Re: Wal-Mart (and IBM)

[Guest guest]

Rodney reports (see below) that " Wal-Mart Tops FORTUNE's List of America's

Most Admired Companies. "

Admired by whom?

Answer: by " the 10,000 executives, directors, and analysts whom FORTUNE

polled in late 2003. "

Probably those 10,000 people are highly invested in belief in the

supremacy of profitability--i.e., they're probably people who think it's

admirable to create high earnings for managers and investors even when

doing so creates abysmal earnings and conditions for employees and

communities, and even when doing so deprives many people of ability to

afford healthful diets.

It's somewhat the same mindset as thinking Trump is admirable for

running a business (Trump Taj Mahal) that encourages people to gamble

money. On Trump's " The Apprentice " TV show, the contestants throw

themselves rather wholeheartedly into each new business challenge, as if

promoting gambling (this week's challenge at the Taj Mahal) is just as

moral as promoting muscle-powered transport (the pedicab business

challenge of a week or two ago). Now I hear the Taj Mahal hasn't been

profitable anyway for Trump--but my point is that some people will engage

in unprincipled businesses, and some people will patronize them, but that

doesn't make them worthy of respect.

After writing the above, I went to the Fortune site, with appreciation to

Rodney for providing the link (below). Here's part of what it says about

how Wal-Mart's #1 status was determined: " Peers rate it higher on

employee talent, long-term investment value and globalness this year,

though it's slipped a bit on the social responsibility scales. "

My point exactly. Let's encourage people to rise above admiring (and

rewarding!) employee talent, investment value, and globalness--where those

qualities are intertwined with social irresponsibility.

Lynn

P.S. I see IBM is on Fortune's " admired " list, and I'll mention something

that happened around 1980. An IBM saleswoman lied to me about policy

regarding upgrading a key item of equipment, and I relied on her word in

making my initial purchase. Subsequently, IBM refused to make good on the

matter, pricing the upgrade far above my budget. I limped along for three

years with wholly unsatisfactory equipment, and finally the IBM lie was

the major factor in my decision to close my first business operation. So

I'd say IBM ranks low on the ethics scale, too. For a long time I

reported this story to everyone who'd listen, and I've always thought my

getting the word out might have had a little to do with IBM's long slump.

----- Original Message -----

From: " Rodney " <perspect1111@...>

< >

Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 10:37 AM

Subject: [ ] Wal-Mart

> " Wal-Mart Tops FORTUNE's List of America's Most Admired Companies

>

> February 23, 2004

>

> FORTUNE announced today that Wal-Mart is No. 1 on the magazine's

> annual list of America's Most Admired Companies. Despite a year of

> bad press and lagging stock price, " the 10,000 executives, directors,

> and analysts whom FORTUNE polled in late 2003 weren't deterred: They

> have named the retailing juggernaut America's Most Admired Company

> for the second year in a row, " writes FORTUNE senior reporter Ann

> Harrington.

>

> FORTUNE's " America's Most Admired Companies " issue hits newsstands

> March 1 and will be available at www.fortune.com Monday, February 23.

> In addition to the list, the Most Admired package contains two

> stories: Andy Serwer's look at Southwest Airlines, " The Hottest Thing

> in the Sky, " and Jerry Useem's essay on Wal-Mart, " Should We Admire

> Wal-Mart? "

>

> In addition, the 2004 Top Ten list includes IBM - which rejoins at

> the No. 10 spot after a 17-year absence. " Stock performance isn't the

> only reason, " FORTUNE reports. " CEO Sam Palmisano credits his

> predecessor Lou Gerstner, who led the company's turnaround, as well

> as Big Blue's refusal to 'hunker down' during the recession. " IBM

> knocks Procter & Gamble off the list, which had ranked No. 10 on the

> 2003 list. Technology now accounts for three out of the Top Ten

> companies.

>

> Following Wal-Mart on the top list are Berkshire Hathaway (No. 2);

> Southwest Airlines (No. 3); General Electric (No. 4); Dell (No. 5);

> Microsoft (No. 6); & (No. 7); Starbucks (No. 8);

> FedEx (No. 9); and IBM (No. 10). In addition to ranking the Top Ten

> Most Admired Companies, FORTUNE also ranks companies by industry. " If

> last year set a low-water mark for corporate admiration, the results

> of our latest survey of thousands of businesspeople may signal a

> rebound, " reports FORTUNE. " Companies' median scores rose 5% over the

> previous year. Three firms roared up the rankings: Xerox zoomed from

> No. 9 to No. 3 in computers; Mc's super-sized from No. 7 to No.

> 2 in food services; Washington Mutual vaulted to first place in

> mortgage services. And Calpine took its share of heat in the energy

> industry meltdown, but it tops that embattled group this year. "

>

> The less fortunate, reports Harrington, include Freddie Mac and Tenet

> Healthcare, whose accounting troubles and federal investigations led

> to lower rankings; Oracle, which fell from No. 2 to No. 7 in the

> Computer Software category as it struggled to take over PeopleSoft;

> and Anadarko Petroleum, which plunged from No. 2 to No. 9 in the

> Mining-Crude Oil Production category due to slow growth.

>

> To arrive at the industry category rankings, the Hay Group, a

> management-consulting firm, took the ten largest companies by revenue

> in 64 industries, including foreign firms with large U.S. operations.

> Then it asked 10,000 executives, directors, and securities analysts

> to rate the companies in their own industries according to eight

> criteria, using a scale of one to ten. The Top Ten list is the result

> of another poll which asked respondents to select the ten companies

> they admire most in any industry, choosing from a list of

> corporations that ranked in the top 25% overall last year, plus any

> that finished in the top 20% of their category. Because insiders may

> grade differently from the business world as a whole, high scorers on

> the industry lists don't always make the overall top ten. "

>

> Rodney.

[Guest guest]

Hi Lynn:

No less than 10,000 people who are the country's leading experts in

their respective highly successful businesses who know a very great

deal about what they are talking about, admire Wal-Mart the most.

I wonder how your qualifications, for assessing how good a job a

company is doing, compare with those 10,000. Ever run a business

yourself? Have any success? If you haven't you should try it

sometime and become acquainted with the real world, in my opinion.

You will learn a lot.

No company can be successful in business without providing customers

with exactly what they want at a price better than the overwhelming

majority of the competition, while keeping all their costs to the

absolute minimum. No company can remain in business (as you would

very quickly find out if you were to try it) by paying excessive

amounts either for the goods they need to buy, or to employees, or to

their shareholders or for anything else.

For your information (you can check their financial statements) for

every $100 of goods Wal-Mart sells it has costs of $96.50. Its

profit margins are so slim (as are the profit margins of very nearly

all major, that is successful, corporations) that if it allowed its

costs for ANYTHING to rise by much it would either have to raise its

prices (and consumers, that is ALL OF US, would suffer) or go out of

business.

If Wal-Mart's total costs were 3 1/2 percent higher than they are the

company would no longer be making a profit and would not survive for

long. THAT is the reason it is imperative to keep costs to a

minimum. And that is a benefit to all of us in the economy as a

whole, because any company that has excessive costs is wasting

(strictly limited) resources that could otherwise be more

productively used (and should be) to raise our living standards by

producing other goods and services that people need, instead of being

wasted.

As for Wal-Mart's employees ....... There is a labour market, where

we are all free to apply for whatever we think is the best job with

the best employer. No one is ever forced to work for any company.

Those working for Wal-Mart are doing so because it is the very best

job they can find for the time they are working there. If they had

found a better job ANYWHERE else they would be working at that other

place instead of Wal-Mart. If they find something better in the

future no one is preventing them from moving. Many of the people I

see working for Wal-Mart would have a tough time finding a job most

places. Often because of age. Either at the high end of the age

range or the lower end.

As for your ranting about profits and investors, why not check the

facts first? (When all else fails, look at the facts?) If tomorrow

Wal-Mart were to immediately stop all payments to shareholders and

reduce the prices of the goods on the shelves by exactly the

equivalent amount, YOU WOULD NOT EVEN NOTICE THE DIFFERENCE. An item

previously selling for $8.55 would drop to $8.51. (Again, you really

do need to take a look at their financial statements. And a lot of

other companies too. If you did you would find you would be less

enthusiastic about sharing your supposed knowledge of these economic

issues with others).

But if you are absolutely determined to ignore the facts, and believe

that everyone is being ripped off by Wal-Mart, then quit ranting and

GO BUY THE STOCK AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS RIP OFF YOU ARE SO SURE

IS GOING ON - YOU CAN BE PART OF IT. The symbol is WMT and any stock

brokerage can buy it for you. Then you, yourself, will be able to

take advantage of these huge benefits you think investors are reaping

from being part owners of the company. But be warned, you are going

to be disappointed by the amount of the payouts you get as a

shareholder, because all successful companies know they cannot afford

to make excessive payments anywhere if they are to remain successful,

indeed even remain in business.

Of course the other alternative that you definitely should consider

is to emigrate to a country whose economic principles fit in better

with yours than the country in which you currently reside. Such as

Albania prior to five years ago, or Mainland China under Mao, or the

Soviet Union (which was 'so successful' that the best paid

professionals in the country, doctors, could only be paid $3000 a

year because the economy was so 'efficient' that was all they could

afford to pay them - everyone else except the politicians earned

less); or North Korea (north Korea was in the exact same boat as

South Korea on 1945, ever notice that in the north, the half with a

non-market economic system, hundreds of thousands have recently been

dying of starvation, and the rest are dirt poor?). South Korea, run

under a free market system is hugely more prosperous than the North.

Or East Germany? East and West were both equally prosperous in 1939,

but one half, the west, was run under a free market system thereafter

and the other wasn't. East Germany as you likely know remains a

basket case years after West Germany has been trying to turn it

around. That is what just 50 years of a non-market economy can do to

you.

Try one of these for yourself and see if you still have the same

views after five or ten years of enjoying the fruits of a non-market

economic system - the kind you seem to favor.

Rodney.

PS: The same as above regarding jobs applies, of course, to the jobs

of the people in foreign countries that you believe are being

exploited by Wal-Mart. If they were not happy to have the job, or if

they could find a more attractive job anywhere elsewhere they would

not be working producing products for Wal-Mart, would they? The

wages paid, benefits if any, and working conditions have to be

competitive. And that is what they should be. If they weren't

competitive they wouldn't have any workers. What is happening in

China is that Wal-Mart and many other companies are all, indirectly,

having the effect of helping drag up the living standards of a few

million workers who have been suppressed by a non-market economic

system for millennia. It is going to be a very long slow process,

but it helps people in China get jobs they otherwise would not have,

and raises living standards here by providing goods at much better

prices than before, so that the savings can be used for other

purposes.

Incidentlly, before you start saying they are taking jobs away from

americans, go check the data (when all else fails) the unemployment

rate at the end of the most recent recession was as LOW as you ever

see at a recession low point - a little above 6%. And the

unemployment rate has declined sharply since June 2003 - from 6.3% to

5.6%. Four percent is pretty much as low as it ever goes. For

comparison, it was 9% and 11% after the recessions of 1974 and 1982.

More data due out tomorrow morning.

Rodney.

--- In , " Lynn " <dayrain@e...>

wrote:

> Rodney reports (see below) that " Wal-Mart Tops FORTUNE's List of

America's

> Most Admired Companies. "

>

> Admired by whom?

>

> Answer: by " the 10,000 executives, directors, and analysts whom

FORTUNE

> polled in late 2003. "

>

> Probably those 10,000 people are highly invested in belief in the

> supremacy of profitability--i.e., they're probably people who think

it's

> admirable to create high earnings for managers and investors even

when

> doing so creates abysmal earnings and conditions for employees and

> communities, and even when doing so deprives many people of ability

to

> afford healthful diets.

>

> It's somewhat the same mindset as thinking Trump is

admirable for

> running a business (Trump Taj Mahal) that encourages people to

gamble

> money. On Trump's " The Apprentice " TV show, the contestants throw

> themselves rather wholeheartedly into each new business challenge,

as if

> promoting gambling (this week's challenge at the Taj Mahal) is just

as

> moral as promoting muscle-powered transport (the pedicab business

> challenge of a week or two ago). Now I hear the Taj Mahal hasn't

been

> profitable anyway for Trump--but my point is that some people will

engage

> in unprincipled businesses, and some people will patronize them,

but that

> doesn't make them worthy of respect.

>

> After writing the above, I went to the Fortune site, with

appreciation to

> Rodney for providing the link (below). Here's part of what it says

about

> how Wal-Mart's #1 status was determined: " Peers rate it higher on

> employee talent, long-term investment value and globalness this

year,

> though it's slipped a bit on the social responsibility scales. "

>

> My point exactly. Let's encourage people to rise above admiring

(and

> rewarding!) employee talent, investment value, and globalness--

where those

> qualities are intertwined with social irresponsibility.

>

> Lynn

>

> P.S. I see IBM is on Fortune's " admired " list, and I'll mention

something

> that happened around 1980. An IBM saleswoman lied to me about

policy

> regarding upgrading a key item of equipment, and I relied on her

word in

> making my initial purchase. Subsequently, IBM refused to make good

on the

> matter, pricing the upgrade far above my budget. I limped along

for three

> years with wholly unsatisfactory equipment, and finally the IBM lie

was

> the major factor in my decision to close my first business

operation. So

> I'd say IBM ranks low on the ethics scale, too. For a long time I

> reported this story to everyone who'd listen, and I've always

thought my

> getting the word out might have had a little to do with IBM's long

slump.

>

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...>

> < >

> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 10:37 AM

> Subject: [ ] Wal-Mart

>

>

> > " Wal-Mart Tops FORTUNE's List of America's Most Admired Companies

> >

> > February 23, 2004

> >

> > FORTUNE announced today that Wal-Mart is No. 1 on the magazine's

> > annual list of America's Most Admired Companies. Despite a year

of

> > bad press and lagging stock price, " the 10,000 executives,

directors,

> > and analysts whom FORTUNE polled in late 2003 weren't deterred:

They

> > have named the retailing juggernaut America's Most Admired Company

> > for the second year in a row, " writes FORTUNE senior reporter Ann

> > Harrington.

> >

> > FORTUNE's " America's Most Admired Companies " issue hits newsstands

> > March 1 and will be available at www.fortune.com Monday, February

23.

> > In addition to the list, the Most Admired package contains two

> > stories: Andy Serwer's look at Southwest Airlines, " The Hottest

Thing

> > in the Sky, " and Jerry Useem's essay on Wal-Mart, " Should We

Admire

> > Wal-Mart? "

> >

> > In addition, the 2004 Top Ten list includes IBM - which rejoins at

> > the No. 10 spot after a 17-year absence. " Stock performance isn't

the

> > only reason, " FORTUNE reports. " CEO Sam Palmisano credits his

> > predecessor Lou Gerstner, who led the company's turnaround, as

well

> > as Big Blue's refusal to 'hunker down' during the recession. " IBM

> > knocks Procter & Gamble off the list, which had ranked No. 10 on

the

> > 2003 list. Technology now accounts for three out of the Top Ten

> > companies.

> >

> > Following Wal-Mart on the top list are Berkshire Hathaway (No. 2);

> > Southwest Airlines (No. 3); General Electric (No. 4); Dell (No.

5);

> > Microsoft (No. 6); & (No. 7); Starbucks (No. 8);

> > FedEx (No. 9); and IBM (No. 10). In addition to ranking the Top

Ten

> > Most Admired Companies, FORTUNE also ranks companies by

industry. " If

> > last year set a low-water mark for corporate admiration, the

results

> > of our latest survey of thousands of businesspeople may signal a

> > rebound, " reports FORTUNE. " Companies' median scores rose 5% over

the

> > previous year. Three firms roared up the rankings: Xerox zoomed

from

> > No. 9 to No. 3 in computers; Mc's super-sized from No. 7 to

No.

> > 2 in food services; Washington Mutual vaulted to first place in

> > mortgage services. And Calpine took its share of heat in the

energy

> > industry meltdown, but it tops that embattled group this year. "

> >

> > The less fortunate, reports Harrington, include Freddie Mac and

Tenet

> > Healthcare, whose accounting troubles and federal investigations

led

> > to lower rankings; Oracle, which fell from No. 2 to No. 7 in the

> > Computer Software category as it struggled to take over

PeopleSoft;

> > and Anadarko Petroleum, which plunged from No. 2 to No. 9 in the

> > Mining-Crude Oil Production category due to slow growth.

> >

> > To arrive at the industry category rankings, the Hay Group, a

> > management-consulting firm, took the ten largest companies by

revenue

> > in 64 industries, including foreign firms with large U.S.

operations.

> > Then it asked 10,000 executives, directors, and securities

analysts

> > to rate the companies in their own industries according to eight

> > criteria, using a scale of one to ten. The Top Ten list is the

result

> > of another poll which asked respondents to select the ten

companies

> > they admire most in any industry, choosing from a list of

> > corporations that ranked in the top 25% overall last year, plus

any

> > that finished in the top 20% of their category. Because insiders

may

> > grade differently from the business world as a whole, high

scorers on

> > the industry lists don't always make the overall top ten. "

> >

> > Rodney.

[Guest guest]

Although I was thinking I'd posted quite enough times in this set of

threads, I see Rodney has posted as if speaking directly to me, so I

suppose I need to reply. My comments are inline.

Rodney wrote:

Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 12:58 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Wal-Mart (and IBM)

>

> Hi Lynn:

>

> No less than 10,000 people who are the country's leading experts in

> their respective highly successful businesses who know a very great

> deal about what they are talking about, admire Wal-Mart the most.

It seems that although they're expert regarding profitability, they're not

particularly interested in ethics. And/or maybe the ranking process is

skewed; maybe a company only gets a small number of points for decency in

dealing and operating.

> I wonder how your qualifications, for assessing how good a job a

> company is doing, compare with those 10,000. Ever run a business

> yourself? Have any success? If you haven't you should try it

> sometime and become acquainted with the real world, in my opinion.

> You will learn a lot.

I am running a business (supplement sales, with most of my customers drawn

from the CR community), and I agree that business is difficult. And I can

sure see how businesspersons could be tempted to cut corners. For

example, if I were simply to refrain from telling people that R(+)-lipoic

acid should be kept from overheating, some people would never know, and I

could receive and ship goods in the middle of summer without any concern

for refrigeration, and save lots of money and time.

Many business difficulties, I'd say, are exacerbated by those who support

unethical competitors. To mention an example from fiction, Scarlett

O'Hara lessened her costs by working convicts, and thereby no doubt made

things much harder for her more-principled competitors.

> No company can be successful in business without providing customers

> with exactly what they want at a price better than the overwhelming

> majority of the competition, while keeping all their costs to the

> absolute minimum. No company can remain in business (as you would

> very quickly find out if you were to try it) by paying excessive

> amounts either for the goods they need to buy, or to employees, or to

> their shareholders or for anything else.

Upton Sinclair's 1906 book /The Jungle/

(http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Literature/Sinclair/TheJungle/) set forth

information, lightly disguised as fiction, about abuses and low wages in

the meatpacking industry of the day. The book so aroused the nation (the

U.S.) that some improvements were demanded and made--yet the meatpacking

industry has survived.

And if more people refuse to patronize companies that practice

unconscionable cost-cutting, more of the pressure to cut costs beyond

reason is lifted from other companies.

> For your information (you can check their financial statements) for

> every $100 of goods Wal-Mart sells it has costs of $96.50. Its

> profit margins are so slim (as are the profit margins of very nearly

> all major, that is successful, corporations) that if it allowed its

> costs for ANYTHING to rise by much it would either have to raise its

> prices (and consumers, that is ALL OF US, would suffer) or go out of

> business.

I'd say all of us demean and coarsen ourselves when we align ourselves

with wrongful behavior, and I'd say being demeaned and coarsened is

another form of suffering. And I can't see there's any need for

middle-class people to seek out Wal-Mart for its prices. Middle-class

folks can purchase one fewer item here and there and still have a

sufficiency. Middle-class folks more concerned with ethics than with

superficialities can stretch their budgets by doing some of their

purchasing at thrift shops--*much* less expensive than Wal-Mart, and

without the moral downside. Middle-class folks can search out low-cost

alternatives to various commercial products.

I'll concede that the very poor often don't have the ability to select for

ethical behavior--and I'd say that's a big reason why it's wrong for

workers to be paid less than a living wage.

> If Wal-Mart's total costs were 3 1/2 percent higher than they are the

> company would no longer be making a profit and would not survive for

> long. THAT is the reason it is imperative to keep costs to a

> minimum. And that is a benefit to all of us in the economy as a

> whole, because any company that has excessive costs is wasting

> (strictly limited) resources that could otherwise be more

> productively used (and should be) to raise our living standards by

> producing other goods and services that people need, instead of being

> wasted.

I see humans as richly-faceted, as much more than just soulless consumers

of goods and services. I see us as capable of response to conscience and

to matters of justice and mercy.

If Wal-Mart's total costs were 3 1/2 percent higher, the company could

simply raise prices by the same percentage, and thus bring its prices

closer to those of other companies.

> As for Wal-Mart's employees ....... There is a labour market, where

> we are all free to apply for whatever we think is the best job with

> the best employer. No one is ever forced to work for any company.

This is an argument that's often made by people who've always enjoyed

middle-class status and haven't been closely involved with people doing

less well. It's hard to break through that comparatively privileged

mentality to describe the poverty of choice that many others face, or to

convey an understanding of the way that many live always on the precipice

of disaster, with crippling fatigue and stress as constant companions, or

to show how an event that a middle-class person would perceive as a small

setback can precipitate a crisis when one's resources are overly slender,

or the way that one can lurch, willy-nilly, from crisis to crisis.

> Those working for Wal-Mart are doing so because it is the very best

> job they can find for the time they are working there. If they had

> found a better job ANYWHERE else they would be working at that other

> place instead of Wal-Mart. If they find something better in the

> future no one is preventing them from moving.

If a move to another location is required, scarcity of resources can

definitely prevent someone from taking advantage of the opportunity. If

travel to a new job requires one to take two or three buses across town

morning and evening, then travel time becomes overwhelming; one arrives

home at day's end exhausted, without sufficient time for family or

community or self-re-creation. Exhaustion and overstress, and the poor

nutrition caused by poverty, and the lack of medical care which so many

working poor suffer, and the dysfunction these problems engender within a

family, can also disable one from finding time and energy for searching

for a better situation. Again, these are truths that are often

incomprehensible to the middle class.

Sometimes middle-class folk point to examples of those who've risen above

poverty, and say, " See! It can be done! " Well, in a few instances, by

people especially able or especially lucky, it can be done. The rule,

though, is that many are mired in poverty.

Sinclair's /The Jungle/ does a good job of showing how even a strong

family with a strong work ethic and starting with good health can be

beaten down by unethical business behavior. And of course some people

don't have strong families, and some people have special physical or

emotional difficulties.

> Many of the people I

> see working for Wal-Mart would have a tough time finding a job most

> places. Often because of age. Either at the high end of the age

> range or the lower end.

I can't see that we're justified in supporting a business that pressures

its managers to take steps like forcing the young and the old to work

extra " off-the-clock " unpaid hours.

> As for your ranting about profits and investors, why not check the

> facts first? (When all else fails, look at the facts?) If tomorrow

> Wal-Mart were to immediately stop all payments to shareholders and

> reduce the prices of the goods on the shelves by exactly the

> equivalent amount, YOU WOULD NOT EVEN NOTICE THE DIFFERENCE. An item

> previously selling for $8.55 would drop to $8.51. (Again, you really

> do need to take a look at their financial statements. And a lot of

> other companies too. If you did you would find you would be less

> enthusiastic about sharing your supposed knowledge of these economic

> issues with others).

But if Wal-Mart were to stop all the practices that I've mentioned as

harmful to people, communities, and environment, the store's prices would

rise greatly.

> But if you are absolutely determined to ignore the facts, and believe

> that everyone is being ripped off by Wal-Mart, then quit ranting and

> GO BUY THE STOCK AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS RIP OFF YOU ARE SO SURE

> IS GOING ON - YOU CAN BE PART OF IT. The symbol is WMT and any stock

> brokerage can buy it for you. Then you, yourself, will be able to

> take advantage of these huge benefits you think investors are reaping

> from being part owners of the company. But be warned, you are going

> to be disappointed by the amount of the payouts you get as a

> shareholder, because all successful companies know they cannot afford

> to make excessive payments anywhere if they are to remain successful,

> indeed even remain in business.

I hadn't previously said this quite so baldly, but I consider Wal-Mart

stock ownership to be an immoral act, and as long as I have choices I

wouldn't commit such as act.

> Of course the other alternative that you definitely should consider

> is to emigrate to a country whose economic principles fit in better

> with yours than the country in which you currently reside. Such as

> Albania prior to five years ago, or Mainland China under Mao, or the

> Soviet Union (which was 'so successful' that the best paid

> professionals in the country, doctors, could only be paid $3000 a

> year because the economy was so 'efficient' that was all they could

> afford to pay them - everyone else except the politicians earned

> less); or North Korea (north Korea was in the exact same boat as

> South Korea on 1945, ever notice that in the north, the half with a

> non-market economic system, hundreds of thousands have recently been

> dying of starvation, and the rest are dirt poor?). South Korea, run

> under a free market system is hugely more prosperous than the North.

> Or East Germany? East and West were both equally prosperous in 1939,

> but one half, the west, was run under a free market system thereafter

> and the other wasn't. East Germany as you likely know remains a

> basket case years after West Germany has been trying to turn it

> around. That is what just 50 years of a non-market economy can do to

> you.

>

> Try one of these for yourself and see if you still have the same

> views after five or ten years of enjoying the fruits of a non-market

> economic system - the kind you seem to favor.

>

> Rodney.

I'd favor systems like those of some native American peoples before

Europeans came here and altered the continent. Those people didn't have

much science, and would never have known the data behind CR, but there

were great benefits to their ways of life. However, such a system doesn't

seem to be an option for our time.

Communism seems to have failed to realize its promises, except for small

groups.

There's nothing inherent in market economies that says it's necessary or

advisable for consumers and investors to be uninformed about ethical

matters or to ignore ethical matters in making their choices.

> PS: The same as above regarding jobs applies, of course, to the jobs

> of the people in foreign countries that you believe are being

> exploited by Wal-Mart. If they were not happy to have the job, or if

> they could find a more attractive job anywhere elsewhere they would

> not be working producing products for Wal-Mart, would they? The

> wages paid, benefits if any, and working conditions have to be

> competitive. And that is what they should be. If they weren't

> competitive they wouldn't have any workers.

Again, Sinclair's /The Jungle/ is pertinent. It shows how low wages and

poor working conditions, although " competitive " for a given area, can be

abusive and morally untenable.

> What is happening in

> China is that Wal-Mart and many other companies are all, indirectly,

> having the effect of helping drag up the living standards of a few

> million workers who have been suppressed by a non-market economic

> system for millennia. It is going to be a very long slow process,

> but it helps people in China get jobs they otherwise would not have,

> and raises living standards here by providing goods at much better

> prices than before, so that the savings can be used for other

> purposes.

And along the way it causes major and probably irreversible damage to the

environment in China. Has your living standard been raised if you have

more money but you develop cancer because of exposure to toxins?

During the U.S. presidential campaign this year I've heard advocacy of the

position that trade agreements should be altered to incorporate

requirements ensuring human rights, worker rights, and environmental

rights. This may be a good tack for helping some nations rise without

plunging masses in other nations into poverty.

> Incidentlly, before you start saying they are taking jobs away from

> americans, go check the data (when all else fails) the unemployment

> rate at the end of the most recent recession was as LOW as you ever

> see at a recession low point - a little above 6%. And the

> unemployment rate has declined sharply since June 2003 - from 6.3% to

> 5.6%. Four percent is pretty much as low as it ever goes. For

> comparison, it was 9% and 11% after the recessions of 1974 and 1982.

> More data due out tomorrow morning.

>

> Rodney.

I'm not well informed on unemployment rates. I've heard that the U.S. has

more discouraged workers now--people who've given up the search and thus

aren't counted as unemployed--than in the past, but as I say, I don't

really know. I could call a friend who works at the (U.S.) Bureau of

Labor Statistics for help in improving this paragraph, but I'm out of time

for working on this post.

Lynn

[Guest guest]

Perhaps we could resolve this by realizing that whatever good or bad they do, you and I and everyone else can do nothing about it.

My congressmen do not work for me.

When I encounter things I do not thing are good (and there are many more important thigns than this), now I say if God didn't want it that way, it wouldn't be.

Regards.