Market Correction

24 December 2007

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

Dear Editor:

Kurt Suomela is disturbed that politicians pander rather than engage in "an honest discussion" (Letters, December 24). This reality is indeed disturbing, but we should expect no more. We have a better chance of training a kangaroo to recite King Lear in a perfect Etonian dialect than we have of persuading any serious politician to put honesty and intellectual rigor above his or her quest for office.

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

December 24, 2007

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

Dear Sir or Madam:

Paul Krugman asks rhetorically, "does it make sense, in the current political and economic environment, for Democrats to lump unions in with corporate groups as examples of the special interests we need to stand up to?" ("State of the Unions," Dec. 24).

Suppose George Will had asked if it makes sense for Republicans to lump corporate groups in with unions "as examples of the special interests we need to stand up to?" Would Mr. Krugman take Mr. Will's statement seriously? Of course not. Nor should we take Mr. Krugman's statement seriously, as even a quick review of history reveals.

Sincerely,
Karol Boudreaux
Senior Research Fellow
Mercatus Center
George Mason University

23 December 2007

Editor, The Boston Globe

Dear Editor:

Robert Weintraub repeats the hackneyed myth that Reagan-era cuts in tax rates have "led to a culture of selfishness and, at best, resentful investment in anything public" (Letters, December 23).

Here are the facts. In 2007 dollars, federal revenue in 1980 was $1.296 trillion. Federal revenue today, at $2.5 trillion, is nearly twice as large as it was in back then when Reagan was first elected President. On a per-capita basis (again calculated in 2007 dollars), the amount of annual revenue Uncle Sam reaps for every man, woman, and child in America has risen from $5,709 in 1980 to $8,251 today - an increase of 45 percent. Federal spending, of course, has risen even more dramatically.

If "selfish" Americans "resent" paying taxes and supporting "public" investments, they're doing a fabulously poor job of conveying their sentiments to Washington.

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

22 December 2007

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

To the Editor:

Alleging that the American dream is becoming a nightmare, Bob Herbert quotes Andrew Stern's observation that Americans today "cannot see where the jobs of the future are that will allow their kids to have a better life than they had" ("Nightmare Before Christmas," December 22). Mr. Stern adds that "they're not wrong."

But when could Americans of any generation foresee future jobs? Did the blacksmith in 1890 foresee jobs in the auto industry? Did the corner grocer in 1940 foresee his son prospering as regional manager for Wal-Mart? Did the telegram-deliverer in 1950 foresee his child designing software for cell-phones? Did the local pharmacist in 1960 foresee his daughter's job as a bio-medical engineer?

Our inability today to see the details of the future is no more worrisome than was the same inability of our grandparents.

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

21 December 2007

Editor, The Boston Globe

Dear Editor:

Robert Kuttner is foolish to worry that, as foreigners invest heavily in non-government assets in America, "more dividend and interest payments will flow out of the United States" ("America's economic perfect storm," December 21).

First, by building and improving businesses - and by promoting R&D and worker training - many of these investments CREATE capital in the U.S. Foreigners who invest wisely in these ways of course earn returns on their investments, but many of these dividend and interest payments would simply not otherwise exist because the capital that generates them would not otherwise exist.

Second, the "flow out" allegation is misleading. Dollars paid as dividends and interest to foreigners are useful to foreigners only because these dollars can be spent or re-invested in America. These dollars return to America, in one form or another, no less than if they had been paid as dividends and interest to Americans.

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

.

20 December 2007

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

Dear Editor:

Steven McDonald is "surprised" that Reps. Tom Davis and Jim Moran "pander" to voters "rather than spend their time attempting to resolve the budget issue" (Letters, December 20).

Yep, discovering that politicians behave like politicians is a real shocker - on par with discovering that wolves howl and pigsties stink.

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

19 December 2007

Editor, The Baltimore Sun

Dear Editor:

Kenneth Lewis argues that the only way to sustain oyster populations in the Chesapeake Bay is to impose "a moratorium on the taking of oysters" (Letters, December 19).

Mr. Lewis is mistaken. While disease and pollutants affect oysters widely, economist Michael De Alessi found that in places where oyster beds are private, such as Washington state, oyster populations are thriving. Oyster populations are imperiled most seriously in places, such as Maryland, that reject privatization of oyster beds.*

The best step that legislators in Annapolis can take to save oysters is to allow fishermen to establish private property rights over beds.

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

* Michael De Alessi, "Fishing for Solutions," in Ronald Bailey, ed., Earth Report 2000. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2000).

18 December 2007

The Editor, The Economist
25 St James's Street
London SW1A 1HG
United Kingdom

SIR:

You praise Hillary Clinton for being "hard working" ("The triumph of hope over experience?" December 15). No doubt she is - but for what purpose? Sen. Clinton certainly works hard at the business of securing high political office, first for her husband and now for herself.

What is most odious about each of the Clintons is precisely their single-minded devotion to the task of obtaining power and its foolish glory. So a "hard working" Hillary Clinton is as appealing as is a hard-working Vladimir Putin or a burning-the-midnight-oil Eva Peron.

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

17 December 2007

Editor, USA Today

To the Editor:

Even more predictable than the post-Thanksgiving appearance of shopping-mall Santas is the inability of pundits at this time of year to say or to write "commercialism" without prefixing to it the word "crass" - as we encounter in your pages today in Tom Krattenmaker's "The real meaning of Christmas."

I challenge this notion. Commerce is peaceful. It involves sellers working hard and taking risks to bring to market goods and services that consumers want to buy. No one forces anyone to do anything; all is voluntary.

What truly is crass is politics - that sorry spectacle of power-seeking ego-maniacs who, when not pronouncing platitudes, are promising to help group A by picking the pockets of group B. While commerce is honest, politics is duplicitous. While commerce is peaceful, politics inevitably pits citizen against citizen. Far more enlightened and intelligent behavior is on display during any one day in a shopping mall than the most intrepid observer will find in a century on Pennsylvania Avenue.

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

17 December 2007

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

To the Editor:

Trying to justify government support of agriculture, Gary Owens asserts that before Uncle Sam started milking taxpayers for the benefit of farmers, "if weather or disease interfered with yields, [a farmer's] only option was to borrow again and try the following year."

Not so. Farmers could buy insurance from private cooperatives and companies.

It's appalling that so much of the popular sympathy for government support of farmers is founded on myths, superstitions, and plain ignorance.

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

16 December 2007

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

To the Editor:

Noam Scheiber offers two reasons why Robert Kuttner is correct to argue that the 1990s' move to freer trade hurt America ("It's the Politics, Stupid," December 16). First, free trade has "accelerated the decline of American industry." Second, "clearing aside trade barriers can leave you dangerously exposed when many of your trading partners - especially in East Asia - don't reciprocate."

The first claim is simply false. Real GDP in the U.S. is 51 percent higher today than it was in 1993, the year before NAFTA took effect. Some decline.

The second claim is preposterous. Starting in 1990, Japan - not the U.S. - lingered in no-growth misery for nearly 15 years. And East Asian economies - not the U.S. - famously suffered financial meltdowns in 1997.

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

13 December 2007

Tom Flynn, Editor
Free Inquiry

Dear Mr. Flynn:

The great virtue of your publication is its skepticism of received wisdom that is unsupported by the empirical record. Unfortunately, in "Beyond Ponzi Economics" you abandon this skepticism to embrace the long-held faith that growing human population is a curse.

It's true that there are more of us live today than at any time in history. But it's also true that billions of us enjoy lives that are healthier, longer, richer in good experiences, and freer of tragic experiences than was true at any time in the past. This fact alone should cause you to doubt the ages-old fear that population growth necessarily portends catastrophe. More detailed evidence that your fear of population growth is unwarranted is found in Indur Goklany's 2007 book "The Improving State of the World: Why We're Living Longer, Healthier, More Comfortable Lives on a Cleaner Planet."* I encourage you to explore its findings.

As the late Julian Simon argued, human beings - especially those in free societies - are not simply passive consumers; we are creative problem solvers.

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

* http://www.amazon.com/Improving-State-World-Healthier-Comfortable/dp/1930865988/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197560613&sr=1-1

13 December 2007

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

Dear Editor:

According to Robert Novak, Hillary Clinton's campaign is spreading rumors that Barack Obama "was using his 'leadership' political action committee to spread money around the country to grease his presidential prospects" ("A Dud from Team Clinton," December 13). What kind of accusation is this? It's akin to accusing a dog of barking or a sewer of stinking.

Mr. Obama - like Mrs. Clinton - behaves precisely as all successful politicians behave: opportunistically and disreputably.

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

12 December 2007

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

Dear Editor:

That herald of "heroic conservatism," Michael Gerson, champions active government with this swipe at laissez faire: "A concern for the rights of the poor and vulnerable is not simply 'theological'; it is a measure of our humanity. And skepticism in this noble cause is not sophistication; it seems more like exhaustion and cynicism" ("The Heart of Conservatism,” December 12).

The great error of Mr. Gerson and other opponents of laissez faire - be they conservative or "liberal" - is to mistake government for society. No one this side of sociopathy is indifferent to the rights of the poor and vulnerable. The pressing question is which institutions will best protect those rights. Right or wrong, those of us who oppose the welfare-and-regulatory state do so not because we are unconcerned with others, but because we have reason to believe that freer markets and voluntary civil society are far more effective than is political action at promoting human prosperity and dignity.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030