Market Correction

8 September 2008

Manager, WRVA Radio
Richmond, VA

Dear Sir or Madam:

A caller this afternoon lamented that modern society "yanks us from our roots, from our sacred attachment, to the land. We are no longer rooted to the land."

This caller should learn history. Human beings became "rooted" - or, more accurately, slavishly strapped by the necessity of survival or by feudal customs or by both - to the land only about 10,000 years ago. Depending on how you date humans' emergence as a distinct species, this fact means that we were "rooted" to the land for at most a mere 20 percent of our species' existence.

Our true roots are as hunter-gatherers. If your caller really believes that "the essence" that "nature instilled" in us is most reliably revealed by our past ways of life, she should insist that we reject as "unnatural" not only the factory but also the furrowed field. What we really ought to embrace, according to this woman's logic, is the rock, the spear, and the loin cloth. We should, by the way, also reject science and education, for such "artificial" finery emerged only very recently in our existence, long after our "roots" took shape.

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

8 September 2008

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

Dear Editor:

Sebastian Mallaby wisely argues that reducing Uncle Sam's budget deficit is desirable, but he unwisely supposes that the only means of doing so is raising taxes ("McCain's Convenient Untruth," September 8). Not once in his column does he plead for reduced spending.

If Mr. Mallaby's brother-in-law persistently lived beyond his means by borrowing money to buy lots of luxury automobiles, vacations in Tahiti, and expensive gifts for obnoxious friends, would Mr. Mallaby scold his brother-in-law only for earning too little income? Would Mr. Mallaby's advice be limited to "Earn more money!"? Would he not also recommend that his brother-in-law spend less?

Clearly, the most straightforward way for his brother-in-law to avoid bankruptcy is for him reduce his expenditures. And while advising him also to earn more income is generally a good idea, such advice would be irresponsible and downright anti-social if the brother-in-law's chief source of income is robbery (that is, taking money by force from productive people).

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

7 September 2008

Manager, WTOP News Radio
Washington, DC

Dear Sir or Madam:

The commercial you're now running to remind young men that "it's the law" that they register with Selective Service is disgusting.

On the way to the bagel store this morning, my 11-year-old son and I heard this ad on our car radio. "What's registration?" my son asked.

I explained and then told him that "It's part of the government's effort to make you think that your life ultimately belongs to it and not to you. The government wants you to believe that you're obliged even to die for it if it commands you to do so."

"That's idiotic!" my son replied.

"Right you are, Tiger!" I proudly told him. "And if, when the time comes for you to perform this degrading tribal ritual, you decline to do so, you'll have both my admiration and my unconditional support."

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