Market Correction

16 February 2008

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

To the Editor:

How distressing that many Americans now worry themselves sick that their consumption habits are ruining the environment ("Well, Doctor, I Have This Recycling Problem," February 16). There is, however, no need for them to seek professional help. My three-step plan to cure this mental anguish is simple and guaranteed to work:

Step One: Avoid major newspapers, magazines, and network news. These media uncritically genuflect to the official creed of environmental groups, and never give any historical perspective.

Step Two: Get historical perspective by learning how filthy and perilous the environment was before modern capitalism. I recommend reading Fernand Braudel's The Structures of Everyday Life.

Step Three: Get the actual facts about today's state of humanity and the environment by reading the data-packed works of Indur Goklany, Bjorn Lomborg, and Julian Simon.

Persons completing this regimen will feel supreme contentment whenever they buy things such as SUVs, non-fair-trade, non-organic coffee from Guatemala, and even incandescent light bulbs.

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

15 February 2008

Editor, New York Post

Dear Editor:

Rob Perry asserts that "common sense" dictates that Uncle Sam's military budget in recent years has been "inadequate" (Letters, February 14). Mr. Perry should rely less on his common sense and more on the data. As reported last week in the Los Angeles Times by Mercatus Center scholar Veronique de Rugy, George W. Bush "has given us the biggest defense budget since World War II - and that's regularly budgeted defense spending, not counting funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."*

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

* http://www.mercatus.org/Publications/pubID.4466,cfilter.0/pub_detail.asp

15 February 2008

Director, CBS Radio News

Dear Sir or Madam:

On this morning's 8am (EST) broadcast, your anchorman reported that Rep. Henry Waxman says that he held this week's hearing with Roger Clemens and Brian McNamee only because it was requested by Mr. Clemens.

Has Mr. Waxman no shame? He stages a circus, involving Congress in a matter that is none of its business. At that circus he and his colleagues pompously pontificated, posed, and performed for the cameras, pretending to be great protectors of the republic. Finally, now that it is clear - undoubtedly to Mr. Waxman's surprise - that most Americans regard these hearings as being, at best, a farcical waste of time, Mr. Waxman blames Mr. Clemens for holding the hearings! Surely Mr. Waxman, as Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, could have refused Mr. Clemens' alleged request if Mr. Waxman believed such hearings to be inappropriate.

Let us hear no more of Mr. Waxman's "toughness" and "courage." Like nearly all of his Congressional colleagues, he's a weasel and miscreant, skilled only at spending other people's money and other people's reputations on his own glorification.

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

14 February 2008

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

To the Editor:

Every month you report Commerce Department figures on the U.S. trade deficit with individual countries. For example, we learn today that last year "[t]he trade deficit with China continued to rise, jumping by 10.2 percent to $256.3 billion" ("U.S. Trade Deficit Drops in 2007," February 14).

Before again reporting such figures, your reporters (and the Commerce Department) should ask a fundamental question: In this world of extensive multilateral trade and investment, of what conceivable relevance is a measure of the volume of goods and services trade between any two countries? America's "trade deficit" with China is as relevant as is your "trade deficit" with, say, your columnist Maureen Dowd. I'm sure that every year you buy more from her than she buys from you. I'm also sure that you're not bothered by this "deficit" - and for good reason: in a world of multilateral trade, no two entities are likely to have so-called "balanced" trade with each other.

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

13 February 2008

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

To the Editor:

The 2008 presidential campaign has been going on for a year now, with nine months remaining. This campaign features several U.S. senators. So I ask: what sorts of "public servants" are Sens. Clinton, McCain, and Obama that each goes AWOL for almost two years from the jobs they were elected to perform in order to hunt for another job? Either each of these people is utterly irresponsible, or "service" in the U.S. Senate is pointless. If the former, each of these persons is ethically challenged. If the latter, the Senate experience and achievements that each brags about are irrelevant.

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

13 February 2008

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

To the Editor:

At least a full-sized op-ed is required to address the many wrong-headed presumptions, factual errors, and non sequiturs that mar Robert Reich's "Totally Spent" (February 13). The most blatant mistake, however, is Mr. Reich's assertion that women entering the workforce, and people working longer hours, are examples of how Americans "live beyond their paychecks."

When more family members work, and when those who work do so for more hours per week, families' paychecks increase. Working more might be good or bad - it might be evidence of underlying economic problems - but it emphatically is not a means of living beyond a paycheck.

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

12 February 2008

News Director, WTOP Radio

Dear Sir or Madam:

On this morning of the Chesapeake Primary, one of your reporters advised all listeners to "Let your voice be heard. Vote!"

Why is voting the only way to let my "voice" be heard? If I don't vote, doesn't that fact speak just as loudly as if I do vote? By not voting, I announce my dislike of ALL of the candidates. This announcement expresses my disdain for politicians as loudly and as clearly as does, say, my neighbor's vote for Barack Obama express her admiration for that candidate.

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

12 February 2008

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

Dear Editor:

A contradiction mars Lisa Lombardozzi's opposition to Fairfax County Public Schools' plan to reduce its budget deficit by charging parents for their children's participation in extracurricular activities (Letters, February 12). Her expressed resistance to new school fees "imposed on already overburdened taxpayers" unintentionally highlights the justification for the proposal. Fairfax parents are indeed overburdened taxpayers. IF the Schools continue offering extracurricular activities, these must be paid for either directly by Fairfax families in the form of fees, or indirectly in the form of taxes.

Either way, Fairfax's overburdened taxpayers cannot escape this burden. Payment in the form of fees at least focuses the costs of such programs on the families that benefit most from them.

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

10 February 2008

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

To the Editor:

Yesterday, columnist Bob Herbert repeated the familiar refrain that America's middle-class is disappearing ("Where's the Big Idea?" February 9). Today, the Dallas Fed's Michael Cox and Richard Alm supply compelling evidence against this tired thesis ("You Are What You Spend," February 10).

As people all across this land, with their cell-phones nearby, watch a gazillion channels on their high-def flat-screen TVs or surf the web wirelessly or use their GPS systems to avoid getting lost while driving to malls in their air-bagged cars and listening to their MP3 players (or, perhaps, to their satellite radios), I do wonder what strange slice of America Mr. Herbert frequents to shield his eyes and ears from today's widespread prosperity.

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

10 February 2008

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

To the Editor:

Mike Huckabee brags of believing in "miracles" ("Obama Gets Convincing Wins in 3 States," February 10). Pretty scary, I agree. But this former pastor is no more devoted to the supernatural than are the other candidates. Senators Obama and Clinton are forever shouting "change" and "hope" as if these terms are part of a liturgy that, along with the right "change agent" presiding in the Oval Office, will conjure up an earthly paradise. Each proposes to "restore" the middle-class with witches'-brew economic policies. Sen. McCain, of course, is no better. He boasts of believing that restricting campaign contributions will exorcise politics of special-interest devils, and he's proud of his faith that war on a tactic - terror - can be won.

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

9 February 2008

Mr. Tony Kornheiser
The Tony Kornheiser Show, WWWT Radio

Dear Kornheiser:

You ask your listeners to give you "one good reason why any citizen shouldn't vote." I'll give you two reasons why I don't vote (beyond the obvious - and perfectly valid - one that the outcome of no election will turn on my vote).

First, almost all politicians are opportunistic panderers, saying only what they think voters want to hear. Campaigns convey too little substantive information to justify expressing a choice of one candidate over any other. (Well, not quite: I do learn from campaigns which candidate seems most desperate for office. That's the candidate I hope loses.)

Second, voting strikes me very much like casting a ballot for which gang member will do the honors of roughing me up. It's bad enough that I will be abused; I refuse to dignify the proceedings by "choosing" my abuser.

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

8 February 2008

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

To the Editor:

Paul Krugman says that "The usual rap against public spending as a form of economic stimulus is that it takes too long to get going" ("A Long Story," February 8). Not so. The usual rap against public spending as a form of economic stimulus is that it reduces private spending. Every dollar the government spends is taken from private hands (either directly through taxation or borrowing, or indirectly through inflation).

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

7 February 2008

Editor, The Baltimore Sun

Dear Editor:

Tim Sharman is dismayed that George Bush's past struggles with chemical addictions do not prompt him now, as President, to be more "generous" in his budget toward the poor (Letters, February 7). I oppose most of Mr. Bush's policies. But I oppose even more the notion that it is possible to be generous with other people's - that is, with taxpayers' - money.

Suppose Mr. Bush reconsiders the budget and increases welfare expenditures substantially. This move might or might not be wise policy. But it certainly doesn't signal that the President has become more generous. A politician, like you and me, can be generous only with his own money. A politician spending other people's money is, at best, implementing sound policies - and, more realistically, little different from a burglar who "generously" uses part of his booty to buy rounds of drinks for his buddies.

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

6 February 2008

Editor, The Boston Globe

Dear Editor:

Ed Lawrence asks about the current crop of president-wannabes if "any one of them ever really changed things in Washington? Has even one of them reorganized departments, shut down bureaucracies, resisted lobbyists, or improved the lives of anyone other than their rich and connected colleagues?" (Letters, February 6).

Mr. Lawrence is right to be disillusioned. In 1928 H.L. Mencken accurately described Washington, D.C., as "the citadel of scoundrels." Nothing that has happened in that town during the subsequent 80 years is cause for rejecting this description.

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