<div>Jeff et. al.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Mr. Holmquist's comments I do not think were meant to be a literal precise academic quantitative analysis. With a phrase like "every nook and cranny from Moscow Mountain to Paradise Ridge and beyond..." the reader should be able to understand this is hyperbole to make a point, and is not meant literally.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Also, the Chinese Communist Party is a small group of people in China who rule that country with methods that violate human rights. When you write "I do not accept the notion that it is appropriate for a small group of people to impose or define the standards of living or quality of life for me or anyone else." and then continue with gushing optimism about the wonderful developments capitalism is bringing China, without mention of China's human rights violations, the denial of free speech and political organizing, the kangaroo courts imposing the death penalty, the gulags holding dissidents in horrible conditions, the repression of religious freedom, and the ethical implications of US corporations conforming to or assisting in these human rights violations, I wonder how consistently you are applying your ideology, your set of ethical rules, given the apparent internal contradictions.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I won't labor the ethical problems with Wal-Mart's overseas operations, given that they have already been presented on Vision2020, but consider a different view of the "progress" US Internet related corporations are making in helping China to "democratize" on the Internet An argument can be made that US corporations are assisting in keeping China a dictatorship, that in fact the labor pool that US corporations exploit in China is being kept under control (think what might happen to this stable compliant labor pool if a democratic freedom movement swept over China?) with censorship and propaganda that in effect renders US corporations in compliance with Chinese totalitarian tactics. Even pro-business US politicians think these corporations need regulating regarding the ethical violations they are committing in China:
</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2042473,00.html">http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2042473,00.html</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="305" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="305" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top">
<h1>Internet firms accused of 'evil' pact with China to hand over dissidents</h1><span class="byline">By Tim Reid</span><br>
<h3>Congressmen allege that web companies turn a blind eye to censorship and torture for market share</h3></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr>
<tr>
<td height="5"><img height="5" alt="" src="http://images.thetimes.co.uk/images/trans.gif" width="1" border="0"></td></tr>
<tr>
<td>
<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="305" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top">
<div class="textcopy">SOME of America's most-powerful internet companies, including Google and Yahoo, were accused yesterday by a US congressional committee of a "sickening and evil" collaboration with the Chinese Government and of being complicit in the jailing and torture of dissidents.
</div></td></tr></tbody></table>
<p>-------------------------------</p>
<p>Read more about the issue of US corporate compliance with Chinese totalitarian censorship, human rights abuses, and jailing of dissidents:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.amnestyusa.org/business/testimony.html">http://www.amnestyusa.org/business/testimony.html</a></p>
<p>-------------------------</p>
<p>Ted Moffett</p></td></tr></tbody></table></div>
<div><br><br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 3/7/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Jeff Harkins</b> <<a href="mailto:jeffh@moscow.com">jeffh@moscow.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div style="DIRECTION: ltr"><b>Melynda, <br><br>Thanks for the comments - I appreciate your interest in the dialogue.<br><br></b>For the third time, let me reiterate the initial argument. In a letter to the editor, Antone Holmquist stated that:
<br><br>
<blockquote cite="http://" type="cite"><b><i>Some local economists have trumpeted the economic mantra of "consumer<br>choice" and bemoan Moscow's 1 percent annual growth.<br><br>Basic mathematics, however, reveals that a 1 percent annual growth in Moscow
<br>would certainly fill every nook and cranny from Moscow Mountain to Paradise<br>Ridge and beyond within an average lifetime and such growth is just frankly<br>unsustainable worldwide.</i></b></blockquote><br>His math was flawed and his conclusions were therefore flawed.
<br><br>My response was:<br><br>Basic mathematics implies a result quite different from the conclusion reached by Mr. Holmquist. According to the Moscow Chamber of Commerce, the population demographics for Latah County and Moscow are:
<br><br><b>Population Growth<br><br></b> City County<br>1980 16,513 28,749<br>1990 18,422 31,314<br>1995 20,555 33,050<br>1998 21,500 32,051
<br>2000 21,291 34,935<br>2005 21,700 35,218<br><br>The average annual growth rate for Moscow is .7%<br>The average annual growth rate for Latah is .6%<br><br>If we were fortunate enough to grow by 1% for the next 100 years, the population for the City and the County would be:
<br><br>City 58,695<br>County 95,258<br><br>If we use the historical growth rate of .7% and .6%, our population in <b>100 years</b> would be:<br><br>City 43,592<br>County 64,056 <br> <br>It just seems irresponsible to argue that if our population doubles in the next 100 years, that we are doomed here. The fact is, if we maintain our current growth rate, we are faced with the
<b><i>challenge </i></b>of finding homes for about 350 folks (say about 150 families) each year for the foreseeable future. Of course, about a third of those would presumably settle in the rural towns of the County. Some are arguing that finding homes for about 100 or so families each year in Moscow is "too much" growth?
<br><br><b>As to "quality of life", I am comfortable with my expressed view on that:<br><br></b>Quality of life is a <i>qualitative assessment</i> - and only measurable at the individual personal utility level. It is virtually impossible to compare, in any meaningful way, the utility of one person's "quality of life" with that of another person (
e.g., I am always happier than you!). <br><br><b>I agree with you that a perplexing part of the dialogue is the divide between the quantitative and the qualitative. But I do not agree that methodology is our chasm - but ideology. I do not accept the notion that it is appropriate for a small group of people to impose or define the standards of living and quality of life for me or anyone else. Just as this approach has always failed to achieve an optimal much less a satisficing state, it shall continue to fail.
<br><br>Rather than feed a hungry person once, I would rather teach them to feed themselves. When I observe the economic system in action, I never cease to be amazed at how effective it is. In just two decades, capitalism is transforming the Chinese culture. If you look at the "standard of living" in China just 20 years ago and compare it to today, you will find a remarkable change. I see it every day when I work face to face with young Chinese students in classes at UI. And, while several companies and politicians can take responsibility for bringing capitalism to China, WalMart has been a leader - maybe they haven't done as much as you would like or the way you would have done it, but the fact is, they have been a leader. And through their persuasive techniques with suppliers it is important to recognize that they have improved the working conditions for the Chinese employee. And given what the Chinese studying here in the US are taking from us and introducing in their country, they stand to be a formidable competitor.
<br><br>As to ethics, were you aware of the ethical standards program that WalMart adopted? If not, here is a brief description<br><br></b>Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. has always been a values-based, ethically led company. The values guiding our decisions and leadership are the 3 basic beliefs established by our founder, Sam Walton, in 1962:
<ol>
<li>Respect for the Individual
<li>Service to the Customer
<li>Strive for Excellence </li></li></li></ol><br>Mission Statement<br>The mission of the Global Ethics Office is to promote Wal-Mart's ethical culture globally. The Global Ethics Office was established on June 1, 2004. On June 4, 2004 Wal-Mart released a revised Global Statement of Ethics to communicate our ethical standards to all Wal-Mart facilities and stakeholders. The Global Ethics Office provides guidance in making ethical decisions based on the Global Statement of Ethics and a process for anonymous reporting of suspected ethics violation by calling the
<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://walmartstores.com/GlobalWMStoresWeb/navigate.do?catg=11" target="_blank">Ethics Helpline.</a> <br><br>Global Ethical Principles<br>Wal-Mart's Guiding Ethical Principles were added to the revised Global Statement of Ethics on June 4, 2004. These principles are designed to assist our Associates and Suppliers with making the right decision and doing the right thing.
<ol>
<li>Follow the law at all times
<li>Be honest and fair
<li>Never manipulate, misrepresent, abuse or conceal information
<li>Avoid conflicts of interest between work and personal affairs
<li>Never discriminate against anyone
<li>Never act unethically even if someone else instructs you to do so
<li>Never ask someone to act unethically
<li>Seek assistance if you have questions about the Statement of Ethics or if you face an ethical dilemma
<li>Cooperate with any investigation of a possible ethics violation
<li>Report ethics violations or suspected violations </li></li></li></li></li></li></li></li></li></li></ol><b>Granted, this "global policy" is a relatively new version, built from their earlier ethics program. And it will be interesting to see how it plays out over time. It is being imposed on all suppliers. Of course, the skeptical will simply argue that WM is just creating a false front. That may be true, but if it turns out to be a spurious effort, I have every confidence that such effort will be exposed.
<br><br>Again, thanks for the thoughtful response.<br><br><br><br></b></div><br>_____________________________________________________<br> List services made available by First Step Internet,<br> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<br> <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.fsr.net/" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br> mailto:<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">
Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ<br><br><br></blockquote></div><br>