A Different Take
10 December 2008
Editor, The Wall Street Journal
200 Liberty Street
New York, NY 10281
To the Editor:
On a day when the top news story is a politician's attempted sale of a U.S. Senate seat, Thomas Frank fires his intellectual popgun at surrogate-mother contracts ("Rent-a-Womb Is Where Market Logic Leads," December 10).
What irony! A high-ranking member of the class of people that Mr. Frank believes must protect us from greed - politicians - tries to sell what doesn't belong to him, while Mr. Frank gets all hot'n'bothered by market transactions in which each person sells only what DOES belong to her.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Frank Arrogance
10 December 2008
Editor, The Wall Street Journal
200 Liberty Street
New York, NY 10281
To the Editor:
Thomas Frank laments that "market logic" promotes transactions that he finds unappealing, such as surrogate-mother contracts ("Rent-a-Womb Is Where Market Logic Leads," December 10). True, the ability of men and women to transact in any ways that they choose is, as long as those transactions don't violate the same rights of others, a central feature of the market. And it is a gleaming, glorious feature, largely because it protects ordinary people from the frenzied arrogance of Mr. Frank and his ilk who presume that society should be organized to gratify their personal aesthetics.
How ironic that on a day when the top news story is a politician's attempted sale of a U.S. Senate seat - a seat in a chamber whose members thrive by forcibly taking wealth from some and giving it to others - Mr. Frank should criticize private, voluntary contracts that create life.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Seen and Unseen
9 December 2008
Editor, Baltimore Sun
Dear Editor:
Dan Neil wants to nationalize General Motors, in part because "without big subsidies, there is no way in the near term to build these [electric] vehicles and make a reasonable profit, because of the stubbornly high cost of advanced batteries" ("Let's nationalize GM," December 9).
Mr. Neil makes several wrongheaded assumptions. For example, he assumes that the future benefits of such a battery would outweigh the current costs of using them. But there's no way he can know this to be true. These batteries cost a lot today because their production requires an extraordinary amount of resources today. Using these resources to produce an unprofitable battery means that we sacrifice, TODAY, a great deal of profitable outputs and investments in other industries. Perhaps resources artificially forced into advanced-battery development would otherwise have helped cure cancer, or encouraged development of more fuel-efficient jet engines, or helped keep millions of retired Americans more financially secure. Neither Mr. Neil nor Uncle Sam can know the value of what would never be created as a result of subsidizing unprofitable production in Detroit.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Answered Prayer
8 December 2008
Editor, The New York Times
229 West 43rd St.
New York, NY 10036
To the Editor:
The caption beneath your front-page photo of a Detroit Pentecostalist service says that the "congregants prayed to save the auto industry" (December 8).
No such prayers are necessary; the auto industry is in fine shape. Volkswagen, Honda, Hyundai, and other automakers are strong and flexible. It's time that GM, Ford, Chrysler, and the U.A.W. - and your caption writers - recognize that Detroit firms are not synonymous with the auto industry, and that government efforts to keep these failed entities artificially alive will only divert resources from productive to unproductive uses.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Romanticizing Poverty
7 December 2008
Editor, The New York Times
229 West 43rd St.
New York, NY 10036
To the Editor:
Alexei Barrionuevo writes about an Indian tribe in Brazil: the modern world presents "challenges to its subsistence livelihood" ("A Tribe in Brazil Struggles at the Intersection of Drugs and Cultures," December 7).
Umm, isn't it more accurate to say that what presents challenges to this tribe is its subsistence livelihood? Romanticizing pre-modern cultures is fun and easy for an urbane reporter from America, but I suspect that those Indians are no more pleased than Mr. Barrionuevo or any of your readers would be to merely subsist.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Not In It For the Money
6 December 2008
Editor, The New York Times
229 West 43rd St.
New York, NY 10036
To the Editor:
Mark Neporent, chief operating officer of Chrysler's parent corporation Cerberus, said about his company’s request for billions of dollars in taxpayer-backed loans: "We're not in this for the money" ("Chrysler's Friends in High Places," December 6). As you suggest, this claim is laughable.
But it's no more laughable than the claims routinely issued by politicians that they are "public servants" - that they work not for their own good but for the greater good - that they sacrifice their well-being for the welfare of others - that the regulations they impose and the taxes they collect serve noble purposes.
ALL claims of altruistic behavior should be viewed skeptically, especially when the self-described saints require government force to fulfill their allegedly magnanimous missions.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Might Does Not Make Wisdom
4 December 2008
Editor, Baltimore Sun
Dear Editor:
You opine that Detroit automakers "need to explain in detail to Congress how they intend to eliminate thousands of uneconomical dealerships, swiftly bring their labor costs closer to what Toyota pays its workers in this country, and quickly produce more energy-efficient cars that Americans will want to buy" ("Selling American cars," December 4).
No. These companies deserve investment funds only if they're able to make cars that will sell AND can demonstrate this ability to private investors. Congress is manned by people who specialize in winning popularity contests called "elections." These are not people expert in judging business models, or at pondering the pros and cons of different retail-distribution methods, or equipped to accurately discern the nuances of consumer demands for automobiles, or even - judging from their track record - aware of the most elementary principles of finance and economics.
If, say, you're looking for someone to manage your 401(k), would you entrust that job to Sen. Mikulski or Rep. Hoyer? Of course not, for that's not what they do. So why entrust them and other politicians with the job of investing on a vastly larger scale?
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
