Market Correction

15 May 2008

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

To the Editor:

Simon Winchester wonders why "in the 16th century China's innovative energies inexplicably withered away, and modern science became the virtual monopoly of the West" ("Historical Tremors," May 15). He points to some facts (for example, "lack of internal competition") that surely played roles. But he misses what is likely the main fact: China was open and commercial under the Song dynasty (960-1279 AD) and then, with the Yuan and (especially) the Ming dynasties that followed, turned inward and rejected foreign commerce.

As economist Guanzhong Wen writes about the early Ming period, "Because foreign merchants were confined to the small quarters of Guangzhou, a city located in the southern tip of China, the vast majority of Chinese were never exposed to new ideas or new products from the West."* Europeans - restlessly seeking profit - had powerful incentives to advance scientifically. The Chinese - confident in their superiority and fearing change - lost these incentives.

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

* http://www.econ.barnard.columbia.edu/~econhist/papers/JWen%20paper.pdf

14 May 2008

Editor, Baltimore Sun

Dear Editor:

Part Hugo Chavez and part Don Quixote, Blaine Taylor writes that "Just as, ultimately, the United States will be forced to nationalize the entire energy industry in order to achieve equality for all of our people, so, too, must we someday - and the sooner, the better - outlaw all the lobbyists from the halls of government at every level" (Letters, May 14).

The more powerful is government, the greater are the rewards for those who gain privileged access to it. Because nationalizing industries expands that power, such a move will inevitably increase the unsavory influence-shopping and influence-peddling that Mr. Taylor deplores. The solution is not to outlaw lobbying, for that'll simply drive it underground. The only solution is to rid government of the power that makes lobbying worthwhile.

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

14 May 2008

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

Dear Editor:

Barack Obama's campaign workers undoubtedly have encountered incidents of racism ("Racist Incidents Give Some Obama Campaigners Pause," May 13). But surely, not all rude reactions are racist.

For instance, you report about some of these workers that "Doors have been slammed in their faces." Perhaps these doors were slammed by persons who simply dislike politicians regardless of creed, credentials, or color. I certainly would waste none of my time listening to the inane blatherings of presidential campaign workers; my door would be slammed in the faces of workers from ANY campaign.

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

13 May 2008

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

To the Editor:

Mark Helprin correctly points out that as the Chinese grow more prosperous their military will grow more mighty ("The Challenge From China," May 13). He advises that Uncle Sam dramatically increase the size of his own arsenal.

Regardless of this suggestion's merits or demerits, the more vital course is for Uncle Sam to immediately eliminate all trade and investment restrictions with China, and for politicians to stop threatening further restrictions. Such moves would speed the integration of China's economy with our own. Being economically integrated means being economically reliant on each other - a happy recipe for prosperity and peace.

Want evidence? See the important work of economists Solomon Polachek and Carlos Seiglie. Their empirical research leads them to conclude that "international cooperation in reducing barriers to both trade and capital flows can promote a more peaceful world."* Want more evidence? Ask yourself how likely are even a well-armed Canada or Japan to have any interest in shooting their countless customers and suppliers throughout the U.S.? The answer, of course, is no more likely than we are to want to shoot our customers and suppliers throughout those countries.

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

* Solomon W. Polachek and Carlos Seiglie, "Trade, Peace and Democracy: An Analysis of Dyadic Dispute" (June 2006):
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=915360

12 May 2008

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

To the Editor:

Carlos Gutierrez and Arnold Schwarzenegger justifiably point out many of the economic advantages of free trade ("Keep America Open to Trade," May 12). The case against protectionism is significantly strengthened by such consequentialist arguments - arguments that I and other economists routinely and proudly employ.

But let's never forget that protectionism is also immoral. It is immoral for anyone or any collective forcibly to obstruct peaceful exchanges between two parties merely because a political border separates these parties from each other. If it is legal and proper for me to buy widgets, my choice of which widget supplier to patronize should be mine and mine alone. Likewise, the terms on which we deal are no one's business but my own and that supplier's.

Protectionists, at root, are thugs.

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

11 May 2008

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

Dear Editor:

The Post's dean of political analysts, David Broder, today unwittingly reveals two malignancies of politics ("The Price of Delay," May 11). First, politicians are cowards. Broder notes that dozens of Democratic Senators "desperately" want their party's primary race finally to end, but still refuse publicly to endorse Barack Obama. Broder quotes Majority Whip Dick Durbin for an explanation: "They want to avoid hard votes."

Second, successful politicians must behave duplicitously. Here's Broader: "Since McCain effectively cinched his nomination in February and mostly fell out of the news, he has accomplished a lot. He has targeted potential constituencies with appearances and messages tailored for them, knowing that other voters probably are not paying attention." Broder casually adds that "Obama needs to do similar work."

This isn't leadership; it's cowardly con-artistry.

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

10 May 2008

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

SIR:

Exploring how governments in emerging-market countries might tamp down inflation, you write that one option "is to do nothing apart from slapping on some temporary price controls, and hope that inflation pressures will soon ease" ("Economic focus: A tale of two worlds," May 10).

Trying to control inflation in this way makes no more sense than trying to control the temperature of a room by rigging thermometers so that they never record readings above 72 degrees Fahrenheit.

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

10 May 2008

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

Dear Editor:

The ultimate tragedy behind the suicide of Deborah Jeane Palfrey, the so-called "DC Madam," is that she was to be imprisoned for nothing more than making it easier for adults to engage in consensual capitalist acts ("Behind the Palfrey Spectacle," May 10).

Whatever might be the moral failings of married men who bought Ms. Palfrey's services, the far greater immorality is government's intrusion into what are inherently private matters - matters that are the business of the individuals and families involved, but emphatically not of the government.

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

9 May 2008

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

To the Editor:

Praising Tory leader David Cameron for shifting away from the apparently quaint Thatcherite focus on individual freedom and personal responsibility, David Brooks seems pleased that Cameron emphasizes "environmental issues, civility, assimilation and the moral climate" ("The Conservative Revival," May 9). Brooks continues: "Some of his ideas would not sit well with American conservatives. He wants to create 4,200 more health visitors, who would come into the homes of new parents and help them manage day-to-day stress."

Well, I'm no conservative, but I damn sure don't want government bureaucrats milling about my home offering their help in raising my family. Such officiousness would stress me out past the point of madness.

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

8 May 2008

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

To the Editor:

Nicholas Kristof writes that "One of the reasons that Mrs. Clinton is resolved to keep fighting is, I think, a resentment that she and many of her followers feel over sexism in the campaign. On that issue, she has a point" ("The Too-Long Goodbye," May 8).

This accusation of sexism is far too facile. Sexism hardly explains why Mrs. Clinton's strongest supporters are retirees and blue-collar workers. Nor does it explain how Mrs. Clinton soundly bested the likes of Joe Biden, John Edwards, Christopher Dodd, and Bill Richardson.

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

7 May 2008

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

To the Editor:

After listing a few cases of alleged corporate spying on private individuals, Eric Schlosser draws a big conclusion: "The Bill of Rights was adopted to protect Americans from the abusive power of their government. I've come to believe that we now need a similar set of restrictions to defend against irresponsible corporate power" ("Burger With a Side of Spies," May 7).

Government has the legal authority to imprison and kill people - an authority that, throughout history, it has used with notable zealousness. Government also has a territorial monopoly on this force; it's nearly impossible for people to take their business elsewhere. Corporations, in contrast, cannot (without government help) compel persons to work for them or to buy their wares. So while the laws of property, trespass, and privacy should of course be applied to corporations, the notion of a Bill of Rights to "protect" citizens from corporations makes no sense. All people need for such protection are competitive markets. And the key to such markets is to reduce, rather than expand, government's role in the economy.

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

6 May 2008

Editor, USA Today

Dear Editor:

You ask government to regulate the terms that credit-card issuers offer to borrowers ("Our view on consumer protection: Feds take overdue first step to curb credit card abuses," May 6). Your unstated belief is that politicians or bureaucrats know better than consumers what is best for consumers. This belief, alas, is shop-worn. In "Defence of Usury" (1787), Jeremy Bentham noted that each borrower is someone "who has every motive and every means for forming a right judgment [about the offered terms]; who has every motive and every means for informing himself of the circumstances, upon which rectitude of judgment, in the case in question, depends."

Bentham continued: "The legislator, who knows nothing, nor can know any thing, of any one of all these circumstances, who knows nothing at all about the matter, comes and says to him - 'It signifies nothing; you shall not have the money: for it would be doing you a mischief to let you borrow it upon such terms.' - And this out of prudence and loving-kindness! - There may be worse cruelty: but can there be greater folly?"*

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

* http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/Bentham/bnthUs.html

5 May 2008

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

To the Editor:

Diego Von Vacano complains that "The more we believe success is derived from information rather than the mixing of our hands and labor with concrete things, the more we distance ourselves from the very essence of what it is to be human" (Letters, May 4).

Funny, given that ants, beavers, and many other species routinely mix their limbs and labor with concrete things, I thought that the essence of what it is to be human lies in our ability to reason and to share our complex thoughts verbally or in writing with others - much as Mr. Von Vacano does in his letter and, more generally, in his job as a professor of political science.

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

4 May 2008

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

To the Editor:

Jeff Madrick says, in his review of Roger Lowenstein's "While America Aged," that "Lowenstein offers thoughtful recommendations. Health care should be made available to all by the government. Proper funding of pension obligations should be required" ("Empty Nest Egg," May 4).

Thoughtful? Demanding that the most powerful dude in the neighborhood provide important goodies to everyone seems more than a tad jejune - the kind of "thoughtfulness" that we expect from kindergartners. And calling for "proper funding of pension obligations" is about as banal as banal gets.

Why not simply propose a statute declaring that everyone has an inviolable right to world-class health care and a princely retirement? Problem solved. Apparently thoughtfully.

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