Market Correction

3 June 2008

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

Dear Editor:

Beware of a dangerous confusion about high food prices. You write that "higher food prices could jump-start African agriculture" ("A Greener Revolution," June 3). Yes. But because agriculture is merely the means to the end of feeding as many people as possible at as low a cost as possible, high food prices in and of themselves are nothing to wish for or to applaud, for they signal that food is scarcer than it is when food prices are lower.

Franklin Roosevelt foolishly misunderstand this point. At a time when many Americans were genuinely and chronically hungry, FDR's administration destroyed many existing food supplies and artificially limited the production of future supplies. The stated goal was to raise the prices farmers received. Higher incomes for farmers became the end. The welfare of consumers was forgotten.

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

2 June 2008

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

To the Editor:

Kelly Evans writes that "inflation expectations play a huge role in determining future inflation" ("Inflation: Why What You Think Matters," May 30). Untrue. Inflation is a decline in the value of money caused by excessive growth in the supply of money.

Expectations play no "huge role in determining future inflation" for the simple reason that people spend money, not expectations. Without a larger money supply to back inflationary expectations, inflation never becomes a reality. For this reason, inflation is familiarly and correctly described as "too much money chasing too few goods" - NOT as "too many expectations chasing too few goods."

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

1 June 2008

Editor, Los Angeles Times

Dear Editor:

Robert Scheer argues powerfully that Uncle Sam's military spending is obscenely wasteful ("Indefensible spending," June 1). But he lessens his credibility by writing that the next president "will inherit at least a $400-billion current-accounts deficit." What Mr. Scheer was referring to is the BUDGET deficit. Avoiding this confusion is vital. Government's budget is under its control, and so deficit spending reflects irresponsible profligacy by those entrusted with the public purse. In contrast, the current-account deficit reflects the domestic economy's relationship with the global economy; it is not under government's control. Also, unlike a budget deficit, a current-account deficit does not necessarily impose financial burdens upon future generations.

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

31 May 2008

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

To the Editor:

Louise Benson says that allowing people to sell their transplantable body organs would result in poor people being "enticed by the money" to become suppliers; she thinks this outcome would be "sick" (Letters, May 31). Ignore Dr. Benson's arrogant presumption that her personal cultural aesthete should trump the freedom of other adults to make such choices. Focus instead on the economics. If organ sales were liberalized, the availability of organs would rise and their prices would fall. Transplant surgery would become more affordable and, thus, more lives - not only of the rich but of all classes - would be improved and saved.

What's truly sick is government's continued prohibition of organ sales.

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

30 May 2008

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

Dear Editor:

Michael Gerson asserts that conservative and libertarian advocates of limited government would "invite genuine statism" by "leaving great social needs unmet" ("The Libertarian Jesus," May 30). Not so.

We advocates of strictly limited government emphatically do not propose to leave social needs unmet but, instead, to deal with these needs through non-governmental means. Now perhaps we're mistaken; perhaps non-governmental means will be inferior to government action. But for Mr. Gerson simply to assume that those of us seeking to scale back government necessarily want to leave "great social needs unmet" reveals intellectual laziness - a thoughtless equating of "government" with "society," and an obliviousness to history and a rich intellectual tradition explaining how people operating privately can, and do, supply a wide range of public goods.

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

29 May 2008

Editor, USA Today

Dear Editor:

You suggest that women are less likely than men to seek political office because women have fewer political role models, and that "no one urges them to run" ("Our view on women in politics: Reluctant to take the plunge," May 29). I offer a different reason: women are more decent than men.

Fewer women than men itch to lord it over others. Also, women are less willing than men to perform the countless asinine stunts and soul-shriveling pandering necessary to win political office.

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

29 May 2008

Editor, USA Today

Dear Editor:

Re your editorial "One bright sign emerges in a gloomy housing market" (May 29) and the general dismay about falling real-estate prices and rising gasoline prices: What principle of economics suggests that markets are working well when the price of one asset (say, housing) rises, but not when the price of another asset (say, petroleum) rises? What principle of ethics dictates that owners of one asset (say, housing) are entitled to capital gains and to enjoy these gains however large they might be, but that owners of another asset (say, petroleum) are not so entitled to their gains?

Finally, what moral precept advises us, in the case of petroleum products, to sympathize with buyers and demonize sellers, and in the case of housing, to ignore buyers and sympathize with sellers?

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

28 May 2008

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

To the Editor:

David Boaz eloquently exposes the dangers, hypocrisy, and questionable morality of politicians' practice of calling upon people to sacrifice for "a greater cause" ("Our Collectivist Candidates," May 28). Let's not forget that these calls are issued by persons who single-mindedly - I would say greedily - seek power and prestige for themselves.

By a slight rewording, economist Steven Landsburg exposed the ugly essence of the most famous line from John Kennedy's inaugural address: "Ask not what I can do for you. Ask what you can do for me."

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

26 May 2008

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

Dear Editor:

Barack Obama promised Wesleyan graduates that, as President, he would strive to unify Americans "in service to a greater good" ("Obama urges Wesleyan grads to enter public service," May 26). These fine (if predictable) words camouflage a false premise and a dangerous risk.

The false premise is that persons working in the private sector for themselves do not help others. But as Adam Smith famously explained, we are fed not from the benevolence of the butcher, baker, and brewer but rather from their pursuit of their own self-interests.

The dangerous risk is that, even if the "greater good" is one that we all agree upon, the means chosen to attain that goal might be inappropriate or have unforeseen negative consequences. If we're all "united in service" to this "greater good," different and competing ways to achieve it are cast aside for One Big Plan - an approach that dramatically reduces the experimentation necessary to discover genuinely effective means to improve reality.

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

25 May 2008

Editor, New York Post

Dear Editor:

R.B. Bernstein is indisputably correct that "It's hard to say what it takes to be president, but it's easy to figure out one thing you don't need: Shame" ("Groveling for Office," May 25).

H.L. Mencken summarized the preposterous essence of politics when he wrote that "The saddest life is that of a political aspirant under democracy. His failure is ignominious and his success is disgraceful."*

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

* H.L. Mencken, A Mencken Chrestomathy (New York: Vintage, 1982 [1949]), p. 153.

24 May 2008

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

To the Editor:

Jeff Reava repeats the claim that the QWERTY keyboard is a "humble reminder of convention's triumph against progress" (Letters, May 24). Not so. After studying the matter empirically, economists Stan Liebowitz and Stephen Margolis labeled this claim "the fable of the keys."*

The evidence shows that trained QWERTY typists type no more slowly than do typists trained on the Dvorak Simplified Keyboard - the keyboard that conventional wisdom mistakenly but stubbornly holds to allow for faster typing. QWERTY is not an example of we modern folks being 'locked-in' by convention to an inefficient technique.

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

* http://www.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/keys1.html