Davos Newbies Home
December 7th, 2004
The most revelatory article I’ve read recently is Simon Head’s New York Review of Books essay on Wal-Mart. He looks at the scandal of Wal-Mart’s treatment of women and its low-paid workers in general, and the fascism (my word, not his) of its corporate culture. A taste of the beast:
| The corporation insists on an elaborate aptitude test for new employees that is intended to weed out troublemakers. When Barbara Ehrenreich took the test at the Minneapolis Wal-Mart, she was told that she had given a wrong answer when she agreed “strongly” with the proposition that “rules have to be followed to the letter at all times.” The only acceptable answer for Wal-Mart was “very strongly.” Similarly, the only correct answer to the proposition “there is room in every corporation for a non-conformist” was: “totally disagree.” |
Whatever happened to the new-model, enlightened corporation? The reason Head’s essay is so important is that I pretty much agree with Tom Peters’s recent assertion that the two most important factors in the business world today are the two Bs: Beijing and Bentonville (where Wal-Mart has its headquarters). There may be far greater similarities between the two Bs than anyone previously expected.
I met yesterday with a friend who has been consistently insightful over the years about a host of global issues. We talked a bit about China, where she’s been doing a lot of work.
“Look at places like Jiangsu province,” she advised. Apparently most of the boom in Shanghai is state-owned enterprises. Jiangsu is one of the few places where true private enterprise dominates. At the moment most of the businesses are still operating on day-to-day wits and decisions, but sophistication and capital is growing.
And since these private enterprises have fewer state obligations, they are looking hungrily at opportunities outside China. There’s apparently already some Chinese offshoring to Cambodia and Vietnam, and my friend is certain that the entrepreneurs have no intention of stuffing their hard-earned yuan in one of China’s insolvent banks.
Thomas PM Barnett has a different take on Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate in 2008:
| Every time I make even the slightest noise in the direction of Hillary, boy do I get emails from the right, and they’re all the same: “She’s got too many negatives and too many people hate her!” |
| My reply is always the same: So does Bush, and he does just fine. |
He goes further: “Frankly, she’s the closest thing to Margaret Thatcher we’ll ever see anytime soon. That’s why she’ll be formidable.”
I’m not so sure about his assessment of Hillary. I’ve seen her on a platform several times and although she certainly has star power, I don’t think she comes across that well to an audience. Unlike with her husband, there’s a certain detachment, a lack of connection, for me at least.
But I think Barnett is right that Democrats should seek out the best candidate, not the one likely to offend the fewest people.
The Boston Globe reports on this extraordinary plan for Fallujah: “Under the plans, troops would funnel Fallujans to so-called citizen processing centers on the outskirts of the city to compile a database of their identities through DNA testing and retina scans. Residents would receive badges displaying their home addresses that they must wear at all times. Buses would ferry them into the city, where cars, the deadliest tool of suicide bombers, would be banned” (Via John Robb).
It’s hard to imagine a worse dystopia.