You gave Michael Cooney, a seemingly serious writer, a Perspective cover spread ("Lethal business, haunting questions," Jan. 27).
In his final paragraph, he laments that our free market system drove a bicycle manufacturer (Snyder Manufacturing) out of upstate New York, but allowed an arms manufacturer (Remington) to thrive. The clear implication is that the Newtown, Conn., murders are at least, in part, related to our free-market system. By inference, we need to do something about a "free market system" that produces such successes.
The bicycle market was relatively free and, as a result, the firm mentioned lost the battle in the marketplace of the price/quality continuum of consumer choice.
Not so with guns. No, sir. It is not the free market that has allowed Remington to thrive, but none other than the restrictions imposed by — you guessed it — the United States government. Would-be foreign competitors to Remington face myriad export restrictions, even outright bans from certain countries, including China, our major supplier of imported goods.
So it is not Adam Smith's "invisible hand" but the bludgeon of the federal government that gives Remington a competitive advantage and has helped it to thrive. Remington makes good products, but I invite Mr. Cooney to review the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives website and then decide whether Remington is a "free market success" or the beneficiary of another of Washington's manipulations.
Washington did not directly cause these murders, but neither did our economic system put the weapons in the murderer's hands.
ANTHONY BIANCHINI
Colonie