For Whom the Toll Tolls
26 August 2008
Mr. Bruce Alan & Mr. Mike Moss, Morning Anchors
WTOP News Radio
Washington, DC
Dear Editor:
You complained today that the prices drivers will have to pay to use some of the soon-to-open toll lanes on DC-area highways might be burdensomely high. You then asked "What if the congestion on these lanes is as great as on the free lanes? Won't that be an additional burden imposed on drivers paying the high tolls?"
Do you not see the contradiction in your dual concerns? If the toll lanes are indeed highly congested, this fact implies that the tolls aren't much of a burden to many drivers - and, thus, that the tolls should be raised until they actually DO become somewhat burdensome. Only then will tolls cause drivers to change their driving habits sufficiently to keep congestion from clogging the tolled roads.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Noise Parading as Knowledge
26 August 2008
Editor, Boston Globe
Dear Editor:
According to Berl Hartman, "A recent poll shows that when given a choice, 83 percent of Americans favor investing in clean, renewable energy over increased offshore drilling" (Letters, August 26). How seriously should we take such a poll? Quite seriously IF 83 percent of American investors are actually making such investments - say, managing their 401(k)s to hold more shares of companies experimenting with "clean, renewable energy" and fewer shares of Exxon and other oil and gas corporations.
But such a poll is worthless if the persons surveyed offered only their opinions without having to put any of their own resources on the table. Asking Jones how Smith's money should be invested does not require Jones to consider carefully the difficulties, risks, and potential returns of each of Smith's investment options. Jones's response to this poll question should carry no more weight than would my response to your asking me which sort of printing presses you should buy: not only do I know nothing about the newspaper business, but because my answer will not affect my wealth, I have incentives neither to learn nor to ponder the issue conscientiously.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Joe and Richard
25 August 2008
Editor, Washington Post
1150 15th St., NW
Washington, DC 20071
Dear Editor:
Perhaps Richard Cohen is correct that some people find the prospect of a Vice-President Joe Biden to be "reassuring" ("Obama's Reassuring Choice," August 25). I, though, am not among these people. I can still see the television images of Sen. Biden waving a copy of Richard Epstein's excellent book "Takings" in front of Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas, practically demanding that Judge Thomas reject the ideas in that book. Those ideas are that private property rights are indispensable protectors of both prosperity and freedom, and should not be sacrificed to the alleged necessity of government to 'regulate.'
I don't recall Judge Thomas's reply, but I do recall Sen. Biden's utter - and utterly disgraceful - contempt for what is perhaps the single most important social institution ever to emerge in human society.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030
Corporate Shills
25 August 2008
Editor, The Wall Street Journal
200 Liberty Street
New York, NY 10281
To the Editor:
John Goodman is correct (Letters, August 25). Thomas Frank criticizes Milton Friedman's economics without having any apparent familiarity with what Mr. Friedman actually wrote.
Mr. Frank often knows not of what he speaks. In his latest book, "The Wrecking Crew," Mr. Frank alleges that "Libertarianism is a politics born to be subsidized." Ignore the fact that "libertarianism" is less a politics than a centuries-old tradition of ideas featuring contributions by infamous corporate shills such as the English Levellers of the 17th century, John Locke, and James Madison.
Instead ask: Isn't it just a wee bit unrealistic to suppose that corporations eagerly rain money down on thinkers who steadfastly oppose tariffs and other import restrictions which protect corporations from foreign competition? Who object to all subsidies for businesses? Who oppose occupational licensing that shields incumbent producers from upstart rivals? Who fight vigorously against using eminent-domain powers to transfer property to private corporations? Who led the intellectual charge that abolished the slavery of military conscription in America? Who object strenuously to the military-industrial complex? Who spend much time and effort arguing for complete drug legalization? Who support gay marriage?
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Humble?
24 August 2008
Editor, Tri-City Herald
Dear Editor:
When I saw your headline "Obama Practices Humility Preached to Him" (August 24), I thought that the accompanying story must be a satire. But then I read the story and discovered that you're serious.
Get real. No truly humble person - no person who understands the limits of his own intelligence and capacity - parades around posing as the plural pronoun in the outrageously narcissistic chant "we are the change we have been waiting for." No one with genuine humility utters anything so cocksure as Mr. Obama's promise to get one million 150-mpg cars on the road by 2015, or his vow to reduce Americans' carbon emissions by 80 percent (!) by 2050. Genuinely humble people don't presume to know how much profit earned by private companies is "windfall" - and they certainly don't formulate plans to confiscate such profits.
Indeed, no one within a light year of humility wants the kind of power and gaudy glory that Mr. Obama so desperately seeks.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Do You Believe In Magic?
24 August 2008
Editor, Washington Post
1150 15th St., NW
Washington, DC 20071
Dear Editor:
George Will is correct: most of Barack Obama's economic ideas are idiotic ("Little Rhetoric Riding Hood," August 24). But, along with many of John McCain's equally moronic ideas, they sell big-time - which is the very reason these candidates persistently deliver such preposterous lines.
Washington is no less diligent than Hollywood at satisfying the public's demand for heroic adventures, epic fantasies, and fairy tales. Each production stars supercilious superstars portraying characters boasting magical powers and godly goodness.
The only difference between Hollywood and Washington is that, while audiences understand Hollywood's leading men and women to be acting, this same ability to distinguish fantasy from fact disappears when the feature show is Congress and the White House.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
Enterprise Hall
George Mason University
