>
>Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 14:56:19 -0400
>From: Leon Levitt <
levitt@DHOL.COM>
>Subject: Re: Imperialism
> Of course, use of the word imperialism was the writer's, not mine.
But the decision to propagate it was yours. Take responsibility for it.
>[...]But
>there was little in it I would call a diatribe. It just enumerated facts in a
>spirit of criticism of corporate as well as governmental positions.
There was no enumeration (enumeration means to count).
The article did make several assertions, each repeated several times (clue
#1 to diatribe - A bitter, abusive denunciation) and portrayed people as
victims of "corporations and governments" (clue #2 to diatribe - A bitter,
abusive denunciation), but the article contained few facts.
>It invokes
>a parallel to the military-industrial complex of which President Eisenhower
>warned, in this case, a trade representative-pharmaceutical manufacturers
>coupling.
Yes, the article used the "guilty by analogy" ploy but failed to
rationalize that the parallel was valid. That would earn a "D-" in college
level debate.
The article did raise the specter of "conspiracy" (clue #3 to diatribe - A
bitter, abusive denunciation) but failed to produce any evidence other than
the USTR position.
It failed to notice that the USTR was refusing to price drugs on certain
markets at lower price than the same drugs are available in other markets.
That is called "dumping" Dumping is illegal. The article could have said
that all drug prices are too high but the authors did not take that
position. They only ranted for differential behavior (clue #4 to diatribe
- A bitter, abusive denunciation)
Interestingly, the article did not state, let alone rationalize, which
drugs, if any, would be beneficial to the unnamed masses is so gallantly
championed. Is it Prozac they want made available?
Finally, and most telling of their journalistic un-professionalism while
"in the spirit of criticism," they branded as US Imperialism drug companies
which are, in fact, owned by European corporations.
>I thought management trainers would want to know some of the facts;
>so they can caution their trainees when they deal with the ethics of management
>decision-making.
I thoroughly applaud your orientation toward ethics in management
decisioni-making. Better they should learn critical thinking, first, how
to recognize flimsy diatribes, second, and the legalities of dumping,
third, so they can still be around to behave ethically.
Meanwhile, give consideration to the ethics of using positions in
managerial "training" as platforms for social engineering. That strikes me
as imperialism.
In the interest of better management --
Jack Ring
Innovation Management
sendmail:
jring@amug.org