Market Correction

Or ask: If the New York Times loses market share to Internet cites, would it be appropriate for its owners to claim to be victimized by freedom of the press?
...............

20 January 2008

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

To the Editor:

Taking Steven Landsburg to task for showing no "compassion" for those "who have fallen victim to the deleterious side of free trade," Alan Ross completely misses Mr. Landsburg's point (Letters, January 20). Free trade, as Mr. Landsburg eloquently explains, has no victims. In the long run, it benefits everyone - even those who today lose their jobs to foreign rivals. The vitally important insight is that almost every job that Americans today worry about losing was made higher-paying, and even possible, by trade. For any worker to complain that he is victimized by trade would be akin, say, to Elvis Presley complaining that he was victimized by radio because that medium did so much to make the Beatles more popular than him.

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

19 January 2008

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

To the Editor:

Bob Herbert says that "the average income for the vast majority of Americans actually declined" [from 1980 to 2005]. The standard of living for the average family has improved not because incomes have grown, but because women have gone into the workplace in droves" ("Good Jobs Are Where the Money Is," January 19).

The data suggest otherwise. First, in every Census Bureau breakdown of families according number of spouses working, real median, as well as real mean, income is higher today than in 1980* - a fact nearly impossible to square with Mr. Herbert's claim that average incomes have fallen for the "vast majority of Americans." More to the point, median income for families in which both spouses worked in 1980 was (in 2005 dollars) $60,313. In 2005 median income for families in which both spouses worked was $78,755 - higher than the 1980 figure by 31 percent. Because, in these data, both spouses worked in 1980 and in 2005, this increase in median real income for these families cannot be the result of spouses entering the workforce since 1980.

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

* http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/f07ar.html

18 January 2008

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

To the Editor:

David Brooks cites research showing that voting is chiefly an expression of each voter's emotional reactions to candidates and the issues ("How Voters Think," January 18). Mr. Brooks overlooks, though, the definitive work clarifying this view - namely, my colleague Bryan Caplan's 2007 book "The Myth of the Rational Voter." Bryan explains that the same person who weighs his options with at least passable rationality when buying a car or a can of peas typically is in a daze of irrationality when voting. The reason is simple: our private decisions are determinitive. If I choose the Honda over the Ford, I get the Honda. Not so in elections. If I vote for Clinton over McCain, chances are near-zero that my vote determines the election's outcome; I might still get McCain. So with no personal material consequences riding on which lever I pull in the voting booth, I suffer no downside to letting my emotions run wild on election day.

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

17 January 2008

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

To the Editor:

Arthur Brooks reports on research showing that "political intolerance in America ... is to be found more on the left than it is on the right" ("Liberal Hatemongers," January 17). I'm not surprised. "The right," after all, includes many persons who are liberal in the original sense. These persons distrust centralized power and celebrate markets and free trade as liberating humankind from poverty, tyranny, and superstition. True liberals do not fancy themselves fit to tell others what to ingest, what not to smoke, what merchants to patronize, what insurance to buy, or otherwise how to live.

True liberals understand that society is indescribably complex and that our knowledge is always tentative. In contrast, too many of today's "liberals" - overestimating their own intelligence and underestimating both the intelligence of others and the dangers of government power - egotistically yearn to remake society according to their own images.

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

I elaborate at the two posts below:

http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/01/a_1975_sears_ca.html

http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/01/working_for_sea.html
..................

16 January 2008

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

Dear Editor:

Harold Meyerson again asserts that ordinary workers today are no better off than they were in the 1970s ("A Different Recession," January 16). Data backing this claim, however, are questionable - and are questioned frequently by serious scholars.

So let's explore for the facts using a different empirical technique: Ask workers today if they'd just as soon use their 2008 incomes to shop from, say, a 1975 Sears catalog (and pay 1975 prices) as shop at Sears.com (paying today's prices). If ordinary Americans in the 1970s were as well off as are ordinary Americans now, today's workers should jump at the opportunity to buy mid-70s goods at mid-70s prices while spending 2008 incomes. Alas, I'll bet that almost no one would choose the 1975 option. A small sample of what was unavailable back then includes CD and DVD players, home computers, food processors, digital cameras, camcorders, cordless phones, cell phones, and spandex clothing. Of course, the 1975 shopper did enjoy a nifty selection of typewriters, stereo turntables, 8-track players, black-and-white television sets, and heaps of clothing and bedding made from polyester.

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

Here's a question: was human habitat prior to market-driven industrialization cleaner and safer than is human habitat today in those parts of the globe long marked by market-driven industrialization? Here's the answer: no, not by a long shot.
..................

15 January 2008

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

Dear Editor:

Anne Applebaum wisely calls upon environmentalists to recognize tradeoffs ("Tiny Car, Tough Questions," January 15). While the introduction of the $2,500 Nano car in India might produce more greenhouse gases, it will also mean better lives for millions of people. This tradeoff, however, is likely not as stark as even Ms. Applebaum supposes. As Barun Mitra points out, opposition to the Nano is "an illustration of the head-in-the-sand mind-set, which pits rising demand for consumption against environmental conservation.

"In fact, as more Indians are able to afford more cars, the scale of consumption will help improve the technology, improve efficiency and clean up the environment. It is not a coincidence, that Toyota's ascent up the world auto league has been accompanied by its pioneering efforts in new technologies and innovation. Though counter-intuitive, it is true of most areas of enterprise that only enhanced scales of consumption lead to improvement in efficiency - in this case, easily measured by tail-pipe emission."*

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

* http://indefenceofliberty.org/story.asp?storyId=866

14 January 2008

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

To the Editor:

Paul Krugman praises Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate who "seems comfortable with and knowledgeable about economic policy" ("Responding to Recession," January 14). Still praising Sen. Clinton, he adds: "there's something to be said for presidents who know what they’re talking about."

I wonder what grade Professor Krugman would give to a student whose term paper proclaimed - as Ms. Clinton did last week when announcing her economic "stimulus" plan - that "You know, the economists can argue about [whether the country is headed for a recession]. Some say, yes, it's going there. Some say, not yet. Some say, oh, no. But the statistics are one thing, the stories are something altogether different.... It doesn't matter what you're told. It's what you feel, what you feel deep down."

In my classroom, that answer gets an F. As imperfect as they are, statistics remain a far better guide to the facts than do feelings.

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

13 January 2008

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

Dear Editor:

Finding an upside to India's ages-old poverty, Mira Kamdar notes that Indians today don't have to break the "bad habit" of driving ("It Costs Just $2,500. It's Cute as a Bug. And It Could Mean Global Disaster." January 13). But with the introduction of the $2,500 Tata Nano Ms. Kamdar worries that Indians will do like Americans and start driving a lot. So she calls upon India's government to discourage the use of automobiles and encourage the use of bicycles and mass-transit. Among her examples of the practicality of bicycles is Paris's "charming" new system of bicycle rentals.

But India is not urban. Seventy percent of Indians live in rural areas. There is no way that mass transit, much less bicycles (regardless of their charm), can supply these hundreds of millions of Indians with the same convenience and speed of movement that affordable automobiles will give them.

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

12 January 2008

Editor, The Atlantic

Dear Editor:

I have a question for Warren Robinson and others who worry that trade with low-wage China will make "the U.S. considerably worse off" (Letters, Jan./Feb.). Suppose that a Chinese scientist discovers a recipe for combining everyday kitchen ingredients into a medicine that completely and safely cures cancer, heart disease, tuberculosis, and erectile dysfunction. This generous scientist publishes the recipe on the web for free so that ordinary people throughout the world can, at near-zero cost, protect themselves from these diseases.

Would this invention make Americans poorer? Treating these diseases today is big business. Patients pay lots of money for treatment by highly skilled specialists, as well as lots of money for medicines made by other highly skilled specialists. America's wealth, however, does not lie in the production of these high-priced outputs. Rather, it lies in Americans' ability to CONSUME these and other useful outputs.

It's true that, given the current scarcity of resources and knowledge available for treating these awful diseases, the prices that we willingly pay today for such treatments are high. Hence, the remuneration of the specialists who provide these treatments is unusually high. But these high prices reflect the regrettable fact that we still face unusually high obstacles to overcoming these diseases. A people grow wealthier as they lower the obstacles standing in their way of satisfying their desires. Just as the invention of a low-cost cure for dreaded diseases would make nearly all of us richer, so, too, does our ability to acquire goods and services from abroad at unusually low costs make nearly all of us wealthier.

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

12 January 2008

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

Dear Editor:

For the past few years, persons on the left have described themselves proudly as being members of the "reality-based community." This community, ostensibly, insists that policies be based on facts, reason, and intelligent thinking rather than upon myths, superstitions, and sloppy thinking.

So we can trust, I presume, that Sen. Clinton's remarks yesterday in Los Angeles will cost her the votes of reality-based citizens. Speaking about the economy, Ms. Clinton declared that "the statistics are one thing, the stories are something altogether different. . . . It doesn't matter what you're told. It's what you feel, what you feel deep down" ("Clinton Proposes $70 Billion To Stimulate Economy," January 12). As a wag once noted, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data." And because facts are found with the head and not the heart, Ms. Clinton's "feelings" - no matter their depth - would be a dangerous guide to policy.

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

11 January 2008

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

To the Editor:

Government officials in California now seek power to centrally control thermostats in private buildings ("California Seeks Thermostat Control," January 11). In an attempt to paint those who object to such government intrusion as alarmists, your reporter explains that "The fact that similar radio-controlled technologies have been used on a voluntary basis in irrigation systems on farm fields and golf courses and in limited programs for buildings on Long Island is seldom mentioned" by opponents of such power.

Suppose Sacramento proposes to remotely control, in "emergency" situations, all newspaper presses. Would you remain sanguine about such government powers if someone explained that history is full of instances of the press voluntarily restraining itself?

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

10 January 2008

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

Dear Editor:

While it's true that the Clintons' political skills are sharp as daggers, I disagree with Robert Novak's claim that Hillary's now-famous tears were insincere ("The Clintons' One-Two Punch," January 10). She cried at the prospect of not ascending to the peak of power. What she tearfully confessed was her "passionate" belief that without her in the White House, America will "fall backwards as nation." Emotion welled in her bosom when she reflected on how many "opportunities" she has to offer America, and how "very personal" is her craving to govern others.

I have no doubt that real tears were brought to her eyes by this emotional stew of conceit mixed with fear of not grabbing the power that she so craves.

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

And it's fair to ask: What's more valuable? A dollar's worth of scrap metal or a dollar's worth of shiny new consumer electronics?

9 January 2008

Editor, The New Yorker

Dear Editor:

John Seabrook correctly reports that the Chinese buys lots of scrap metal from Americans ("American Scrap," January 14). But he incorrectly asserts that "In this sense, China's industrial might is literally being constructed out of the ruins of our own."

As the Cato Institute's Dan Ikenson found, U.S. manufacturing is hardly in "ruins." In America, manufacturing output and inflation-adjusted exports and profits reached all-time highs in 2006. (Data for 2007 are still incomplete.) And despite having only one-fourth the population of China, America's industrial output in 2006 - the largest of any country in the world - was 2.5 times greater than China's.*

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

* http://freetrade.org/pubs/pas/tpa-035es.html

8 January 2008

Editor, Slate.com

Dear Editor:

I disagree with Timothy Noah that the only real question about the tears Hillary Clinton shed yesterday in New Hampshire is whether or not they were genuine ("The Politics of Weeping"). Of course her tears were genuine. She cried not because of some real or imagined affront to her personally, to her family, or to a favored political group; nor did she cry over any of her failures. Instead, Sen. Clinton cried over her own lust for power. Her emotion was sparked by her self-admiration. She got all choked up when she suggested how indispensable she is to America and when she reflected upon - perhaps a better phrase is "wallowed in" - her own magnanimity at being willing to endure the awful hardship of being President of the United States.

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