Who's Responsible?
26 February 2009
Editor, USA Today
Dear Editor:
Impressed that President Obama, in his Tuesday night speech, called for more responsibility, you conclude that he's the "grown-up in chief" ("Facing hard times, Obama sells case for responsibility," Feb. 25).
Sigh.
What sort of "responsibility" does Mr. Obama ask of Americans when he promises to fund his grand plans by taxing only the wealthiest two percent of Americans? What responsibility will the other 98 percent bear? And how is responsibility encouraged by his efforts to force taxpayers to bailout automakers and banks who've made poor business decisions, and homeowners who've borrowed and spent irresponsibly?
Pres. Obama's panegyric for responsibility is pure theatrics. Shame on you for being fooled by it.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Deficits, Deficits Everywhere
25 February 2009
Editor, The Wall Street Journal
200 Liberty Street
New York, NY 10281
To the Editor:
Lawrence Briskin's case for a tariff to end America's trade deficit is odd (Letters, Feb. 25). After noting that America ran trade surpluses during the 1920s and 1930s, he points out that we haven't had a trade surplus since 1975.
What is this comparison supposed to suggest? Surely not that trade surpluses are necessarily good. The trade-surplused 1930s were, after all, the GREAT Depression. And surely not that trade deficits are bad. Despite the current downturn, the past 35 years have witnessed the duration of recessions shortening as well as enormous vibrancy in the American economy. These happy consequences arguably are promoted by the foreign capital that pours into the U.S. and generates the accounting artifact bearing the unfortunate name "trade deficits."
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
A Rickshaw Economy
24 February 2009
Editor, Boston Globe
Dear Editor:
Derrick Z. Jackson reasons that among mass transit's benefits is the fact that, dollar for dollar, its provision requires more workers than do investments in the auto, oil, coal, and gas industries ("The transformation of transportation," Feb. 24). Mr. Jackson's reasoning is flawed.
The number of workers required to supply a good or service is not a benefit of that good or service; it's a cost. Societies become more prosperous only as they succeed in using fewer workers and other inputs to supply any given amount of output. Only then are inputs made available to produce outputs that otherwise could not be produced.
If Mr. Jackson were correct that a project's benefits rise with the number of jobs it creates, then an even better system of public transportation would be rickshaws, for they require one worker for every passenger-ride.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Will Protectionists Ever See the Light?
23 February 2009
Editor, Washington Post
Dear Editor:
Peter Morici alleges that America's trade deficit with China causes "the loss of millions of U.S. jobs" (Letters, Feb. 23). Overlook the fact that Prof. Morici ignores the jobs created in the U.S. when the Chinese invest their dollars here (and, as a result, raise America's trade deficit). Let's pretend that Prof. Morici is correct to presume that the Chinese sell things to Americans without demanding equivalent value in return. We are then led to ask: why isn't Prof. Morici angry also at the sun?
The sun, after all, daily exports valuable light and heat to earth and demands nothing in exchange. Without this light and heat, American producers of lamps, light bulbs, candles, heaters, fiberglass insulation, and overcoats would all enjoy much higher demands for their outputs. They'd employ more workers and pay higher wages. Yet year after year the sun stubbornly exports valuable outputs to us without demanding anything in return. Employment in our light and heat industries is kept artificially low.
Perhaps we should consider cutting off inputs from that celestial master of unfair trade.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Willie Sutton Wisdom
23 February 2009
Editor, New York Post
Dear Editor:
Why is Jacob Gershman surprised that Mayor Michael Bloomberg is seeking more power for government ("Mike Marches Left," Feb. 23)? The more powerful is government, the more power successful politicians enjoy - and the more power they enjoy, the more deluded they become about their abilities and indispensability.
No one is surprised that business people regularly seek to earn ever-higher profits, for we all understand that it's about their self-interest. Let's bring the same realism to politics so that we understand that politicians seek power not for our benefit but for their own.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Novel Insight
22 February 2009
Editor, Washington Post
1150 15th St., NW
Washington, DC 20071
Dear Editor:
Today's cackling by politicians and pundits about how the auto industry should be restructured, the health-care industry overhauled, and the banking industry reorganized is deafening. Surely I'm not alone in being horrified that so many people with no experience in these industries - and with no skin in any of these games - fancy themselves qualified to pontificate about matters on which their knowledge can't possibly be more than superficial.
This cascade of instructions from the inexperienced calls to mind a passage from Gogol's Dead Souls: "He talks about everything, touches lightly on everything, he says everything he has filched out of books brightly and picturesquely, but he hasn't got any of it in his head; and you see afterwards that a talk with a humble merchant who knows nothing but his own business but does know that thoroughly and by experience, is better than all these chatterboxes."*
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
* Nikolai Gogol, Dead Souls (New York: Barnes & Noble Classics, 2005 [1842]; trans. by Constance Garnett), p. 178.
