It’s All in the Family: Walton Family Foundation Donates to New Board Member’s Alma Mater

...but also 20% of the company’s Board of Directors.

If the Media Team really believes that all the Walton’s control is 20% of the Board, I have some ocean-front property in Kansas I’d like to sell ‘em!

Since Alex G. is too modest to link to his own stuff, I will:

Stanford should not accept Penner donation

Ken: What is of interest to me is the location of Stanford University,which is California. California is a state that has been very vocal in its resistance to WalMart -both in siting locations of potential Superstores and pushback from labor market,both in grocery store emploees and Port of Long Beach dock workers.

Published on Monday, January 26, 2004 by the San Diego Union-Tribune
Wal-Mart vs. America’s Middle Class
by James O. Goldsborough

Employers such as Wal-Mart, already under investigation for hiring illegal immigrants and other malpractices, will use amnestied workers to drive wages and benefits down still further.

The grocery business is living on the edge, and not just in California. Traditionally, grocery workers have been able to make a decent living. The wage of full-time unionized clerks averages around $15 an hour – $25,000-$30,000 annually, depending on hours worked. In addition, workers have had health care benefits.

Along comes Wal-Mart, the world’s largest business, whose revenues equal an astounding 2 percent of U.S. GDP and whose power rivals that of the great trusts of a century ago. Specifically, Wal-Mart resembles the Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, which in its heyday owned 80 percent of the supermarket business, until Washington used the trust laws to whittle it down to size. 

The WalMart chain keeps its prices low and owners rich. Last year the five Walton heirs saw their net worth increase from $94 billion to $102 billion.
In 1948, the A&P;’s abuses were flagrant enough that the government used the Robinson-Patman Act to enjoin the company from using price discrimination to drive smaller grocers out of business.

Antitrust law once saw its goal as “the organization of industry in small units that can effectively compete against each other,” as Judge Learned Hand wrote in U.S. v. Alcoa, 1945. Today, we have moved away from that view, but to where? Wal-Mart has replaced the A&P;as the grocery leviathan changing the face of whole communities. Is this right?

In economic theory, the answer is, yes. In economic theory, pure competition drives down prices and everyone benefits: consumers with lower prices, owners with greater profits, workers with higher wages.

In the real world, competition is never pure, which is why antitrust legislation was written. The risk to society was that Standard Oil, Alcoa or the A&P;would lower prices to drive competitors out of business.

And then raise prices.

Antitrust laws were one protection against rapaciousness, and organized labor was another.

Taken together, antitrust legislation and organized labor helped to modulate business practices and create the American middle class.

Where will Wal-Mart find minimum-wage workers for its new supercenters, to help lower its prices, break the unions at traditional stores and drive those stores out of business?

hat’s where Bush’s illegal immigrant amnesty comes in. Under his plan, illegal immigrants can be legalized if an employer sponsors them. Wal-Mart, already gaining national attention for its labor abuses, will be the first sponsor in line. Here are three current charges against the company:

A government investigation accuses it of employing illegal immigrants. A group of illegal immigrants is suing it for discrimination. A third case involves the company’s so-called “lock-in” policy, under which employees are locked into stores overnight, a policy that has led to several accidents.  Low prices come at a social cost vastly outweighing their benefits

Dr. David Neumark, is an economist with the Public Policy Institute of California who co-authored a paper for Wal-Mart’s self-funded academic conference in Washington, DC. Neumark dared to challenge the company on its own dime, and presented a paper that contradicts other rosy presentations. His study examined Wal-Mart’s effect on employment and earnings, and concluded that “Residents of a local labor market do indeed earn less following the opening of Wal-Mart stores.” From Neumark’s paper:

“On balance, the evidence is more consistent with the claims of Wal-Mart’s critics, although questions remain. In the retail sector, the representative Wal-Mart presence (about eight years) reduces employment by two to four percent. There is some evidence that payrolls per worker also decline, by about 3.5 percent, but this conclusion is less robust. Either way, though, retail earnings fall.”

Neumark’s research confirms widespread anecdotal evidence that Wal-Mart’s low-wage, meager benefits model drives down wages for workers everywhere.

Dr. Neumark’s paper, “The Effects of Wal-Mart on Local Labor Markets.”

Friday, November 04, 2005,WalMart Watch

As I said in an earlier post on this thread,the location of California is interesting. Even more so when one takes into account the fact that the Hoover Institute has been located on the Stanford Campus since 1919.Founded by Herbert Hoover, The Hoover Insitute is well-known for its prominent influence over national Republican policy. To wit:

Named for founder Herbert Hoover, the Hoover Institution is “a prominent center devoted to interdisciplinary scholarship and advanced research in the social sciences with an emphasis on public policy relevance. The Institution houses one of the world’s largest private archives and libraries on political, economic, and social change in the 20th century and has more that 100 researchers consisting of both resident fellows and visiting scholars from throughout the world.”

Three Primary Programmatic Themes: American Institutions and Economic Performance, Democracy Free Markets, and International Rivalries and Global Cooperation

Hoover’s approach to some of these areas is described as: “Societies based on individualism rather than classes, thus confronting the issues of race, gender, ethnicity, and so forth;” and “The appropriate scope of government’s involvement in areas such as education, health care, and the environment as it provides public services and regulates private enterprise.”

Some of Hoover’s major issues: education reform that centers around private school vouchers and charter schools, dismantling affirmative action, privatization of social services, “flat tax” and other tax reduction schemes, deregulation of industry, Reagan’s policy legacy, and “character education.” ~~~~~~~~~~~The close association between the University itself and the Institute has created tension between students who are more interested in peace than war. This institute has been referred to as Bush’s brain trust,and fosters an uber Conservative,militaristic mindset. The issues of tax reform are of definite interest to the Waltons,as they have been active in attempts to repeal the estate tax, and advance a flat tax also. Rob Walton had been a champion of charter schools,which essentilally are mini corporations,with staff and boards not beholden to government oversite,BUT would be tax exempt and receive public monies. (Gee,kinda like WalMart ). It is easy to see why Stanford was chosen for this largesse. This think tank is the ultra right wing think tank of choice for the likes of Richard Scaife (major contributor),and the Bush economic and military policies that were much of the underpinning for the present Bush Administration.

Donald Rumsfeld, the former secretary of defense who resigned in 2006 after several controversial years overseeing two wars in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, is a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution, a hawkish think take based at Stanford University that supplied a number of defense and security advisers to the George W. Bush administration. His responsibilities at Hoover include serving on a task force of experts devoted to researching the “ideology of terrorism.” In a press release, Hoover’s director, John Raisian, said: “I have asked Don to join the distinguished group of scholars that will pursue new insights on the direction of thinking that the United States might consider going forward” (Associated Press, September 8, 2007). Not everyone at Stanford was pleased with the announcement. Said Bart Bernstein, a Stanford history professor: “It is a moral disgrace. He is not a person of intellectual merit; he is not an academic. As a policy-maker, his only claim to fame was, at best, flawed and morally corrupt” (Inter Press Service, September 13, 2007).

Rumsfeld’s resignation as secretary of defense came a day after the November 2006 midterm elections, in which Democrats won control of both the House and Senate. His departure was widely regarded as marking a potentially momentous shift in the direction of U.S. foreign and defense policy. One of the key architects and promoters of the war in Iraq, Rumsfeld had long been the subject of intense criticism on a number of fronts, including his misleading statements about the Iraqi regime during the lead-up to the war, his failure to adequately plan for post-invasion stabilization, and his handling of detainee abuse scandals at Abu Ghraib prison and elsewhere.

Rumsfeld was characterized by his unwavering insistence that the Iraq War was the correct path for the United States to follow after 9/11. His steadfast refusal to admit his mistakes in carrying out the war was equaled by President Bush’s adamant loyalty to his defense secretary; upon announcing Rumsfeld’s resignation, Bush gave Rumsfeld’s performance high praise that many felt was at best undeserved. (Sept.’07)Note: John Mcain addressed the think tank in May,08, and advocated “dialog” with Iran and the importance of recognizing Palestine’s right to exist and have human dignity accorded it.

Correction: John McCain addressed the Institute in May,07,several months prior to Rumsfeld being named a Fellow at the think tank.-What a difference a year and John Hagee has made.