Market Correction

14 March 2008

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

To the Editor:

Speaking of all-too-many successful politicians, David Brooks notes that "their sensitivity synapses are still performing at preschool levels" and that they "have an almost limitless capacity for self-pity" ("The Rank-Link Imbalance," March 14).

In other words, politicians are children disguised as adults - persons who ought to be playing with wooden blocks while seated at their little desks in Romper Room rather than playing with our liberties and resources while seated at their mahogany desks within marble-domed monuments to their stupid power.

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

13 March 2008

Editor, The Village Voice

Dear Editor:

I applaud - loudly - David Mamet's remarkable essay "Why I Am No Longer a 'Brain-Dead Liberal'" (March 11). But I'm saddened by the salvo of scorn that the on-line "Comments" section has unleashed on Mr. Mamet. The "liberals" who now regard Mr. Mamet as a monster for pointing out that government almost never lives up to its promises at improving the result of free markets are neither enlightened nor open-minded. Instead, such persons are deeply illiberal. F.A. Hayek, with characteristic excess kindness, described them as "Intellects whose desires have outstripped their understanding."*

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

* F.A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit (University of Chicago Press, 1988), p. 153.

13 March 2008

Manager, WIST Radio
New Orleans, LA

Dear Sir or Madam:

A listener called in this morning to complain that Gov. Spitzer's resignation isn't effective until Monday, correctly pointing out that Spitzer is now a lame duck. "From now until Monday," the listener asked, "who's running New York?" Your host replied "Good question."

It's not a good question. If I were your host, I would have said the following: "Drop the primitive notion that society is 'run' by leaders. Being reasonably free, individual New Yorkers, just like individual Louisianians, run their own lives. They start businesses, go to work, help their families and friends, repair their homes, cook their meals, walk their dogs, plan their vacations, make babies, bury their dead, and do all the countless other tasks that contribute to a functioning society all without awaiting orders from on high. Even if Spitzer's resignation took effect immediately and the Governor's office remained vacant for decades, New Yorker would be just fine - indeed, they would be even better off than they are with a "governor."

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

11 March 2008

Editor, The Washington Times

Dear Editor:

Mona Charen rightly worries about the still-mysterious substance lying "beneath the soothing talk" of Barack Obama ("Obama's self-portrait," March 11). While listening to a televised speech that he recently gave in Mississippi, I was struck by Mr. Obama's habit of tossing out assertions (such as "we have an economy that's unfair") based on nothing more than gauzy innuendo about devilish manipulators, by his childish promises to make poor people richer by making rich people poorer, and by his preacher-like style.

So it struck me: intellectually and ethically, Mr. Obama resembles nothing as much as he does a backwoods faith-healer.

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

10 March 2008

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

To the Editor:

Gov. Eliot Spitzer says that his patronage of prostitutes is a "private matter" ("Spitzer Is Linked to Prostitution Ring," March 10). He's correct; that matter is between himself and his family and is no one else's business. I wish only that Mr. Spitzer understood that many of his most famous crusades - for example, against musical-recording companies aggressively marketing their products, against banks lending money to lower-income consumers, and, indeed, even against prostitution rings(!) - were crusades against behaviors that in each case is a "private matter."

If Mr. Spitzer wants us to butt out of his private affairs, he should from here on in set an example by butting out of everyone else's private affairs.

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

One delusion shared by many opponents of the market is the solipsistic assumption that market failure means "failure to satisfy all of my fantasies about the way the world should work."
..............

10 March 2008

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

To the Editor:

Beth Feehan writes that "Despite demand from an awakening public asking for more local food, the corporatized system of commodities is strangling the small family farm" (Letters, March 10).

Blaming corporate villains for market outcomes that one dislikes is common but typically wrongheaded, as is the case here. If enough people really demand more local food - meaning, if enough consumers will pay the higher prices that even the most efficient methods of local food production might entail - then the profits in such food production and distribution would be ample. The "corporatized system of commodities" would be no more successful at preventing the growth of local foods than the corporatized system of newspapers were at preventing the growth of the Internet.

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

8 March 2008

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

To the Editor:

Regarding the Florida and Michigan Democratic primaries that party leaders and the candidates agreed months ago would not count (but which were nevertheless "won" by Sen. Clinton), Gail Collins reports that now "Clinton says the party should just forgive and forget, and hand over her delegates" ("And the Good News Is..." March 8).

Until recently, when my young son didn't like the progress of games played according to agreed-upon rules, he would cry for the rules to be changed in his favor in mid-game. My wife and I, of course, refused. We taught him that such special pleading is the essence of unfairness. Now that he's ten-years old, our son knows better than to issue such blatantly unfair entreaties. It's shameful that Hillary Clinton’s sense of fairness and decency is less developed than that of ordinary ten-year olds.

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

6 March 2008

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

To the Editor:

Among Robert Lighthizer's objections to principled free-traders is their opposition to protectionism "no matter how many jobs are lost" ("Grand Old Protectionists," March 6).

If Mr. Lighthizer is referring to overall employment, his facts are wrong. Free trade does not reduce net employment. But perhaps he's talking about specific jobs, such as those lost in Carolina textile mills when Americans buy more textiles from abroad. The argument seems to be that practical statecraft often justifies protecting such jobs even if doing so prevents the creation of other jobs in their place. If this is Mr. Lighthizer's point, he's too modest when calling for trade policies that allow for "practicality, nuance or flexibility." Because technology destroys far more jobs than does trade, Mr. Lighthizer should endorse also a "pragmatic" approach to innovation - empowering government with the flexibly and nuance to block firms' introduction of efficiency-enhancing production techniques that displace workers. Surely we must reject the "dogma" that tolerates "unbridled" improvements in firms' operating efficiencies.

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

6 March 2008

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

To the Editor:

Robert Lighthizer dismisses principled free-traders as dogmatists who impractically stick to their guns "no matter how many jobs are lost, how high the trade deficit rises or how low the dollar falls" ("Grand Old Protectionists," March 6). Alas, the impractical dogmatists are Mr. Lighthizer and his fellow trade "pragmatists."

There is NO credible evidence - none, nada - that free trade causes net job losses. Moreover, far from being undesirable, a higher U.S. trade deficit means increased foreign investment in the American economy. And a falling dollar generally reflects worsening U.S. domestic policies, such as inflationary money-supply growth, the likelihood of higher taxes or more command-and-control regulations, and, indeed, an increased probability of U.S. protectionism - protectionism that, by stifling entrepreneurial dynamism, makes America a less attractive place for foreigners to do business.

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

5 March 2008

Editor, The Financial Times

Dear Editor:

Pat Buchanan's hostility to free trade reflects his misunderstanding of fundamental concepts. This misunderstanding is displayed in his letter today in which he complains that "since Nafta ... we have run $5,000bn in trade deficits." For Mr Buchanan, this fact is clear evidence of the dangers of freer trade.

But let's re-word Mr Buchanan's complaint: "since Nafta, we have run $5,000bn in investment surpluses." Putting matters this way - which is simply another way of reporting the same fact that Mr Buchanan finds so troubling - reveals that since Nafta, $5,000bn worth of capital has flown into America. This capital helped to create and modernize many American firms, to fund R&D, to train workers, and to ease the burden imposed on Americans by Uncle Sam's profligacy. Does Mr Buchanan really lament this capital inflow?

It's worth pointing out, too, that this inflow of capital is precisely the opposite of what Ross "Giant Sucking Sound" Perot predicted would happen if Nafta were passed.

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

4 March 2008

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

Dear Editor:

Susan Helper writes that "the manufacturing sector has been hammered with the loss of 3.7 million jobs over the past seven years" ("Renewing 'Made in the USA'," March 4). This statement - indeed, her entire op-ed - is unhelpful. She mistakes manufacturing employment for manufacturing output. In fact, manufacturing output in the U.S., as well as U.S. manufacturing exports, are today at all-time highs.* Manufacturing employment is falling now for the same reason that agricultural employment fell in the past: technological advances permit each worker to produce ever more output.

More inexplicably, Ms. Helper, an economist, forgets the principle of comparative advantage when she worries that if more and more Americans work in the service sector, we risk being left "with nothing to sell that others want." Education, software- and bio-engineering, financial management - the list of services that Americans export is long and growing, just as the principle of comparative advantage predicts.

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

* Dan Ikenson, "Thriving in a Global Economy: The Truth about U.S. Manufacturing and Trade," http://freetrade.org/pubs/pas/tpa-035es.html

3 March 2008

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

To the Editor:

You explain well that Ohio's economy is hamstrung, not by too much trade, but by too little trade - as happens whenever politicians tax and regulate so aggressively as they do in Ohio ("Texas v. Ohio," March 3). But it's also worth noting that the recent history of unemployment in Ohio simply does not support the allegations made by both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama that Nafta has devastated workers in that state.

In December 1993, the month before Nafta took effect, Ohio's unemployment rate was 6.5 percent. It has never again been as high as that pre-Nafta rate. Indeed, as recently as February 2001 - with Nafta in effect for seven years - it fell to as low as 3.9 percent. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Ohio's unemployment rate is now (December 2007) 5.8 percent. The most recent month prior to Nafta going into effect in which Ohio's unemployment rate was this low was October 1990.

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

2 March 2008

Editor, The Baltimore Sun

Dear Editor:

Steve Chapman exposes the illogic, lies, and crude pandering now commonplace whenever Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama discuss NAFTA and trade ("Democrats’ trade myths," March 2). As all eyes gaze to see which politician will win the tawdry grandeur of the presidency - win it in part by demonizing trade - it's especially important to heed the words of the early 18th-century English essayist Joseph Addison: "[T]here are no more useful members in a commonwealth than merchants. They knit mankind together in a mutual intercourse of good offices, distribute the gifts of nature...."*

How sad that destructive and divisive power can be won by those who shamelessly pour scorn upon one of the most productive and unifying of all human institutions: free and peaceful trade.

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

* http://hnn.us/blogs/comments/47901.html

2 March 2008

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

Dear Editor:

Each campaign season I catalog the countless instances of politicians being held to ethical standards lower than those to which people hold their household pets. Case in point: the usually wise Sebastian Mallaby - exposing Sen. Clinton's and Sen. Obama's deceits about NAFTA - sighs that "Quite a lot of trade populism can be forgiven, even if it is intellectually dishonest. Like it or not, trade liberalization has stalled, so mild populism makes no practical difference" ("Democrats, Off Course On Trade," March 2).

In other words, aspirants to what is typically called the highest office in the land are forgiven when they intentionally deceive voters as long as these deceptions make "no practical difference." I don't much care if my dog deceives me under such circumstances, but I surely teach my son that such dishonesty and lack of integrity is intolerable.

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

1 March 2008

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

To the Editor:

Daniel Griswold expertly explains why Sen. Clinton's and Sen. Obama's hostile claims about Nafta are mistaken ("Ohio Needs More Foreign Trade," March 1). It's shameful, though, that these self-proclaimed "leaders" must be set straight in your pages. The data reported by Mr. Griswold are readily available, and they clearly, easily, and utterly refute the anti-trade assertions issued by both candidates.

I'm left to conclude that these allegedly courageous public servants are quite dim-witted or pathetically uninformed, or that they are unscrupulous about spreading misinformation in their pursuit of office. Whatever the explanation, it exposes each of these persons as being unfit to exercise power.

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

29 February 2008

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

To the Editor:

Whenever I read - such as I do today in Dan Schnur's on-line column - of Hillary Clinton being a "centrist" Senator, I'm reminded of the man standing in a bucket of ice with his head stuck in a heated oven. When asked if he was too hot or too cold, the man replied "Neither. The temperature is just right, on average."

I suspect that Sen. Clinton's reputation for being a centrist comes from two related pathologies. The first is her pandering to statists at the extremes of both the Democratic and Republican parties. For example, she favors government-supplied "universal" health care, but also a Constitutional amendment to ban flag burning. Second, her Mark-Penn poll-driven persona has her flip-flopping in ways fit to make Mitt Romney blush: she voted for the war in Iraq but now opposes it; she supports free trade but wants a "time out" on agreements to make trade freer; she professes a belief in personal responsibility but calls on government to freeze interest rates for five years on adjustable-rate mortgages.

Apparently, there is precious little that this woman would not say or do in order to win the gaudy glory of being President. So let's not mistake dissembling, equivocation, insincerity, and a willingness to embrace extreme statism of all sorts for "centrism."

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

27 February 2008

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

To the Editor:

Your excellent obituary for William F. Buckley, Jr. (February 27) fails to mention one important way in which Mr. Buckley distanced himself from many of his fellow conservatives - namely, he steadfastly opposed the "war on drugs." Would that more public intellectuals, regardless of ideology, have the good sense and courage to say, as Mr. Buckley did in this closing to a 1995 speech he delivered to the New York Bar Association,

"I leave it at this, that it is outrageous to live in a society whose laws tolerate sending young people to life in prison because they grew, or distributed, a dozen ounces of marijuana. I would hope that the good offices of your vital profession would mobilize at least to protest such excesses of wartime zeal, the legal equivalent of a My Lai massacre. And perhaps proceed to recommend the legalization of the sale of most drugs, except to minors."

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