Content of the GSA-letters
John F. Militello
John F. Militello sent his letter July 7, 1986. He wrote
That's not exactly the truth: February 25, 1986 James Savarese sent this letter to the Tobacco Institute during the ongoing Chase op-ed campaign
Millitello's GSA letter was part of an organized campaign. James Savarese wrote a handy overview of theactivities each network economist was involved with until 1986 Militello's activities were listed as follows:
Clearly, the GSA letter was not an effort of private citizen.
Arthur C. Mead's letter is somewhat bizarre
This is embarrassing
J.J. Boddewyn' text is what one would expect to read from a free market professor: freedom, freedom, freedom
Boddewyn's last paragraph on enforcement is one-sided: if there would be something like a right to smoke at the work floor, this would imply the need of new regulation to enforce this right. . .
Like all the network economists, Reynolds used one sided arguments like
Reynolds (and all the other economists) ignored facts like buildings will have to be painted less, there will be less economic loss from smoking related illnesses etc. Telling a one sided tale is not typical of economists, the standard description of whom is that there is no such thing as a one handed economist, because they always say on the one hand and on the other.
Following Reynolds logic, employers would not have a problem to pay that extra amount of money as they now could decrease the salary of non-smokers. After all, their workings conditions improved, meaning -following his logic- after a ban they suddenly are being overpaid...
Cecil Bohanon et al. use a weird analogy
Allen Dalton clearly has a full understanding of the word 'addiction', as his letter proves
Morgan Reynolds was not the only one of the economists to deny the health risks of ETS. S. Charles Maurice et al wrote: