http://marketcorrection.powerblogs.com/ en-us 2009-11-19T17:11+00:00 http://marketcorrection.powerblogs.com/posts/1258651664.shtml 2 July 2009... Don Boudreaux 2009-11-19T17:11+00:00
Editor, The New York Times
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018

To the Editor:

Nicholas Kristof argues that we're not as frightened of climate change as science counsels that we should be, and that our fear's inadequacy is rooted in our evolutionary past ("When Our Brains Short-Circuit," July 2). We are, Mr. Kristof correctly says, evolved to fear immediate, visible threats and not so much those threats - such as climate change - that are more distant and less visible.

Contrary to Mr. Kristof's conclusion, though, this fact doesn't necessarily justify climate-change regulation. The same evolved structure of our brains that causes us to discount relatively distant climate-change effects also causes us to discount relatively distant economic effects. So this economist, trained to see the invisible hand, points out that too many people are insufficiently aware of - and, hence, insufficiently fearful of - those relatively distant and invisible threats posed to a healthy economy by government regulation.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University]]> http://marketcorrection.powerblogs.com/posts/1258468934.shtml 1 July 2009... Don Boudreaux 2009-11-17T14:11+00:00
Editor, Washington Post
1150 15th St., NW
Washington, DC 20071

Dear Editor:

You report that the "International Trade Commission recommended on Monday that President Barack Obama impose additional duties for three years on imports of low-cost Chinese tires the panel says are harming U.S. industry" ("U.S. trade panel favors stiffer duties on Chinese tires," June 29).

Such a move by Mr. Obama would not save U.S. jobs on net, because fewer dollars spent on imports means fewer dollars that foreigners have to spend on U.S. exports or to invest in the U.S.

More importantly, in this case higher duties would actually kill people. Higher duties mean higher tire prices, and higher tire prices will prompt many motorists to ride longer than otherwise on tires that are threadbare. Because riding on older tires is more dangerous than riding on new tires, Mr. Obama will have blood on his hands if he accepts the I.T.C.'s recommendation to stiffen duties on low-cost tires.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University]]> http://marketcorrection.powerblogs.com/posts/1258468881.shtml 30 June 2009... Don Boudreaux 2009-11-17T14:11+00:00
Editor, The Wall Street Journal
200 Liberty Street
New York, NY 10281

To the Editor:

Steve Simpson says that regulators fail not so much because they are especially bad people but because they face especially bad incentives (Letters, June 30). He's correct.

But I think that Mr. Simpson misunderstands Thomas Frank. Mr. Frank's enthusiasm for big, intrusive government likely comes less from a belief "that mankind is not good enough to be free" and comes more from a romantic notion that mankind is in fact far more good and trustworthy than our species really is. After all, no one in their right mind would wish to give concentrated power to persons who are less than incredibly wise, incorruptible, and selfless.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University]]> http://marketcorrection.powerblogs.com/posts/1258337163.shtml 28 June 2009... Don Boudreaux 2009-11-16T02:11+00:00
Editor, Detroit Free Press

Dear Editor:

Mitch Albom is correct that "We're wacko in how we view Jacko" (June 28). But not all of us are wacko. I, for one, am no more touched by Mr. Jackson's death than I am by the death of any of the thousands of other Americans who died last week, all of whom - like Mr. Jackson - are strangers to me and to the vast majority of people now so self-indulgently and flamboyantly grieving for a man they never met.

Americans' proclivity to mass hysteria causes me to want government to have as little power as possible. I neither can nor wish to stop other persons from doing with their lives as they wish. But I also damn sure despise the fact that, through their votes, so many persons prone to such childish sentiments and displays have a say in how I lead my life.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux]]> http://marketcorrection.powerblogs.com/posts/1258337130.shtml 27 June 2009... Don Boudreaux 2009-11-16T02:11+00:00
Editor, Boston Globe

Dear Editor:

Scott Lehigh argues that "infidelities shouldn't end political careers" (June 26) - to which I say: it depends.

A politician who holds himself or herself out as a savior - as such a paragon of virtue that he or she can be trusted with vast swaths of our lives and property - certainly should NOT be suffered to remain in office once that person is revealed to be simply another human being as faulty as the rest of us.

In the case of Gov. Mark Sanford, however, he's that rare politician who does not fancy himself to be more sagacious or virtuous than the rest of us. While not excusing Mr. Sanford's broken promises to his wife and family (and certainly not his apparent misuse of public funds), I regret the likely loss to the public of an official who never posed as being worthy to lord it over ordinary human beings.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux]]> http://marketcorrection.powerblogs.com/posts/1257975235.shtml 25 June 2009... Don Boudreaux 2009-11-11T21:11+00:00
Editor, USA Today

Dear Editor:

Although you suspect that Steve Jobs received special consideration to move to the front of the line of the many Americans seeking liver transplants, you agree that "Paying for organs is properly banned in the U.S." ("Wanted: organ donors," June 25).

What's proper about a policy that reduces the supply of life-giving transplant procedures and, thus, artificially raises the cost of such procedures? What's proper about condemning tens of thousands of people to lives of misery, and very often to premature death, when many of them would otherwise agree to mutually beneficial exchanges with willing donors? What's proper about allowing real people to suffer real agony and real death simply to protect an aesthetic sensibility that is hostile to certain kinds of voluntary commercial contracts?

Far from being proper, this ban on organ sales is pitiless.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University]]> http://marketcorrection.powerblogs.com/posts/1257899744.shtml 24 June 2009... Don Boudreaux 2009-11-11T00:11+00:00
Editor, Los Angeles Times

Dear Editor:

Harold Meyerson believes that California should more vigorously demand a bailout from Washington ("California has to lean harder on Obama," June 24). And with unintentional irony, he supports his case by quoting the Jewish sage Hillel, who asked "If I am not for myself, who shall be for me?"

I, too, find wisdom in Hillel's question. So taking it to heart, I resist being taxed even further to support a government whose childish inattention to costs and unintended consequences led it into its current troubles. Why should those of us who don't live in California pay to save that state from the ill consequences of its own irresponsibility? After all, if I am not for myself, who shall be for me?

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University]]> http://marketcorrection.powerblogs.com/posts/1257708873.shtml 23 June 2009... Don Boudreaux 2009-11-08T19:11+00:00
Editor, The New York Times
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018

To the Editor:

Ryan Bubb and Alex Kaufman conclude that restrictions imposed by the brand new Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act will "bring about moderate, and even positive, changes" ("A Fairer Credit Card? Priceles," June 23). This conclusion rests on the fact that cards issued by credit unions (as opposed to investor-owned banks) have long offered terms that meet the requirements of the Act. So if credit unions can profitably offer such terms, so too can investor-owned banks, right?

Not necessarily. As Bubb and Kaufman themselves argue, "Card issuers, after all, need to retain customers. Any bank that attempts to pad its bottom line by, say, levying large annual fees will likely see its customers flee to credit unions or to banks that emulate the credit union model."

So why haven't we seen any such flight or emulation? Could it be that banks' customers have needs and profiles different from those of credit-unions' customers - differences that prevent banks' customers from being profitably served under the terms offered by credit unions?

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