What do you think?

As police face off against WTO protesters, we'd like to know what you think. Please e-mail us at wto@seattletimes.com with comments or stories about this week's events.

Recent Seattle Times stories...

Posted at 08:15 a.m. PST; Wednesday, December 1, 1999

WTO in Seattle
Police say they were caught off guard by size of protest

http://www.seattletimes.com/news/local/html98/cops_19991201.html

Posted at 08:33 a.m. PST; Wednesday, December 1, 1999

WTO in Seattle
Shaken city bans protesters; arrests begin as marchers enter area

http://www.seattletimes.com/news/local/html98/prot_19991201.html

Posted at 09:40 a.m. PST; Wednesday, December 1, 1999

WTO in Seattle
WTO delegates try to forge ahead

http://www.seattletimes.com/news/local/html98/wtoo_19991201.html

Summary page: WTO story links...

http://www.seattletimes.com/wto/

Posted at 07:09 a.m. PST; Wednesday, December 1, 1999

WTO in Seattle
What people are saying

A collection of comments from people - residents, store owners, elected officials, trade delegates - about the turn of events surrounding the World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle yesterday:

http://www.seattletimes.com/news/local/html98/medi_19991201.html

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), December 01, 1999

Answers

Diane,

Hello and thanks for the links! I've just sent my e-mail. Hope it's published.

-- Deb M. (vmcclell@columbus.rr.com), December 01, 1999.

I sent them the names and exact locations of now four stores starting to show hyperinflation and urged them, while people were so distracted with protests, to race and out purchase what they personally need.

-- Paula (chowbabe@pacbell.net), December 01, 1999.

Regarding Paula...

Hyperinflation is going into hyperdrive. I also have been tracking prices on everything in our area from Aspirin to Zinc tablets. I have been buying popcorn all year. It has jumped in price by 25% since last February. While popcorn is a very cheap commodity, it still reflects a rise over and beyond "normal" inflationary markups.

I have tracked dozens of other prices on consumables, the popcorn was just one example. Other items that have risen in purchase cost have been canned meats, peanut butter, and canned fruits.

Prices that have stayed at or below inflationary markups have been on many canned vegetables, dry packed noodles, and toilet paper.

-- Phil Handel (Buyit@whileU.can), December 01, 1999.

For Crying out loud, Paula, make yourself a web page devoted to "hyperinflation" and spend your time there. How many times do you have to say the same thing? Why not keep quiet until you have something actually salient to post?

You have now fallen into the same category as Al-D, except you can type and formulate complete sentances better.

Sheesh!

-- (sick of chowbabe Paula@yuk.yuk), December 01, 1999.

BTW... Celia,

You ought to send in a copy of your comments to the Seattle Times.

Diane

See thread...

OT: Seattle's Wild Day (Long)

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001tse

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), December 01, 1999.

Please bear with me, as I have not followed this story very closely.

Why on earth would someone protest free trade? There must be something here that I'm missing. Can someone answer this in a paragraph or two?

Unless of course they're protesting that there's not enough free trade.

-- eve (123@4567.com), December 01, 1999.

eve;

The WTO is attemting to formulate a world without tarriffs or barriers to trade, similar to NAFTA but on a global basis. Labor leaders protest because that gives foreign producers that don't meet western labor rates and OSHA rules an alledged advantage on pricing. Environmentalist protest because foreign producers do not meet our environmental laws. And some just protest.

I do believe Seattle was surprised at the magnitude and the beligerency of the riot.

-- Bill P (porterwn@one.net), December 01, 1999.

>Why on earth would someone protest free trade? There must be >something here that > I'm missing. Can someone answer this in a paragraph or two?

The three best books to read on why your job/lifestyle is at risk (unless you are an ultracapitalist with a true net worth (after factoring out mortgages etc) of $10,000,000 or more are:

(1) One World, Ready or not: the Manic Logic of Global Capitalism, by Greider, and

(2) The Judas Economy: the Tirumph of Capital and the Betrayal of Work, by Wolman.

(3) Future of Capitalism, by LC Thurow.

Basically, with the fall of global communism, capital now flows where it will, with 14 yr old Indonesian girls making Pentium chips for Americans, and collapsing economies at the click of a mouse. From my vantage as a MD x 21 yrs, it forces companies and employees to chose managed cost plans (excuse me, managed care plans), and is why a person sees "mid-level practitioners" in the office (instead of MDs) and "patient care technicians" in the hospital (instead of RNs).

IF you are on the wrong side of the capital equation (net worth greater than $10,000,000 and preferably $100,000,000), your future is the following: your salary will be cut as the years go by (even those of "elite workers") assuming your position is not eliminated by "reengineering" and "mergers", you and your spouse must take third jobs, all the while as your mortgage and credit card debt increase and hope that the stock market continues its dizzying rise so that you can sell near the top when it's time to retire.

How does this apply to possible Y2K disruptions? If capital cannot flow quickly and reliably during 1Q00 and 2Q00 because of Herstatt risks ("turd in the Y2K punchbowl") and transportation disruptions, then all bets are off for the global division of labor.

-- Nelson Isada (isada@alaska.net), December 01, 1999.

Eve,

Hello. It's basically about a large group of huge corporations coming together to force governments to follow this groups' needs. It would circumvent our duly-elected government and strip away our rights. If you think legislative lobbying is bad, this will be far, far worse.

The individuals' rights and countries laws could be struck down (by the WTO) because it "inhibits free trade". (An example of this is the ban over non-dolphin safe tuna. The WTO had the ban lifted since it "restricted trade".) Since WHEN does corporational rights over- rule personal rights or laws passed by duly elected officials? NEVER!

Some try to hide the WTO under "It'll help the 3rd world countries...". This is far from the case - it certainly won't help the poor. The companies are in business to make a PROFIT, not give assistance. The way to make a profit is to keep expenses (pay to workers) low and sell high. Meaning, keep the workers' saleries low and sell the product to high-end economies.

Doesn't sound like it's a good deal for anyone except large corporations. It is TRUE tyranny! Y2K is NOTHING compared to this threat!

-- Deb M. (vmcclell@columbus.rr.com), December 01, 1999.

Eve

This was posted on an earlier thread a day or two ago; the specific examples help people to understand precisely what is being protested.

Grist Magazine

(for educational purposes only)

The Battle in Seattle~~~

by Donella H. Meadows~~~ 11.29.99

Last month The Economist ran a frustrated editorial wondering why environmental groups would picket the upcoming World Trade Organization (WTO) meeting in Seattle. The headline read "Why Greens Should Love Trade."

Actually greens see no particular reason either to love or hate trade. They don't share the religious beliefs of economists, who love trade as indiscriminately as they love growth.

Greens are inclined to ask questions. What is being traded? For whose benefit? At whose expense? What are the full costs to workers, local communities, nature? When those questions are answered, some trade looks lovable, and some we would be better off without.

What enviros, along with human rights advocates, labor organizations, and many other citizen groups, emphatically do not love is the World Trade Organization. That's because they've had four years now to watch it work. Here are some examples of what they've seen:

The European Union banned its own farmers from injecting meat animals with hormones (which make animals bulk up faster, but are suspected of causing cancer and hormone disruption) and forbade the import of hormone-treated meats. The U.S. and Canada, whose feedlots are riddled with hormones, challenged this ban in the WTO. The WTO ordered the Europeans to drop the import ban or suffer retaliatory tariffs. The U.S. has chosen to impose those tariffs on cheeses, mustards, wines, and other profitable European exports -- that's why angry French farmers are smashing their tractors into McDonald's restaurants.

The U.S. Endangered Species Act requires shrimp trawlers to install turtle exclusion devices in their nets, so they will not catch and drown endangered sea turtles. To protect its shrimpers from cheaper imports caught without turtle protectors, the U.S. forbids shrimp imports from countries that do not have a similar law. India, Malaysia, Pakistan, and Thailand challenged that ban in the WTO, which ruled that the U.S. measure violates free trade rules.

When the EPA decreed that gasoline sold in the U.S. had to be formulated in a way that reduces air pollution, Venezuela and Brazil sued and won under the WTO. The EPA weakened its standards.

Japan had stricter limits on pesticide residues in agricultural products than did other countries. The U.S. challenged Japan in the WTO and won, forcing Japanese consumers to ingest more pesticides than their own government considers safe.

Guatemala passed a law recommended by the World Health Organization forbidding makers of baby formula to claim that expensive formula (rather than free mother's milk) is necessary for fat, healthy babies. Gerber Products convinced the U.S. to challenge that law in the WTO. The WTO didn't even have to decide; the threat of a trade challenge caused Guatemala to drop its law.

The citizens of Massachusetts, upset by the brutal human rights abuses of the military rulers of Burma, passed a law forbidding their state government from doing business with any contractor that does business with Burma. Some of the affected companies persuaded Europe and Japan to challenge this boycott in the WTO. The case is still pending; meanwhile the Clinton Administration uses it as an argument to dissuade other states from similar sanctions.

The WTO is not the only free-trade body that works to weaken environmental and human rights laws. Under NAFTA (the trade agreement linking the U.S., Canada, and Mexico), the Ethyl Corporation forced Canada to withdraw its ban on Ethyl's new gasoline additive MMT, which is suspected to cause brain damage.

The Metalclad Corporation is suing a Mexican state for shutting down one of its hazardous plants. A Vancouver corporation is suing the state of California for banning yet another gasoline additive (MTBE), which has polluted the state's groundwater.

The rationale for decisions like these is that no nation should have the power through trade sanctions to reach into any other nation and dictate its laws. The U.S. shouldn't force other nations to protect turtles. Europeans shouldn't forbid U.S. feedlots from using hormones. What the free-traders are astonishingly slow at perceiving is that the WTO does allow violations of sovereignty and self-determination, but only in one direction -- toward weakening social and environmental protections. Other nations can pressure the U.S. not to protect turtles. The U.S. can punish Europeans for not wanting meat laced with hormones. A U.S. company can strike down a Canadian health law. Corporations can lean on a U.S. state's commitment to human rights.

The Economist, in trying to fathom why greens don't love free trade, expressed perfectly, if inadvertently, the problem at the foundation of free trade fanaticism. "Protecting the environment," it grudgingly admitted, "is as legitimate a goal as free trade."

No. Not even close. Breath and life and health are infinitely more legitimate goals than corporate expansion. Human freedom and dignity can't be valued on the same scale as stock portfolios. Making deals, shipping stuff, globalizing the economy is a sometimes useful, often destructive preoccupation of a small, self-important minority of the human race. The environment is our life support system. There is just no comparison.

Thinking there is, thinking that trade is an end, not a means, not even thinking about what the ends might be, that is the fatal lunacy of the WTO. Sane people will be standing outside the Seattle meeting, protesting.

(end of article)

For Canadians, our ordeal began with the signing of NAFTA. Those of us who bothered to read the agreement before we voted on it were not pleased with what we saw had been bargained away. For example, word got out that water rights were part of the bargain, and we knew that spelled trouble in the years ahead. At election time, over half of us cast ballots against the trade deal that had been negotiated, but the quirks of democracy meant that the government that obtained power went ahead with the deal anyway.

Most likely not reported in international press is news that Alberta has seen protests in the past week in Kananaskis country where our provincial "environment" ministers have been meeting to discuss giving away water rights. Needless to say, the issue is still up in the air.

The WTO is worse in that citizens of various countries have not even been given the right to vote on it. As the examples above show, if people within a country have worked and lobbied for years to gain some right to protect health, jobs, environment, food, whatever, the WTO can remove and has removed that democratically achieved right in a moment, with no recourse for the country's citizens. Even if people in a democratic country eventually remove from office the politicians who have caused the loss, the decision is not likely to be reversed.

Maude Barlow, if you're reading this, POWER TO YOU! d'aquino, this board's rules do not allow me to print what I'd like to say in your direction.

And I don't belong to any organized group, political party, or corporation.

-- Rachel Gibson (rgibson@hotmail.com), December 01, 1999.

You know in the USA historically, if our country makes a treaty and then later we do not like it then we just break it.

Whomever has "the power to make a treaty" can decide to break one and do it. Laws are changed all the time. Nothing is set in stone and even if it were the fact of life is stone can be crushed and ground to cement to make mud.

NOW that you SEE what NAFTA is --- then why don't you just vote to break the treaty and cut the horns off the bull that is ripping holes in the fabric of the rights of The People?

Sometimes the hidden has to be shown for what it is- before the people will believe or accept it for what it is and see the danger.

Now the people are starting to see.

Dehorn and slay the bull.

Obo

-- Obo (susanwater@excite.com), December 01, 1999.

.....These were agents profocatuer to discredit the protestations of those that are knowledgable about the evil behind the WTO. Where were all of the protestors back in '94 when Clinton called a lame-duck session of Congress back to the district of criminals in late December to pass this 23,000 page monstrosity that not one Congresscritter took the time to read?! The vote went through with the diminished numbers of members present, (many of whom had already been voted out of office), and we had Gatt shoved down the throats of the American people, inspite of 80% of those polled opposing it.

.....This also created the WTO and allowed our trade policy to be de facto initiated from Geneva, Switzerland via secret tribunal that makes decisions in private with NO APPEAL!!!

.....Too many of our citizens sat watching Roseanne or idiotic sports to care that their sovereignty had just been stolen, (bread and circuses?), or do they even know what sovereignty is? The chickens of America's political inactivity are now coming home to roost.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), December 01, 1999.

What does it say about our society that this meeting generates violent protest, and Y2k generates no protest whatsoever?!

-- Steve (hartsman@ticon.net), December 01, 1999.

To all:

Thank you for some interesting responses. I don't have the time to comment on the legitimacy of your many concerns. All I would ask is that we also recognize and appreciate all the benefits that we get from the big companies, such as millions of jobs, and essential products that have enriched and prolonged our lives, such as food, medicine, and shelter.

-- eve (123@4567.com), December 02, 1999.

While I worked long and hard on social issues in my youth and wrote letters to political representatives condemning NAFTA in later years, and while I am afraid of what Monsanto and others are doing in the area of genetically-modified foods and seek to educate people on the issue, I do not think the answer to these and related problems lies in ruining small business owners and their employees and the property of innocent people in Seattle. Please, those of you who think the end justifies the means, look at the agenda of just one of the many groups involved in the WTO protests, the League of Revolutionaries for a New America.

http://www.lrna.org/texts/global/wto1.html

". . . While fighting every individual move of our enemy to increase its power, we should also tell the world that the problem can only be solved by abolishing the system itself. Today, for the first time in history, the conditions exist for bringing this abolition about. The new electronic technology makes a world of plenty possible, a society without hunger or backbreaking labor, a life where the talents of people can be used to satisfy the material, intellectual, spiritual and cultural needs of all. The League of Revolutionaries for a New America seeks to join with all who want to carry far and wide this message of hope for humanity. The fight to expose the WTO is one part of the fight to abolish the property relations which the WTO protects, the fight to create a new world where production is organized according to need."

This statement echoes very ominously of the old Soviet bloc philosophy--the political system which, for the most part, mired its citizens in ignorance and misery, denying any semblance of free speech, and made possible a Chernobyl. Ironically, I heard little from the so-called protestors about the inequalities of world trade, only that free speech was denied them in Seattle! This is not to say that the present Western system is faultless; absolutely not. The present system is responsible for a Bhopal, for instance. It just needs to be made clear that there is a happy medium somewhere between the two extremes.

Back to the League of Revolutionaries for a New America. About its newspaper, the League says:

"The People's Tribune/Tribuno del Pueblo is published by the League of Revolutionaries for a New America (LRNA) in Chicago. As an organization, LRNA educates and fights for the transfer of economic and political power into the hands of the people to build a democratic, cooperative, communal society."

Please, those of you working to improve the current system, be very careful about associating yourselves with those who espouse what looks very much like a Marxist-Leninist agenda. Their vision will NOT bring the people of underdeveloped countries to a standard of living approaching what you have, it will render YOUR standard of living closer to that of, say, the average Chinese peasant. Of course, the leaders, as always, will live in sumptuous housing and enjoy privileges not afforded to ordinary workers like you and me.

The two protests, the one in London and the one in Seattle, were very carefully orchestrated via the Internet. Confrontation with the police was an inevitable part of both plans. Such confrontation creates martyrs to the cause and seduces staunch support. It's a classic ploy, used for centuries to draw people to embrace a cause. I imagine there were a few who were greatly disappointed that none of the small cadre of rabble-rousers was badly injured--dripping blood and loss of consciousness is always good for a few more converts.

I'm too old and tired to fight much these days but I urge you to do what I did when I was young and strong--work within your neighborhood to find and elect decent human beings to office. It CAN be done, it WAS done back in the late sixties-early seventies. These people we got elected were the ones who passed anti-pollution laws, who instituted tax credits for solar and other energy-saving devices, who got Detroit to build smaller cars, and so on. But look at today--vehicles are once more obese, the energy credits are gone, pollution laws have been circumvented.

What happened? Good question. I'll let the social scientists answer that. But if you want to make a genuine difference in quality of life anywhere, start in your own backyard. Fight to keep your small farmers and manufacturers via tax breaks and credits from your local government. Fight for clean water and air. Strongly support politicians who work for your goals. Mount civilized protests, like the ones that led to Kathy Lee and others combatting grossly unfair labor practices. And get used to paying more for clothes, shoes, food, gas, and other items so cheap and plentiful today.

It's easy to go to Seattle and sit on the ground for a few days, then wear your arrest record like the legendary red badge of courage. It's even easier to smash windows and set dumpsters on fire. It's not so easy to make a long-term commitment to grass-roots change.

I regret to say I am experiencing another wearying downturn in health; a periodic occurrence and somewhat routine. I do not have the wherewithal to persuade you any further and hope you will forgive my lack of response. I hesitated to make this post at all, but I have grown fond of many of you and wanted to offer any benefit you might gain from my experience when similar problems faced the world twenty-five to thirty years ago. Above all, note that I do not say that the current system is perfect, or that peaceful protest is wrong, or that all groups involved in Seattle are Marxist-Leninist; just that you might look more closely into the motives of some of the groups involved in the Seattle affair and understand how easy it is to spook deliberately a young police officer who is incredibly outnumbered, in one case 300 to one.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), December 02, 1999.

Eve,

Please understand that "big" companies are only alive, profitable and doing these things for you because "the little" American person goes to his/her job to work each day and to do what is needed in running the company so that these products get to you. You would have none of these things if it were "only" the CEO's and board of directors and VP's in these companies, they do not "produce" anything. They only talk, play golf, stand at each others office door talking about sports, women or their recent vacations and occasionally make some decisons (MOST IF NOT ALL DECISIONS ARE ABLE TO BE MADE BY THE AVERAGE GUYS RUNNING THE COMPANY IF THE DECISION MAKING POWER WERE TO BE TRANSFERED TO THEM).

The CEO's, board of directors and VP's have profited using the labor of Americans and now they want to use that very same profit in a war ---against us--- and give our jobs to others in the world by tranfering our jobs to those who are almost slave labor; who work for less and have less benefits due to the bad economy of their countries. The corporations have unsafe and very poor working conditions in those countries because there is no one there looking out for the "little" average guy.

The "little" Amercian "is" organized so has more power and is fighting to save their job in a company ----they--- helped build and make prosper; they have every right to do such.

-- Obo (susanwater@excite.com), December 02, 1999.

I swore I wasn't going to get into this, but OG's response encouraged me, as I also shared her beliefs in my youth. SOME things WERE changed by our peaceful protests, and peaceful did NOT include blocking intersections with human chains (in violation of law.)

There ARE better ways. Deb, I don't think that bans on tuna are desirable. If you like dolphins (as I do), you only purchase the brands that advertise that flipper was NOT endangered in the techniques used. If you want manufacturing to stay in your own country, you purchase goods MADE in your own country. My mom was quite a stickler for only buying "Made in the U.S.A." products, and she never had a dime to spare.

My point is that consumers have encouraged the large corporations to establish manufacturing plants overseas by demanding less expensive goods, while some unions have ensured that U.S. workers received wages FAR beyond the ability of U.S. firms to make any profit at all. EVERYONE wanted the best buck and the best bang for their buck, and everyone lost something in the process.

OG: Hope you'll be feeling better soon.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.com), December 02, 1999.

Old Git,

Please feel better.

The WTO situation is like a cloudy diamond with multiple facets.

Observe closely and some might start to clear up... a bit.

What I also observe is 99% of the protesters were peaceful, but that doesn't make "headline news." A responsible TV newsmedia would get at the "real" story, rather than put most the attention on a *few* with violent and disruptive agendas.

I truly lament the demise of investigative journalism.

And... there is still much to change within our common world, without boarders (at least when viewed from the moon's perspective).

The turning point... for "change"... may well begin in 29 days.

Balance... in all things.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), December 02, 1999.

Old Git

First let me voice my concern for your health and my hope that the downturn is temporary and bearable.

As one who has also worked, researched and written long and hard on social issues, I choose to respond to your contribution with all due respect and in the spirit of cooperation. That said, while I realize we all speak from our individual set of assumptions and personal convictions, I believe it would be wise to try to avoid widespread labeling of attitudes that writers to this forum are expressing.

You said: "...I do not think the answer to these and related problems lies in ruining small business owners and their employees and the property of innocent people in Seattle." I fully agree. However, most of what I have read about the situation seems to confirm that the damage was done by a few and that the overwhelming majority were not damaging property. In addition, some of the damage was aimed at Nike, Starbuck's, and Macdonald's, which I understand do not fall into the category of "small business." I also believe that one way those who oppose WTO behaviour can act in their personal lives is to support small business and to refuse to buy from the corporations involved in the behaviours deemed to be personally unacceptable. As an aside to that comment, Schumacher's "Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered" is one resource that helps to explain how personal goals may be accomplished.

Several times on this forum I have seen people express their concern about products manufactured in other countries. In many cases, people are under no obligation to buy these products. Recently a large potato manufacturer in Canada announced it would no longer use GM potatoes to make its product. Just one example of consumer power being put into action.

In regards to the League of Revolutionaries for a New America, you may be very correct in your assessment of this group. However, I do not believe that espousal of causes necessarily entails support of every individual or group involved in that cause; in other words, I do not believe that a cause should be abandoned just because someone undesirable shows up to support it. Happens all the time; that's life. In fact, it happens right here on this forum. My personal views are diametrically opposed to many of the views spouted here; that does not mean I should abandon the belief that y2k is a serious concern. It means I personally agree to disagree and to continue to search for the common ground and for the information that seems validated, important, and helpful to understanding what the effects of incomplete remediation/testing may be.

"Please, those of you working to improve the current system, be very careful about associating yourselves with those who espouse what looks very much like a Marxist-Leninist agenda." Sigh. This makes the assumption that no one contributing to this board supports a left-wing agenda or that, if they do, they are totally wrong in their personal beliefs. Again, it is the labeling and slotting that concerns me. Each political view has shades and variances within that view. Personal. Acceptable. Haven't we seen that often enough when dealing with the term "doomsdayer?"

"The two protests, the one in London and the one in Seattle, were very carefully orchestrated via the Internet." Maybe so. Does that in itself make it wrong, bad, unacceptable? Could the same not be said of this forum?

"I'm too old and tired to fight much these days but I urge you to do what I did when I was young and strong--work within your neighborhood to find and elect decent human beings to office." Again, I could not agree more! The great benefits of living in a democracy. However, with regards to WTO, not all of the member countries are democracies. Then, many arguments have already been made with regards to various topics on this forum about just how difficult it is to get accurate information out and appropriate actions taken even within a democracy.

In the two largest democracies in North America, first and foremost it is very difficult to get at the truth. And, if such a thing is actually available, it is then very difficult to get the general populace to first notice it and, then, to act on it (e.g. through their vote). The recent Oprah show is merely one example of the powerful forces working against dissemination of accurate information.

"But if you want to make a genuine difference in quality of life anywhere, start in your own backyard." Again, I couldn't agree more. However, the assumption implicit in such a statement is that those who are currently protesting/demonstrating are not living by it. This may be far from the truth. We simply do not know.

Dear Old Git, I know you have contributed immensely to the efforts on and goals of this forum, for which I have much admiration and respect, and I really have tried to couch my criticism as softly as possible so as not to be seen as confrontational. However, I want to stress that we each operate from within our own frame of reference, and that each frame of reference is different and often does not fall within a specific slot. Thank you for all you have done.

And your warning against extremists is well-taken. :)

-- Rachel Gibson (rgibson@hotmail.com), December 02, 1999.

Obo,

Thanks for your response. I disagree with some things, but I respect the way you tried to get your points across in a civil manner.

First, please read the post by Anita, below yours. I think it brings up some excellent points.

Regarding your comments on CEOs and the little guys: Your comment on what CEOs are like really has no basis, in general; I think you've adopted a caricature. I'm sure there probably are some CEOs that are just like the description you gave, and others are nothing like it. Most probably occupy a wide range in between.

What we do know is that many of these companies somehow seem to thrive, and that in most cases they were started by entrepreneurial geniuses that, for the reasons I gave in my last post, at the very least deserve every penny of their billions, and to spend it, keep it, or give it away in any way they please.

These companies thrive because people have to THINK to get them to continue to thrive; people in lower, middle and upper management who know how to run organizations, together with experts (e.g., engineers). Yes, the little guy is certainly important, but, like it or not, physical labor is less critical because it can be replaced more easily. I know it's hard to hear this, but it's a simple fact. And there is no way I can accept for a minute that the great majority of individuals on the assembly line could, either individually or as a group, run GM. How can you possibly buy this line?

And what about the union demands for more money? Do you realize that due to labor budgets, more money for current labor many times translates into less new hiring? Why is that never discussed? What about the guy who can't even get into the company in the first place because a current worker is paid more than the company can afford? I have never heard a union person, or other liberals, even care to get into this point. Hmmm...I wonder why? And how do the unions reconcile this issue with the issues of the unemployed and homeless? Perhaps they don't care to know if there's a tie-in...

I have much, much more to say here, but so little time...

Thanks for listening,

-- eve (123@4567.com), December 02, 1999.

Eve,

Maybe you support the belief that the common worker is somehow less intelligent. Many large companies have this policy and say in so many ways to their employees "leave your brains at the door" or "we do not trust you to make good decisons".

These middle and lower class workers for the most part are very intelligent people who manage to make very good decisions in the rest of their lives, raising children, running churches, supporting and coaching budgeting little league, budgeting their finances, buying equipment for their homes, getting estimates for repairs, make proposals for their side work etc. Yet companies think they are dumb??? Why??

Why people think just because a person who works mostly with their hands for their dollars to support their family is somehow less intelligent than the ones who wear white shirts and ties is truly beyond me. I have worked in both areas in several companies during my 45 years and really actually have found the intelligence level to be about the same no matter what color your shirt. :-) In fact as great many blue collars who work with their hands are above many white shirts because they not only can think, they can produce what their brains have conceived; truly can not say the same with many white collars.

There is proof all over where the employees have bought out the company and are making profits left and right. Things are changing and if the world survives Y2K in a couple of decades you will see mostly employee owned companies or companies where the CEO's realize the value of THE employees so rightfully yield what is truly theirs to them.

I do not agree that just because a person started a business they have a "right" to "give" the money to whom they please. People who work for a company are not "given" money they ----earn---- it. THERE is NO CEO who has caused all the profits to his company unless he is the sole employee. Everyone who works in a company through the years contributes to the profit or losses of the company and they all have "ownership" in the company due to their efforts in building the company. I do support entrepreneur's and in fact twice have been one myself but had no employees so did not have to share the profits.

It is my belief that a person who starts a business deserves to regain their original investment, plus 4% then they are on equal footing with everyone else who works for the company except they may have more authority in hiring, firing and goal setting in a company that is not TEAM run; they are truly just devoting their time to the profits of the company like everyone else.

Yes my caricature of the CEO and VP's is just that to get a point across. There are some who work, but if you check into most large and some even small companies they do not put forth the same amount of time as the common worker. Yes their work is a different type and it does have value but it is vastly overrated and over paid in most large corporations. There is NO one who"s value is worth millions when the average worker in the company only get $10.00 to $15.00 per hour and most cases no profit sharing. All should share in the profits. The common man certainly does share in the loss by losing his work if the company loses then he should in the same vein share in the profits.

Check out employee owned and "true" TEAM run companies they might surprise you. (Just a note- most companies who say they are TEAM companies are no such thing as all the power and decisions are still coming from the top. That type would be an old fashion hierarchy company who has PR saying they are TEAM but really they just mean they want people to work together and not bicker between departments)

One further note.-- In my opinion today there is a gray area between blue and white collars due to the information age technologies. Many of the office workers today are new era blue collar workers who actually just dress like white collars. These gray shirts think and produce.. They may produce letters & memos, some programs for computers, some mass create graphics or websites, some keying massive amounts of orders to ship inventory from distribution centers, so they are in a new era creation/production environment these are some of the gray areas today. Regretfully, these workers are not organized so do not have much power in the job world. The white collars I am speaking about in most of my post are the CEO's and VP's and some upper managers, most middle managers have become workers.

As for the homeless- there are many reasons for homelessness too many for discussion here.

-- Obo (susanwater@excite.com), December 02, 1999.

Obo,

You do have some pretty interesting ideas, although philosophically we're still fairly far apart.

I would like to respond on one very important point that you seem to misunderstand: In no way do I even think that the average worker on the line is any less intelligent than the average person in management. I would have no basis on which to make such a statement. I don't even know how you could have gotten that from my post, but I apologize if I left that impression. The point is not how smart they are, but how the company values what they do for it, which are two entirely different things. Further, I've known many highly intelligent people who stayed at a lower level because that's what they were happy doing. And in a way I respect those folks even more than I would many of the higher-ups, because they were independent thinkers who had no need to "follow the crowd" up the ladder.

Obo, you are very opinionated, and we differ quite a bit, but I respect you for what you try to stand up for. Good luck in accomplishing your goals, and thanks for talking with me.

-- eve (123@4567.com), December 02, 1999.

Obo,

Since I don't agree with you on many points, I should change one sentence in my last post, which I didn't think through well before I posted it:

When I said, "I respect you for what you try to stand up for," I meant to say, "I respect you for standing up and speaking out for what you believe in."

Take care, Obo.

-- eve (123@4567.com), December 03, 1999.