Poor-Quality Observation
5 February 2008
Editor, PCMag.com
Dear Editor:
Asserting that product quality is disappearing, Sascha Segan explains that "It's simple economics that companies will sell the worst products that people are willing to pay for" ("It's Pay Now or Pay Later With Consumer Electronics," February 5). Really? Do all wineries produce nothing but swill? Do all publishers sell nothing but pulp fiction? Do Harvard, Yale, and Troy State award only on-line degrees? Are all new homes mobile? All jewelry costume? All hotels motels?
Ms. Segan had best both learn more economics and, more importantly, observe reality a bit more closely.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Schumpeter on Capitalist Competition
5 February 2008
Editor, USA Today
Dear Editor:
You correctly recognize that "Through continued innovation, Google, or perhaps some new company that hasn't been created, could do more to protect consumers from Microsoft's ambitions than a bevy of antitrust lawyers" ("How to look at 'YahooSoft'," February 5).
Capitalist innovation is indeed a ceaseless, powerful, and creative form of competition. As Joseph Schumpeter famously explained, capitalists' pursuit of profits "incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one. This process of Creative Destruction is the essential fact about capitalism."*
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
* Joseph A. Schumpeter, CAPITALISM, SOCIALISM, AND DEMOCRACY (Harper, 1942), p. 83.
Hillary and the Colonel
4 February 2008
Editor, The Wall Street Journal
200 Liberty Street
New York, NY 10281
To the Editor:
Whenever this economist reads the campaign advertisements that masquerade as opinion pieces in respectable newspapers - such as Hillary Clinton's "My Plan for Shared Prosperity" in your edition today - I feel like I imagine Julia Child must have felt whenever she heard Colonel Sanders brag about his "secret recipe." No matter how many primitive taste buds his recipe satisfies at first bite, in the end it produces only uninteresting junk food that's hazardous to human health.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Consistency Requires that I be So Excused
3 February 2008
Editor, Washington Post
1150 15th St., NW
Washington, DC 20071
Dear Editor:
Rick Perlstein suggests that it's petty and unjustified to criticize Sen. Hillary Clinton for earmarking $1M of taxpayers' funds to pay for a museum at Woodstock ("Getting Past the '60s? It's Not Going to Happen," February 3). His argument is that the amount of money involved is so relatively small - only "one-millionth of the federal budget."
The ethical standards that politicians are held to truly are meager. Mr. Perlstein apparently cares neither about the constitutionality of such earmarks nor about whether they serve the public interest. Earmarks such as this one are okay, in his view, simply because the size of each one is so paltry in comparison with Uncle Sam's budget. I wonder if Mr. Perlstein or Sen. Clinton would excuse me if I refused to pay my taxes this year on grounds that my taxes are an infinitesimal portion of federal revenue.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Pass
2 February 2008
The Editor, New York Times
229 West 43rd St.
New York, NY 10036
To the Editor:
Senator Arlen Specter imagines that it is his and his fellow maharajahs' duty to investigate why the NFL destroyed the Patriots' tapes of the Jets ("Goodell Defends Handling of Patriots' Spying Case," February 2).
If I were NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, I would respond to Sen. Specter's threat to call a Senate committee hearing to investigate this matter by saying only "Dear Sen. Specter: The rule that the Patriots violated is one that the NFL, not Congress, created. We are a private organization quite capable of enforcing our own rules. So butt out; this matter is none of your damn business. Sincerely...."
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Sweeten Free Trade
2 February 2008
Editor, The Wall Street Journal
200 Liberty Street
New York, NY 10281
To the Editor:
Discussing sugar-industry recommendations "for better facilitating Nafta's sweetener trade," the American Sugar Alliance's Jack Roney - true to form of all industry lobbyists - argues that the purpose of trade is to generate profits for producers (Letters, February 2). He happily boasts that "Mexico's sugar industry is very supportive of the plan because it will help maximize sugar trade and ensure the economic success of Nafta for both Mexican and U.S. sugar producers."
The thrust of your editorial that prompted Mr. Roney to write is the proper one, namely, that Uncle Sam should stop his long-standing practice of collecting booty for sugar producers by picking the pockets of taxpayers and consumers. Mr. Roney disingenuously changed the subject to the welfare of sugar producers. His only passing acknowledgment of consumers' interest is his suggestion that free trade in sugar will result in "market chaos" - a suggestion with absolutely no foundation in fact or theory.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030
Evil Weed?
31 January 2008
Editor, The Washington Times
Dear Editor:
Re "Obama: decriminalize pot" (January 31): While I support the legalization of all drugs, decriminalizing marijuana would be a great first step. Warned that marijuana is a devilish substance subjecting its users to all sorts of sinister effects, young people who try it quickly realize that such warnings are baseless. So what conclusions do these young people draw about similar warnings against the likes of cocaine and heroine?
Falsely but drum-beatingly insisting to young people that marijuana is such a dangerous substance that its sellers and users deserve jail time does far more, I'm sure, to prompt people to experiment with truly dangerous drugs than does the smoking of pot itself.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030
Commerce and Peace
30 January 2008
Editor, The Washington Times
Dear Editor:
War-making being the special talent of the state, Patrick McGinn sensibly predicts that war cannot be legislated away (Letters, January 30). But he incorrectly argues that war reflects basic human nature in a world of scarce resources. Virtually all resources are scarce, and yet when they are privately owned and tradable in free markets people seldom fight each other for access to them. For example, my wife and I bought our house peacefully; we didn’t have to kill the previous owners to get inside. So, too, with all of the other scarce things that we consume regularly – water, bread, milk, coffee, chicken, wine, hotel rooms, you name it: each of these things is scarce and in high demand, and yet people in market economies almost never fight for them.
Extend commerce and you extend peace.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
