Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Wal-Mart Defender To Direct Obama's Economic Policy
Appointment of Jason Furman Immediately Meets With Skepticism
Just days after clinching the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Obama is naming as his economic policy director an economist who has clashed with critics of Wal-Mart by defending the company as a boon to poor Americans.
The appointment of Jason Furman, 37, a former Clinton administration official who is a visiting scholar at New York University, immediately met with skepticism from some who have faulted Wal-Mart for being stingy toward its workforce.
"It's surprising because this guy seems to feel that Wal-Mart's low-wage, low-benefit business model is good for America. That's just flat-out wrong," the executive director of Wal-Mart Watch, David Nassar, said. "This guy helped to lend credibility to the Wal-Mart business model. That was disappointing then and it's disappointing now given this position," said Mr. Nassar, whose group is backed by a board that includes the president of the Service Employees International Union, Andrew Stern. Mr. Nassar quickly added that he was "not critiquing the Obama campaign."
A New York-based labor organizer and writer, Jonathan Tasini, said he was puzzled by the selection of Mr. Furman. "It's legitimate to give you pause," Mr. Tasini, who ran an unsuccessful primary challenge to Senator Clinton in 2006, said. "There have been concerns raised about where Obama's economic policies will trend," the writer said.
Mr. Tasini noted that, while Mr. Obama spurned labor groups by voting for a free-trade agreement with Peru, his past suggests he would be an ally of labor. "It's hard to believe that during his community organizing work in the poorest neighborhoods of his own city he didn't have something sink into him about income inequality. There's no way to read anything he has put out there as anything but rejection for the Wal-Mart model," Mr. Tasini said.
As the company became a pariah in Democratic circles, Mr. Furman stepped out on the issue in 2005 by publishing a 16-page paper titled, "Wal-Mart: A Progressive Success Story." He argued that the huge cost savings the company has delivered to its customers, who tend to have low incomes, far outweighed any impact the chain may have had on wages.
In a debate on Slate.com in 2006, Mr. Furman took on the tactics of the anti-Wal-Mart movement, which include trying to block new stores in places like New York. "If I heard that Wal-Mart was coming to my neighborhood, New York's West Village, I might rush for my mouse. But I wouldn't kid myself into thinking that my opposition had anything to do with helping the poor. If anything, I would feel guilty that I was preventing moderate-income New Yorkers from enjoying the huge benefits that much of the rest of the country already knows so well," he wrote.
"The collateral damage from these efforts to get Wal-Mart to raise its wages and benefits is way too enormous and damaging to working people and the economy more broadly for me to sit by idly and sing 'Kum-Ba-Ya' in the interests of progressive harmony," Mr. Furman added.
A spokesman for Mr. Obama, Joshua Earnest, said the candidate and Mr. Furman have not discussed Wal-Mart.
During the primary campaign, Mr. Obama was sharply critical of the company. He has said he will not shop there and that Wal-Mart should pay "a living wage."
At a January debate, Mr. Obama seemed to play to Wal-Mart's critics when he suggested that Senator Clinton's six-year stint on the company's board paled in comparison to his record as a community organizer in Chicago. "While I was working on those streets watching those folks see their jobs shift overseas, you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart," Mr. Obama said, in one of his sharpest jabs at Mrs. Clinton.
One economist who has disputed some of Mr. Furman's findings on Wal-Mart said the disagreement shouldn't disqualify him. "That's small potatoes. Jason's economic agenda goes way beyond that," Jared Bernstein of the Economic Policy Institute said. "That's not anything close to a deal breaker."
Mr. Furman had been affiliated with the Brookings Institution as director of its Hamilton Project, an economic policy project whose advisory council includes executives of Citigroup, as well as prominent hedge fund executives such as Eric Mindich of Eton Park Capital Management, Richard Perry of Perry Capital, and Thomas Steyer of Farallon Capital.
© 2008 The New York Sun



95 Comments so far
Show AllThe Dems may as well have nominated Clinton.
jj
I hope Senator Obama RETHINKS this appointment. I also hope he gets as much information as he can re Walmart and how badly they treat their employees.
And his true colors come out
IS ALL THIS REAL?
McCain comes out early as the Republican nominee while Obama and Clinton fight for their nomination. While the Democrats are "locked in a death struggle", McCain sits backs and sees his popularity percentage creep higher and higher while paying no money at all to make it happen.
Finally, Obama gets the nomination, then turns around and praises AIPAC; losing more votes to McCain. It's to the point now where the race is going to be "close again".
I can't help thinking that all this is deliberate.
Now the swing vote will go to Nader, the Obama/Nader split will be enough to allow McCain the popular vote. This isn't Nader's fault. This is a set-up. Powers that be are playing America like a violin.
As many of you know I have been a staunch supporter of Barak Obama. We begin to see in this choice the lack of experience coming to the our attention. This man is a a pro industry economist and there are so amy that are far better who have the depth and the experience to show a new direction in economics.
But we must understand that this choice is made with the host of people that surround him, many of whom I dislike and would hope that he did not have there. This is the Democratic party after all and while we will see change it will not be of the great depth that many of us would hope.
Barak Obama should have chosen either Joseph Steiglitz or Jeffry Sachs, both humanists and and great thinkers. I will write this to Mr. obama with the hope that he will think again before this becomes the facts. I too am disappointed but I didn't think this would be a cake walk or a shoo-in of an administration.
Yes, Mr. Obama shows lacks depth in his thinking, lets let us hope the the voices of help and criticism make him think again and move to a more enlightened path of future advisers. But the USA is a business first country, lets hope he is not too swept away by the economics of the continuation of boardroom power!
How could Jared Bernstein of the labor-backed EPI apologize for this guy? Wal-Mart, the last time I looked, is the largest private employer in the U.S. and a huge economic force around the globe. It is by no means, "small potatoes."
This appears to be the begining of Obama's pay-off to Hillary to keep her off his back. The price will increase by the minute and before long, the Obama administration, will be absolutley Clintonian, even without Billary.
Very well said, ike.
jj
I still am voting for Ralph Nader. It is just like Jay Leno said "the concept of change McCain and Obama have is in the form of nickels, dimes, and quarters." Even though it was intended to be a joke, it is true.
I have been a staunch supporter of Barak Obama. We begin to see in this choice the lack of experience coming to our attention. This man is a pro industry economist and there are so many that are far better who have the depth and the experience to show a new direction in economics.
But we must understand that this choice is made with the host of people that surround him, many of whom I dislike and would hope that he did not have there. This is the Democratic Party after all and while we will see change it will not be of the great depth that many of us would hope.
Barak Obama should have chosen either Joseph Steiglitz or Jeffrey Sachs, both humanists and great thinkers. I will write this to Mr. Obama with the hope that he will think again before this becomes the facts. I too am disappointed but I didn't think this would be a cakewalk or a shoo-in of an administration.
Yes, Mr. Obama shows lacks depth in his thinking, lets let us hope the voices of help and criticism make him think again and move to a more enlightened path of future advisers. But the USA is a business first country, lets hope he is not too swept away by the economics of the continuation of boardroom power!
One man cannot do it all and it is going to take the Democratic Party to wrest power from the criminals in office and put the USA on a different footing. Yes, as we all know it is not going to be perfect. Yes, as we know there will be many mistakes. But the events that will be controlled by the environmental agenda will make the choices that must be made whether or not Barak Obama, or his advisers want it that way or not!
We all think a different kind of leadership is necessary, certainly Mr. McCain is far from the answer that can be the possibility for the next eight years. Those here will moan at some of the choices that Barak Obama makes, we cannot lose faith. He will have to feel the power of office and the changes necessary will take shape has he is changed by the office and the necessity to have the best minds not the most political minds.
At this time there are favors that must be returned! Who would have given Barak Obama the help he needed sixteen months ago when he declared for the presidency? I doubt whether Jeffrey Sachs or Joe Steiglitz would have come forward they were too important to throw their dice with this young political possibility.
No my fellow bloggers, we must all help him to the level that will be required for this new young president to make the decisions that must be made. Perhaps the few old guard thinkers like Kennedy will be around long enough in this period of crisis?
Unless Obama does a 180 when he is in the White House, he clearly has proven to be a corporate schill and AIPAC ass kisser.
Here's a summary of Furman's most recent work at the Brooking Institution's Hamilton Project. He's clearly a promoter of markets above all else and now he is Obama's chief economic advisor. Nuff said:
http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2008/06_missing_markets_furman.aspx?p=1
So, please explain here...
I'm supposed to vote for Obama because he is really lying and putting on a big act and once elected and will NOT do wahat he says he will do. In other words, we should vote for the politician who is deceitful.
Then, when he get elected, and does exactly what he said he was going to do, are we supposed to gar angry and ask Obama why he deceived us by not deceiving us?
Vonnegut (g.r.h.s.) couldn't have come up with this....
TheLorax June 10th, 2008 2:17 pm -- 'This is a set-up. Powers that be are playing America like a violin.'
Of course. Surely that comes as no surprise to you. They have pysch advivers and others who understand America far better than America understands itself.
As I said the other day, the whole notion of voting based on the absurd expectation that your candidate will, in effect, doublecross his or her paid sponsors makes about as much sense as searching for sanity in an asylum. Probably less.
It's what some of us have been saying all along... ALL of the mainstream candidates are in bed with the corporations and will put the interests of those corporations before the people EVERY time... it's not a shocker that Obama would pick a neo-liberal asshole as his economic adviser. The ONLY thing that makes me like Obama better than McCain, is that he's not a deranged old-man hot-head like McCain. Clinton on the other hand, at least was upfront about her neo-liberal agenda... Obama on the other hand, will be much more devious about it all. Until you Americans do away with both the Republican and Democratic parties, you'll still get one corporatist after another in power. Sad but true.
...I don't want to sound like a spoil sport but like the old Who song goes..."meet the new boss same as the old boss". The way our election system and perma-fucked government runs, in this country nobody who is an agent for real progressive change will ever get anywhere near the Oval Office. There was hardly any difference between Clinton and Obama anyways. That was one of the problems they had in the primaries, e.g. distinguishing themselves from each other.
Just more of the same coming your way folks....(yawn)....
If you want change you have to do it for yourself. Waiting, or hoping for progressive change from Washington? Might as well wait for Santa or the tooth fairy...what a pathetic sham it all is.
Some more of the same old Hog Hockey!
There isn't one cent's worth of difference between the demonrats and the rethuglicans, because both are controlled by the corporations. "Gotta keep the corps. alive, though!" What will it take to change the system? A revolution? A rebellion? An insurrection?
Neither Obama nor any other person in America can bring about real change right now. The System is not yet ready to fall like the old buildings you see about to be demolished. The building (system) is armed with explosives ready to be detonated, but there's no one out there yet who can push the button and then effectively clean up the mess of the collapsed building and replace it with something better.
I'm still looking for a candidate out there who satisfies my ideals and dreams. It won't be Nadar or any other person I know of out there right now. But that person is out there and s/he is no doubt reading Common Dreams and is thinking about what can be accomplished.
Happily, we progressives are willing to stand up and fight back with more than just words on websites like Common Dreams. Thank you, all!
Sunny Days and Milky Way Nights!
http://www.darkskyinitiative.org
"If I heard that Wal-Mart was coming to my neighborhood, New York's West Village, I might rush for my mouse. But I wouldn't kid myself into thinking that my opposition had anything to do with helping the poor. If anything, I would feel guilty that I was preventing moderate-income New Yorkers from enjoying the huge benefits that much of the rest of the country already knows so well," he wrote.
Yup, Furman is another rich, free market worshiping, union hating yuppie liberal just like Obama himself. The patronizing attitude in this statement is disgusting.
IS ANYONE READING THIS SURPRISED??? HOW MANY TIMES DOES ONE (DEMOCRAT) HAVE TO FALL OFF THE TURNIP TRUCK TO GET A CLUE?????
H E L L 0....... DEMOCRATS = CORPORATE PARTY
WE ALREADY KNOW THE REPUBS ARE CORPORATE...
THE TRUTH IS SOME PEOPLE JUST WOULD RATHER LIE TO THEMSELVES (BY DENILE) THAN DEFECT FROM A GROUP THAT HAS BETRAYED THEM. REALLY !!!
Well, it will be very interesting to see how Obama and McCain cooperate with one another in the coming summer of gritty and hard-hitting debates to make sure that no issues of substance are opened, and that if a genuine issue is in fact breached, then how they will conspire between the barbed lines to avoid any and all substantive discussion. This guy is a phony! and that's why he's the candidate. Maybe the two will don wrestling trunks and we'll see them in the ring on Saturday morning tv.
It will be interesting too to see his vp choice. Hillary would make a losing ticket, and Obama, phony though he is, is too smart to make that mistake. More likely, he'll pick Evander Holyfield to capture the Christian vote and tone that debacle about his Pastor Wright.
Hahahaha--" same as the old Boss!" he didn't even have to be elected yet before he's shown he's just another corporate tool and it will be bidnizz as always, whether it's AIPAC or Eye-rac.
I never would have voted for him or Billary anyway, but I think we third party voters, whether Green or Independent or Nader will have the last laugh IF--and I stress IF, The Bomber gets the nod this Fall. Sadly, I think he's gonna steal defeat from the jaws of victory and we'll get McBush by showing his true colors so early.
Did any of you that drank the 'Bama Kool Aid really think all that shit about 'change' and a new direction was more than call and response pulpit speak? No wonder we're stuck with the same 'two party'(not) crooks and liars over and over. You people just never learn.
Obama is a corporate appointee.
Democracy in the US is a sham (and it always was).
Obama has been chosen to disguise the fact that there are NO choices. Master war-maker and geopolitical chess-player Brezinski councils Obama on geopolitics... the same Brezinski who helped get Osama and the Taliban funded, supplied and established in Afghanistan.
Wake up and smell the fascism!
This is a totalitarian state and the elections are a total farce... your 'opinions' are manufactured and then sold to you by (tested and proven) trustworthy actors.
NOTHING can change until each and everyone has the courage to admit... they alone are responsible for what will be done in their own name.
As long as you are willing to be duped and controlled, those who believe themselves your superiors, will be more than willing to use and abuse you.
The ONLY way to begin is to boycott the Empire program, demand an end to violence and the infrastructures that maintain it (including surveillance policing, government by secrecy, and a commerce of inequity and exploitation)… and do something to help establish sustainable societies based upon what freedoms and limitations are dictated by natural law.
Humans have NO rights afforded them in nature
a) to kill
b) to enslave
c) to destroy habitats necessary to any or all life
Nature did not design for man a violent totalitarian state based upon total deception. Nature designed for man a cooperative state! Where is that state?
Right where you natural understanding is designed to be: http://allinharmony.org
Not surprised. Obama didn't get where he is by maintaining his integrity, he's a politician...bought and paid for.
This is, or at least should be, as expected. On the central concerns to the economic elite: economic and foreign policy, any new administration or any new party nominee invariably will appoint people who have the credentials of legitimacy within these circles. One can only hope (and insist) that Obama continues to hear from his progressive & mass constituencies.
Very disappointing.
"Barak Obama should have chosen either Joseph Steiglitz or Jeffrey Sachs, both humanists and great thinkers."
Good point IkeKay.
Seeing the writing on the wall, is it too late to do anything about it? Can the Obama supporters be converted to Nader supporters in time for November? I'm dreaming aren't I.
Just keep it up Obama, you are driving me towards voting for a third party candidate you damn sell out!
Let's just hope this is among Obama's crappier appointments.
I think I'll vote for a black woman for president.
With a "screw the working middle class and pooy guy" like this as his economic policy director, I'm thinking Obama no longer needs any more of my money...though he will still get my vote in November.
I guess Obama needed a plunder expert to keep his candidacy corporately viable.
I hate to say it, but with this revelation my heart just sunk down to my feet.
Any idiot who thinks there's a difference between Republicans and Democrats needs his/her head examined.
"THE TRUTH IS SOME PEOPLE JUST WOULD RATHER LIE TO THEMSELVES (BY DENILE) THAN DEFECT FROM A GROUP THAT HAS BETRAYED THEM. REALLY !!!"
Does that really surprise you?
"Not surprised. Obama didn't get where he is by maintaining his integrity, he's a politician…bought and paid for."
Why is this so hard for people to realize?
Are people really serious? They actually think that with such an extensive military, corporate, banking and police state structure that straddles the globe... today's power moguls are going to let Joe and Jane TV Brain decide how 'their' assets are overseen?
Folks, even the Santa Claus myth does not compare to the one you bought! Nader? Give me a break! This is NOT grammar school, this is a system run by psychopaths that tortures and kills children... for fun and profit!
And you think they aren't deciding what choices you have… and basing those upon who will best protect their interests?
You all can write, you all can read but what about think? Can anyone think?
YOU ARE NOT IN CONTROL OF ANYTHING… And, no one cares what you think or how you vote… because all possibilities have already been defined to serve your undoing… and that of most others in favor of more concentration of power and privilege for elite managers.
Change wont happen from the top-down. There's too much emphasis the this one position- an executive position- one that is suppose to just administer. This isn't a monarchy, though it seems that way at the moment. The real change will come if we stop voting for the same jerk-offs in congress. Seriously- start locally and work your way up.
itsaNaziWorldOrder, nice summation of the facts :)
This is typical of how a Democrat runs for president.
During the primaries, the candidate moves to the left. Then, with the nomination in hand, the nominee moves to the center-right.
Recall at the beginning of the primaries when Obama tried to pawn himself off as an "antiwar" candidate. Now he's retreated to the position of -- I'll defer to the generals in the field -- a position virtually the same as that of Bush and McCain.
Some antiwar candidate!
Also, do you recall several weeks ago when the Senate, Republicans and Democrats -- Obama included -- indicated that Bush could invade Iran at his discretion. The message to Bush: If you want to invade Iran, go ahead, we in the Senate won't stop you.
Now that great progressive -- the guy who is going to "change things" -- has a Wal-Mart's lover heading his economic team.
Come on, Barack Obama is the figleaf Corporate America desperately needs so as to continue "business as usual," domestically and internationally.
For a look at the *real* Barack Obama and how he'll govern if elected, see the following article -- http://www.counterpunch.org/gonzalez02292008.html
and
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/31/9327/
and ANYTHING written about Obama at
www.wsws.org
And, please, leave your wishful thinking and liberal delusions at the door.
Obama screw-up #1.
Is he no aware of the devastation to the local economies of small tonws and cities by Wal-Marts low wages and lack of benefits? Of the majority of Wal-mart employees who have to go to food shelves and have no health care benefits? Of the property tax-exemptions and sales tax rebates demanded of Small towns and cities by Wal Mart? Of the demands for ever-lower prices by suppliers, including China, which produces ever-lower product quality and sleve-and child-labor in China and other supplier countries. The Miserable story continues and it will be a cancer on Obama's campaign. Progressive and Green democrats will abstain.
This article and the postings are too depressing to face on a beautiful morning in Hawaii - So I went out and repotted some orchids and planted pineapples and Rosemary while I meditated on the choices facing us, and what if anything to do about them.
I am not a Democrat and haven't been in a long time. I am a Socialist living in a Capitalistic Fascist society. Our 'Democracy' is a facade, and even if it actually involved free elections it would still be fraudulent, as it leads only to a tyranny of the majority - which in our case is a bunch of ignorant TV addicts, who wouldn't recognize their own self-interest if it bit them on the ass as they reached for another beer and the remote...
I may vote for Obama. Not because he is my choice, but because of the Supreme Courts decision yesterday whittling away at worker's rights yet again. No matter how closely he follows the corporate line, I do think Obama's court choices would be preferable to McCain's.
OTOH. I live in Hawaii and our votes don't matter anyway...
I am reading Tad Szulc's biography of Fidel written in 1986 - A Critical Portrait of Fidel. It is critical, but also very well researched and informative, as well as engrossing.
One point that is repeated over and over in discussing the Revolution and Fidel's rise to power is that you cannot have a revolution unless the conditions for one have been created in the country, by events as well as propaganda. Assuming that is true, [and watching world events for the past 50 years, I think it probably is] we are no where near staging a successful revolt in this country - much less a Revolution which involves totally rebuilding the society and the structures within it. Of course, events are pushing us against the current of complacency within our system.
Another thing I am realizing as I study this book is that we are simply too large and too diverse to have a successful revolution. But, as events wear away the power of the Empire and the Central Government it is possible to envision successful revolts in various geographical areas. Perhaps that is what we should be working towards. Hawaii and Puerto Rico come to mind first, they both have active separatists groups working to free them from US domination.
Then there is 'Columbia' which has been a vision of many on the extreme-left-coast. Or California which is already larger then many nations. The water shortages and cultural divide between North and South could create some major changes there.
Perhaps The US Empire and Wall Mart are not "Too Big to Fail" but rather so big that they will inevitably self-destruct.
I could go on... The Mountain West has little in common with the Mid-West now that the railroads no longer link the population centers. Or the original Southern Colonies vs New England and the Middle Atlantic States.
As the climactic changes and energy crisis forces us to contract our trading centers, the reason for the gigantic federal system become secondary. Providing for our own community will become far more important then shipping off our natural resources to a bunch of strangers across the seas.
Think about it...
Barack Obama just nominated economist Jason Furman, 37, a visiting scholar at New York University and former Walmart defender, as his economic policy director.
Mr. Furman is the author of a thoughtful 2005 paper titled, "Wal-Mart: A Progressive Success Story." Mr. Furman argued in his paper that the considerable cost savings Walmart extends to its low-income customers by far outweighs the negative impacts of the chain.
During a debate in Slate.com in 2006, Mr. Furman argued: "If I heard that Wal-Mart was coming to my neighborhood (in New York).... I wouldn't kid myself into thinking that (opposing Walmart's arrival would have) anything to do with helping the poor. If anything, I would feel guilty that I was preventing moderate-income New Yorkers from enjoying the huge benefits that much of the rest of the country already knows so well."
As I wrote in this blog in 2005, I fear I'm the last lone liberal who is still shopping at Walmart. Here's my very carefully-considered rationale for shopping there:
"My liberal friends hate it that I shop Walmart. They consider Walmart a perfect symbol of the damage caused by globalization. But because Walmart offers millions of working-class shoppers real value for their last dollars, I doubt that even a successful liberal boycott could bring Walmart down. And even then, an outraged public would demand, and quickly receive, a replacement lookalike.
Globalization in its present form is a passing phase anyway, albeit a very destructive one. People hate change. Which is what globalization is, a temporary economic change. Does anyone remember AT&T? Microsoft ? (Perhaps I'm premature....) In today's world, it's only a few years before someone comes up with a better idea. Isn't that the way free trade is supposed to work? Change happens. People hate change. And while they're hating it, they whine about Walmart.
Consider the Canadian Walmart lately in the news. First, all the locals screamed because Walmart's arrival in their town pushed everybody out of their jobs. Now they're all screaming again because Walmart's departure (the store closed to stop unionization) pushed everybody out of their jobs. People hate change.
The question is not how to get rid of Walmart (though its size and profitability make it a convenient scapegoat for liberal anger.) Rather, it's how to make human life more equitable, more socially just, more humane, more environmentally sustainable. And how to empower everyday people, instead of consolidating wealth and power in the hands of CEOs and stockholders.
A walk through a Walmart isn't a walk in a parklike J. Crew or Pottery Barn. Walmart employees and shoppers are the hundred million Americans who work fulltime jobs at hourly wages in order to bring home incomes of less than $20,000 a year. You'll see the disabled, poor, uneducated, homeless, and jobless--everyday Americans--daily facing economic slavery, enduring far more struggles in a month than I meet in a year.
Let's do away with their favorite store! I don't think so.
Their desperate situation isn't the fault of Walmart. If we must assign blame, it's every American's fault. It's just too easy and too convenient to pick on Walmart. And besides, it lets the real culprits--all of us--off the hook. Walmart pays as well or better than its community competitors--why else would people work there? Walmart offers comparable health insurance and promotes from within, which not everyone does. Walmart even lets its employees unionize when that's the law (as in Germany.) It isn't Walmart's fault that America doesn't support unions. But it is our fault. It's also our fault that we haven't demanded universal health care, public transportation, less global adventurism, a responsive government....
Big corporations have many advantages, but they also have disadvantages. Walmart and McDonald's, along with every other big namebrand corporation, are magnets for litigation, protest, innuendo, rumor, and boycott. Walmart has even attracted an anti-Walmart report to Congress; what mom-and-pop store can boast that distinction? Big corporations are the ultimate prize of unions, too, which, though good for their workers, make competing with non-unionized labor at home and abroad challenging. Consider the success of China.
Walmart has a lot of very angry enemies, because its rocket growth shifted a big hunk of profits away from established local businessmen. Of course these displaced people were furious; their very livelihoods, the welfare of their families, were disastrously affected by change--which happened to arrive in the form of the Walmart steamroller. Note I said they were affected by change--not by Walmart. It should come as no surprise, nevertheless, that the injured parties were thrilled to welcome the anti-globalization liberal crowd into their let's-hate-Walmart-club.
But Walmart won't last forever, and not because of any boycott, either. Walmart saw an opening, an economic niche, an opportunity, and jumped into it with all four feet. Their phenomenal success is the rest of the story. Of course they're hated for shoving the old out with the new. People hate change.
Protest has had a great day, but that day has passed (remember change?); resistance is becoming not only futile, but outre. Being against something doesn't work that well anymore, besides making everyone tired and sad. What does work especially well in these times is being for stuff, creating new solutions, working hard collaboratively to make things happen in a hurry.
Someday soon, someone will start up a new global Walmart lookalike that is franchisable only by locals. Or someone will lift and transform Walmart from within. Or someone will think of something else that's even better and more profitable.
Someday, someone will teach us all that we live together on a very small, fragile, interconnected planet. Someone will use the internet to shift our allegiances and money away from nation-states, perhaps toward NGOs serving every interest at every level, from local to regional to international. Someone somewhere already knows what the next great political and economic organizations will be, ones that will respect and serve both people and the earth.
And when these changes come about, much weeping and rending and gnashing of teeth will again be heard in the land. People hate change.
Boycotting Walmart won't bring back the bucolic utopias of yesteryear (which never existed anyway.) It really won't. On the other hand, the first time someone offers me a shopping experience that gives me a comparable value, and even more equity, justice, and sustainability, I will absolutely jump at the chance to disloyally move my money. I just haven't been offered that opportunity yet. So come on America, get with the program.
Until then, you will find me shopping the friendly aisles of Walmart and Sam's Club, in solidarity with a motley bunch that looks a lot like America, getting the biggest bang for our shopping buck--you know, the good old American way."
Addendum in June 2008: I understand Walmart has madea considerable effort to become more green, and more responsive to and supportive of their workforce. I haven't followed the issue closely. My point is: they still offer me the best values, and still employ my town's least employable workers at locally very competitive wages and benefits. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. And let's not reject Mr. Furman out-of-hand for thinking profoundly and independently, which is exactly what we need right now.
Mr. Furman was previously with the Brookings Institution as director of its Hamilton Project, an economic policy project whose advisory council includes many distinguished executives from the business world.
(Nancy Pace blogs on breaking news at the intersection of politics, peace, war, culture, and spirituality at www.epharmony.com.)
As many Common Dreams posters I'm sure know, there are towns and cities in America that have local grassroots organizations whose sole purpose is to KEEP WALMART'S OUT! STAY OUT OF OUR COMMUNITY!
Walmart's and how they do business is a corporatiast's wet dream. They love the way Walmart's underpays their employees, busts unions and provides their employees with less than minimal employee benefits.
Walmart's is as un-American as you can get --anti-labor, anti-consumer and anti-environmental.
Walmart's actually "coaches" their employees on how to apply for welfare benefits, in lieu of Walmart's paying thier employees suitable fringe benefits.
I read a while ago, maybe a year or two ago, that the average salary for *full-time* Walmart's employees is $13,000 per year.
Quoting from the above article:
"During the primary campaign, Mr. Obama was sharply critical of the company. He has said he will not shop there and that Wal-Mart should pay 'a living wage.'"
As I mentioned in a previous post in this thread, this is, typically, how a Democrat will run for president. During the primaries he moves to the left, re. Obama saying during the primaries that he will not shop at Walmart's, and that Walmart's should pay a living wage. Then once the nomination is in had, he moves ot the center-right -- re. Obama now hires a Walmart's-defender!
Plus a change, plus c'est la meme chose. The more things change, baby, the more they stay the same.
VOTE FOR NADER or VOTE FOR MCKINNEY!
Don't be fooled *again*!
CD needs to quit attacking Obama. From the picture to the title of this article, it's clear that CD has an agenda.
Obviously there is more to this Furman guy than the idea that he is a WalMart defender, assuming that much is true, which I doubt.
CD is getting as bad as Fox. Shame on you.
His low wage, low benefit business model is not the problem. It's high wage CEO pay and extreme wealth/power concentration that can't be adressed with higher minimum wage, but only with a wealth cap.
Nancy Pace June 10th, 2008 6:27 pm -- '... getting the biggest bang for our shopping buck–you know, the good old American way'
Yup. There's no one on the planet who hasn't heard about 'the good old American way', not excluding those who would be happier not to.
The fly in your ointment is that those shopping bucks are both fewer and worth less every day as that 'good old American way' squanders them on imperial adventures while, at the same time, exporting jobs to its major creditors and suppliers of manufactured goods. Not exactly the best recipe for long term success, I wouldn't think. And, if the poor believe it's working in their interests, one might inquire how many of them are unemployed and poor as a result of that process.
I told you so.
If true, this is a major screw-up! Is he not aware of the damage Wal Mart does to the economies of small towns and cities? Of the property tax exceptions and sales tax rebates demanded by Wal Mart? Of the ever-lower prices Wal-Mart demands from suppliers, including China, promoting child and slave labor. Of the fact that a majority of Wal-Mart workers have no health care benefits, have to take advantage of food shelves and emergency rooms for health care-like other uninsured, poor workers.
Seven of the ten richest billionaires in the U.S. are are named Walton and live in Benton, ARK.
This company is the ideal example of predatory capitalism: minimum cost of labor and product (screw the social consequences), bust unions, destroy local merchandisers, fire workers old enough to qualify for a raise or benefit, drain the local economies and send their money to the overloaded bank accounts of the Waltons in Benton, ARK., Send more U.S. money to China so they can continue building up their military, shoot down satellites, develop silent submarines to attack U.S. Navy ships protecting Taiwan, manipulate their currency against the dollar, send us subsidized, dumped, toxic, defective products made with child and slave labor--increasing our huge negative trade imbalance, which lowers even further the dollar value and increases U.S. inflation (including gasoline prices). This miserable story has more chapters.
This appointment will be a cancer on the Obama campaign, and it may be lethal. I can't wait for his policy on trade deals--the one with China (and giving it favored natuion status) has been a horrible mistake. Has has made appointments associating himself with Wal Mart and Countrywide Mortgage. Disappointing.
Just sent-off an email to all of my democratic friends about Obama's choice of Furman as economic policy director. I told them I was seriously considering voting for a third-party candidate in November because "I just cannot tolerate the bullsh!t anymore"!
Obama is either playing the same "business as usual" game, or he is totally naive. My gut feeling is that he is not naive!
As far as I'm concerned, this is the straw that broke the camel's back!
Has he contacted people like Joseph Stiglitz or Paul Craig Roberts who know what the hell they're talking about?
Let's give him a chance to grow into the job. We are lucky to have an outsider. It's our last best chance.
Walmart, Blackwater and more death and destruction. A new Tony Blair. Just great! After the damage is done he'll go on a book and public speaking tour telling us that he has found God and wants peace and he was really telling a lot of lies to us.
Build him up, and then when he becomes the nominee, bring him down.
It's very interesting. Of course, Obama never was about change for the better. We all know that whomever becomes the nominee, Democrat or Republican, they have been allowed to win because they have promised their allegiance to our real rulers (BTW, Bush is meeting with the Queen, most likely to discuss arrangements for his future knighthood).
We essentially have a 1 party system. In Iran the people can vote for the President, but candidates are approved by the Ayatollahs. Same same in Amerika.
It's dawning on some of Obamas most ardent supporters that Obama might not be the great hope they thought, I have some sympathy. Hillary would likely not be much different. McCain is exactly what he appears to be. The Dems are no different, they just are better actors and pretend to be different. Both are selling this country out and serve the defacto Global Government running us in the shadows.
Someone once said that of the American people could effect change by voting, our rulers would make voting illegal. Stalin once said it's not who votes that count, but who counts the votes [and/or who finances and controls the electoral process and polls]. The act of voting does not constitute a Democracy. In a Democracy, those elected fear and listen to the people. When the people fear government, or government ignores the people, then the government can not be called Democratic.
This process will not self correct. Government will just get bigger and badder. The more they can get away with today, the more they will do tommorow. Change would not be cheap or painless. No change will be expensive and painful. Unfortunately, most people seem content to deny reality and pretend all is well. If Obama disappoints, there is 2012, and then we can have real change.
I wonder if the pack of sheep following Obama including talking heads like Flanders, Hartmann, and Hayden, still think Obama is going to bring Change We Can believe In?
What a crock of dung.
Carry on sheeple while Obama and his cronies offer MORE OF THE SAME!
Dmia, did you notice the articles here about Chavez & Bolivia? When's the last time you heard something about Chavez on Fox that was anything other than attack dog? Don't be so straight and narrow.
Read the abstract that the person above provided by Obama's new advisor. Here's an interesting quotation from his abstract, "The absence of markets to address societal risks can exacerbate these problems as well. For example, terrorist attacks, hurricanes, and other catastrophic events create major financial risks for individuals, businesses, local governments, and the economy as a whole".
After New Orleans Blackwater and private companies were involved, just as Obama's new guru advised, FEMA and the government wasn't. In the areas that Blackwater and private firms were involved it was mainly to protect the property and businesses of the rich, not to help the poor. How'd that work out for New Orleans? This isn't about this one economist. Look at Obama's economics team and tell me who amongst them represents regular working people. They all are for the status quo in economics, which have destroyed this country. People in this country want a more fundamental change than what either major candidates are offering. Some had hope that Obama would listen to the public, he's instead of going towards the "center", like every other gutless, elite Democratic come election time. The public is to the left of him now and he goes towards the center. Now THAT'S change I can count on.
I've defended Obama against some of the dishonest attacks by Clinton and the media, while stating that I saw little to show that he was going to bring about change. McCain is obviously worse but this just brings it home with Obama. Economics can make things like universal healthcare and a well funded educational system impossible. The economists around Obama want more of the same, so pay attention to the rhetoric and compare it to policy and reality. Come back after a few years and tell the people here criticizing Obama that they're wrong then.
I myself won't be an accomplice with either one. It's Nader, McKinney or nothing for me. I've pretty much lost faith in liberal democracy anyway. Even if Nader was elected, because of institutional barriers, I doubt he'd be that much better. By the way, Barr will more than make up for the left going away from Obama, so don't worry.