Editor, Toledo Blade

Dear Editor:

Detroit auto executives advocate “government getting a stake in the auto companies that would allow taxpayers to share in future gains if they recover” (”GM exec: bankruptcy not an option for industry,” December 3).

I remind these executives that each American is already perfectly free and able, with no action from government, to “get a stake” in these companies.  Of course, few Americans now choose to do so - a fact that reflects the considered judgment of millions of people that these companies are unworthy recipients of investment funds.  If millions of investors, spending their own money, refuse to invest in GM, Ford, and Chrysler, why should Congress force them to make such investments?  Why should we trust that Congress will make wiser investment decisions with other people’s money than these people themselves make with their own money?

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

Great letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal by George Mason University Economics professor Don Boudreaux:

To the editor:

Arthur Bowring is correct that pirates raise costs to consumers (”The Price of Piracy,” November 25).  Having to confront predators possessing the brute force to seize their cargoes and persons, merchants naturally cut back on their commercial activities and demand premium payments for whatever services they continue to perform.

But it’s no stretch to arrrggggue that pirates share much in common with the stationary bandits we call “governments.”  Governments, too, routinely threaten to seize persons’ assets and persons if those persons don’t pay the ransom called “taxes.”  And like pirate activity, government regulations and taxes increase the risks and costs of doing business - expenses ultimately passed on to consumers.

The chief difference between the two sorts of bandits is that, unlike governments, pirates don’t insult the intelligence of their victims with assurances that the pirates’ predations are for the victims’ own good.

Sincerely,

Donald J. Boudreaux

A lot of time is wasted in the halls of government in intense debate and discussion over how government should do various things.  To a casual observer, this may appear to be a good thing - a sign that our system is working properly; that each policy is being fully debated and vetted.  A closer look reveals that there really is no debate at all.  The hours of boring hearings full of “expert” opinion, data, and anecdotes turn out to be a complete waste of time.  The “debate” is on the minute details of how the policy should be done, but there is no debate on if it should be done in the first place.

Partisan politics often provide the pretense of disagreement.  Each party has a different idea of how policy X should be implemented, who should administer it, etc.  Meanwhile, policy X is still a bad idea to begin with.  Yet, more often than not, bad policy X (which inevitably gives more power to government) is simply taken as a given, and all further discussion is on how to manage it and who will get the credit.

Don Boudreaux reminds us of this in the specific case of the bailouts.  No matter how much you polish it, excrement is still what it is:

“Over in The Wonk Room, Pat Garofalo argues that “If It Happens, The Auto Industry Bailout Needs To Be Done Right.”  While it’s true that some ways of bailing out this industry would be less harmful than other ways, there is absolutely no “right” way to do it.  To advise government to do the auto industry bailout “right” makes as much sense as advising a burglar to burgle the neighborhood houses “right.”"