The business of world hunger
It's about time industry realized that the world and all its nations are a whole unit (``Challenging corporate US on world hunger,'' June 24). Industries will benefit most from healthy markets for their goods if they, in turn, help to build healthy countries -- economically and culturally. My congratulations to Computerland for its massive advertising challenge to industry. Fred Whelan's statement that the movement of business into the third world has to be ``. . . both: partly philanthropic and partly bottom line,'' makes me more optimistic about American business. Thank you for printing names of corporations already involved in ``tackling hunger.'' We, as consumers, can make our support known, just as we have also made our disapproval known through boycotts. Gay Witherington Brookings, S.D.Skip to next paragraph
Subscribe Today to the Monitor
I was dismayed and surprised by the article on corporations and world hunger. Computerland may stand to gain in status as a good citizen among corporations. But so what? What the Computerland advertisements represent is a huge shift in the way we are approaching starvation. The times are a-changing. And whether some corporations successfully reap profits whilst the chronically undernourished corporations dig themselves back into self-sufficiency will soon be a footnote in history. Bravo Computerland! Paul B. S. Clarke Washington
The editorial ``Up to Congress,'' July 8, stated that ``what is important is that Washington send a message to financial markets and the American public that it can take an important first step in getting a grip on the budget process.'' Taking an important first step is all to the good, but it does not go far enough in facing up to the budgetary problems of the US. The federal debt is so enormous and is such a burden to present and future generations that radical steps are called for. Last year the Grace Commission identified 2,478 ways to save billions of dollars.
There are many places to start, and the fact that some may appear trivial is no excuse for not trimming expenditures. ``Pork barrel'' projects must be eliminated, unless health and safety are involved. Folks must be willing to realize that their representatives are trying to help them by not promoting regional projects that are not strictly essential. Dwight B. Babcock San Marcos, Calif. Letters are welcome. Only a selection can be published and none individually acknowledged. All are subject to condensation. Please address letters to ``readers write.''