives as he would have saved had he not refused to open British-ruled Palestine to Jews seeking escape from Hitler's killers (Letters, November 15). But let's not forget F.D.R.'s unforgivable refusal to admit into the U.S. the 937 Jews trying to escape from Germany in 1939 aboard the ship St. Louis.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University>
