Kali for Women: Feminist Publishing in India

Share

kali

Kali for Women: Feminist Publishing in India

by Ray Deonandan

Oct. 17, 2000

A version of this article originally appeared on IndiaStar.Com in January of 1998. It is reproduced here with the author’s permission.

 

Writers in India face hurdles that are almost unknown, or at least more subtle, here in the West. Barriers of sex, class, race, geography, religion and language are flagrant and sometimes officially sanctioned in India. It is no surprise that the well-known subcontinental names are from elite families, from specific ethnic and linguistic groups, British educated, and are most often male. The struggle of publishing in India is to uplift the disadvantaged groups to a position where all voices may be heard. Continue reading

Share

Risks of Genetically Modified Foods

Share

 

Are There Environmental Risks Associated With Genetically Engineered Field Crops?

 

by Raywat Deonandan

Oct. 17, 2000

A version of this article originally appeared in Bioscan, the newsletter of the Toronto Biotechnology Initiative, in September of 1999. It is reproduced here with the author’s permission.

 

 


“What’s best for industry is not necessarily what’s best for society,” declared the University of Guelph’s Professor Ann Clark at the April 15th TBI (Toronto Biotechnology Initiative) breakfast meeting. Clark assumed a politically charged stance against the proliferation of agricultural genetic engineering technology, and found herself pitted against two other panellists: fellow Guelph professor Mark Sears and London’s Dr. Jim Brandle.

Drs. Brandle and Sears each gave detailed presentations on the technical benefits of molecular farming and other methods of altering crop genes. Since molecular farming technology allows cheaper and more rapid production of such useful products as vaccines, haemoglobin, antibodies, biodegradable plastics and industrial pharmaceuticals, Brandle argued, its benefits far outweigh its potential ecological and economic risks. Among those risks are the possibility that an altered species will escape into the food chain; that unanticipated toxins will be produced; that there might be accidental admixture of transgenes with food crops; or indeed that the actual transgenes themselves would slip out of labs and be taken up from the soil by opportunistic organisms such as bacteria.

While insisting that the possible mixture of altered with natural crops is incredibly unlikely, Dr. Brandle nevertheless commented, “If you want to blow up your $9 billion canola business, this is the way.”

Dr. Sears’ research into the creation of pest-resistant strains of common crops, such as canola, potatoes and soybean, lead him to conclude that it is the responsibility of Canada’s biotech community to ensure that this technology become available to all who might benefit from it, including developing countries who desperately seek to increase their food yield. It was his contention that fears concerning the outcrossing of transgenic genes, and the threat of destroying insect populations via the introduction of resistant plant strains, are not founded upon strong evidence. In direct contradiction to one of Dr. Clark’s points, Dr. Sears further stated that the transfer to organisms of extracellular DNA left in the soil does not pose a significant threat.

The ensuing debate between the three panellists was quite heated, with Dr. Clark making a strong plea for more dollars to be spent on risk assessment, and more power transferred to the true stake-holders, the citizens. The opposing arguments focused on the overwhelming potential benefits of the technology: the reduction of the use of broad-spectrum insecticides, the simplification of pest management, the increased affordability of living bioreactors, and the undeniable increase in crop yield. Dr. Sears made the bold prediction that, “genetic engineering will sustain us for the next 50 years.”

In many ways, however, Dr. Clark’s main thesis was demonstrated by her colleagues’ presentations: that professions tend to view issues from the narrow perspective of their professional training, with limited regard for the larger economic, social and ethical picture. Her impassioned call for a greater role of risk assessors, and for the intervention of government and citizen groups to help dictate regulations for applying genetic technology to food crops, found a chord of sympathy among the multidisciplinary audience. All three panellists did agree that more research dollars need to be spent, and that Canada has been particularly negligent in commissioning risk assessment and impact studies.

 

 

Raywat Deonandan’s personal website is www.deonandan.com.

 

Share

Letter from Sejal Patel

Share

 

Your Meeting With Pierre Trudeau

A letter from Sejal Patel
October 7, 2000

I just read your article about your initial meeting with Pierre Trudeau. It moved me. While I cannot claim to understand exactly what he meant to you and your countrymen, I can understand that he was a very powerful force and impact for you personally and for the Canadian state. [You stood] in the presence of a truly great man.

While I have had brushes with famed and powerful figures, I do not believe they have had as much of the impact as [did Trudeau on] that young boy, two school friends and their teacher. It amazed me to read about your encounter.

Sejal Patel
Somewhere in Massachusetts, USA

 

UP

 

Share

New Administrative Fee is Discriminatory to Immigrants

Share

fee

New administrative fee is a discriminatory head tax

by Ray Deonandan

Oct. 4, 2000

A version of this article first appeared in The Toronto Star on April 18, 1995 (with much consternation from incensed letter-writers). 

To those of us in the industrialized north, 975 dollars can pay for rent for a month or two. It can be a down-payment on a used automobile or tuition for half a term at a local university. Continue reading

Share

When I Met Trudeau

Share

pet

When I was 12 years old, I met Pierre Trudeau

by Raywat Deonandan

Oct. 4, 2000

This article is expanded from a letter sent to the National Post on Sep 30, 2000 (see bottom of this page).

When I was 12 years old, I met Pierre Trudeau.

I think it was 1979 and my junior highschool was visiting Ottawa for all the typical reasons that school kids visit their nation’s capital: to stroll through dreary museums, read the captions of historic paintings and sculptures, and to suffer the lectures of local scholar/entertainers dressed as town criers and Indian chiefs. Continue reading

Share

Letter from Zoogy – Sep/2000

Share

 

Congrats

A letter from “The Lone Zoogy”
September, 2000

Hello, I just stumbled upon your article addressing the now-always-referenced Columbine massacre/trenchcoat issue, and I must say that I wholly agree with you.

I myself have liked trenchcoats (especially black, since they look so much better) well BEFORE the incident, but it’s still considered a “bad thing” to wear, even after more than a year since the shooting. A few months ago I wore one to school, and went through about a dozen or so comments like “Hey, Mr. Columbine” or “Look! It’s the trenchcoat mafia!”.

Probably what I find most interesting about the subject is that the two individuals who killed the students were NOT affiliated with the Trenchcoat Mafia (which isn’t even a violent group), but instead just decided to wear long coats which could conceal weaponry. This is certainly NOT the first time this has happened! There have been several cases in movies and in real life where people have used trenchcoats to conceal a variety of things, yet we choose to bring it up now. It’s disgusting that, as we now approach the year and a half anniversary, we still can’t give up this hatred against a fashion statement. To cite an example, www.trenchcoat.com, a site simply for selling the coats, was banned after the incident. The person who ran it took it down, but he did leave all the hate mail or “join applications” that he received.

Truly terrifying how ignorant people can be.

Well, sorry if that was a long spiel. I just really did agree with you.

The Zoogy
Somewhere in California

 

UP

 

Share

The Organization of American States

Share

 

Plans for Parallel Conference of the OAS

by Prema Oza

May 28, 2000

Various social justice groups from Ottawa, Toronto, Windsor and Detroit are busy making last minute preparations for alternative events and counter strategies in response to the preparatory meeting of First Minister’s of nations belonging to the Organization of American States (OAS). While some groups are busy planning a parallel conference, other groups merely want to shut down the OAS event.

The OAS is a governing body similar to the United Nations. It holds an annual General Assembly with lower level First Minister’s to discuss policy formulation and implementation to be followed by a Summit meeting of heads of state to develop implementation strategies. It touts itself as “the western hemisphere’s principal forum for political, social, and economic dialogue.” Currently, there are 35 members that comprise the OAS, including such economically and culturally diverse countries as: Canada, Ecuador, Haiti, Spain and Panama.

According to the international organization’s website, it’s mandate is to work collectively to safeguard democracy, human rights, peace and security while “expanding trade and tackling complex problems caused by poverty, drugs and corruption.” In addition, the OAS claims to have made a commitment to a “focus on education [and] justice….”

While social justice groups may differ on approach, both sides agree that the OAS is not living up to its lauded mandate.

“Human rights, social and cultural rights and environmental sustainability need to be treated as superior to corporate rights,” said Jim Porter, one of the meeting organizers.

While some groups want to shut down the meeting altogether, others merely want to enhance dialogue, etc., and have organized a parallel conference to take place around the OAS meetings themselves.

Historically, parallel conferences to international meetings of such bodies as the UN and IMF are seen as an ideal venue for social justice groups, also known as non-governmental organizations or NGOs, to raise awareness among both citizenry and the media. They are viewed as a an alternative source for grassroots knowledge that often gets pushed aside in the hustle-and-bustle of high and mid level meetings among politicos.

Vito Signorelli, a member of the MAI Coalition, appeared to echo many of the sentiments of those in attendance when he said, “I don’t wanna shut it down, I wanna kick it in the ass. We should be drawing attention to the fact that they’re not doing their job.”

Regardless of the movement’s intent, local law enforcement officials are taking no chances, and are stepping up security precautions to avoid what the media is hyping as another potential “battle in Seattle.”

Social activists argue that the OAS has ignored its own mandate by becoming a rubber-stamping organization that pays mere lip service to the countless lives it is supposed to be protecting. The OAS, similar to the UN, lacks enforcement abilities. Detractors claim that it also suffers from social myopia where corporate greed often supercedes individual and collective rights and freedoms.

Angela Ventura of the Salvadorean Association of Windsor encouraged the meeting to engage in dialogue with the OAS in the hopes of working together.

“We need to work closely with the agenda of the OAS,” she said. “We should request the OAS to be part of the agenda of the (parallel) conference.”

There were some well-placed concerns over preaching to the converted with regard to the agenda of the parallel conference. The steering committee will look at a platform for a debate of issues and not just an opportunity to hear speeches and declarations.

The parallel conference has garnered some pretty major support in leading labour and social justice circles. Among the tentative list of speakers are Maude Barlow of the Canadian Labour Congress. In addition, the conference itself is largely being coordinated by the Montreal-based International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development (ICHRDD) – the brainchild of former NDP federal leader Ed Broadbent.

One can assume that the parallel conference will be large in scope and attendance, atracting a number of NGOs from across Canada and the world, as well as dignitaries and the press.

Concerns over representation were raised by Refugee committee member, Sungee John, who said that the organizing should be reflective of the nations being represented.

The goals of the parallel conference are simple, its task enormous. How do you make a bunch of stuffed shirts see that any and all trade agreements and social policies must comply with human rights laws? According to the ICHRDD’s current president, Warren Allmand, “Canada can and must exercise its leadership. Human rights should not be viewed as a ‘trickle-down’ effect of international trade.”

Among the tentative events that will comprise the parallel conference are various guest speakers from Canadian and Latin American labour and social justice groups, debates on current concerns of OAS member countries, awareness raising events in the preceding days of the actual meeting (dubbed the International Days of Action), a rally at Dieppe Gardens, a peace concert and an Earth Day gathering.

The actual First Minister’s meeting of the OAS will be a Windsor first in terms of scale, and is set to take place here June 4-6th. The location of Windsor is no coincidence due largely to the political pull of our Deputy Prime Minister, the Honorable Herb Gray, who lobbied to have the conference held in his home riding. According to the organization’s protocol, the June meeting will yield various policy initiatives which will then be ratified by the actual OAS meeting of world leaders in Montreal next year —where yet another international protest is more than likely.

 

 


Prema Oza is a Canadian print journalist and radio personality who has appeared in or on various newspapers, magazines and call letters in Winnipeg, Ottawa, Toronto, Windsor and Detroit, Michigan. She is currently pursuing a degree in Political Science at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada.
 

 

Share

The USA – A Reluctant Sheriff

Share

 


The Reluctant Sheriff

by Sejal Patel

April 12, 2000

The United States has emerged as the most influential superpower since the Cold War. To call the United States the Reluctant Sheriff is an understatement, as it has usually only dipped its hands in waters where its own interests are furthered and concerned. As the United States has imposed sanctions against rogue states such as Libya, Iran, Iraq, Cuba, and North Korea, it has not only hindered U.S. interests economically and politically, but those of other countries as well.

What gives the U.S. the right to subjugate its own elusively guarded diplomacy measures upon third-party states? It must not maintain the same stance as it did during the Cold War, that of if you are not with us, you are against us. As the U.S. stresses the need for a more unified and egalitarian world, it must check itself for the hypocrisy of its actions. It values its relations with China, for example, yet lambastes that country for its human rights violations.

Richard Haass points out that the international arena has seen a plethora of activity economically, politically, and socially since the end of the Cold War, as it makes its way towards achieving multipolarity. While other countries, institutions, and groups become more dynamic on the international stage, the United States needs to downplay its supposed hegemony in order to remain a superpower.

While progress and capitalistic changes are being effected in the post-Cold War era, one must ask what the world has achieved –or is turning into. In its quest to define itself within the realm of international relations after the cessation of the Cold War, the U.S. has reflected on many contending theories and paradigms to assess its role. Samuel Huntington sees the world fragmented into large pieces characterized by commonalities of civilization, such as similar religious and cultural backgrounds. On the opposite sphere is a theory offered by Robert Kaplan, which states the world is falling into smaller fragments of nation-states, such as those found within the former Yugoslavia, representing a meltdown of civilizations and society. Francis Fukuyama offers a brighter outlook on the direction of the world in the post-Cold War era. Fukuyama states that the end of the Cold War has victoriously brought liberalization of political and economic ideas in which state relations are consonant.

(Wilsonianism takes Fukuyamas theory a bit further, in which promotion of democracy will make the world a more prosperous, stable, peaceful and better place. While idealistic, one wonders if these two similar theories will ever truly be achieved, since the world will always have some form of dissent.)

 

John Mearsheimers view that present day Europe, without two nuclear superpowers with similar military force, may lead to hypernationalistic violence is quite pessimistic and perhaps archaic with formal institutions such as the EU and NATO trying to integrate Europe. Charles Krauthammer theorizes that the post-Cold War era is unipolar, with the United States as that unipolar power. Another theory holds that the world in the post-Cold War era is multipolar, and that the balance of power, for the most part, is stable. Benjamin Barber and John Lewis Gaddis offer a theory that the world is integrating and fragmenting (what a contradiction) at the same time. While all of these theories offer merit, they also suffer from many gaping flaws.

 

Since the world is not an inherently stable place (governments and institutions are known to disintegrate, as seen in the U.S.S.R.s downfall in 1989), the best approaches to follow are the ones that offer the most realistic and pragmatic views to the post-Cold War world.The world has adopted a multipolar stance in recent years, evidenced by the interconnectedness of global economies. Also, along with the integration of multiple economies, there is a growing movement towards democracy (since the strongest economies seem to be placed in democratic countries that favor the ideologies of capitalism). Barber and Gaddis theory of ambiguous contradictions also offers a more pragmatic and realistic outlook within the current time.

 

The emerging world is a color of contrast, and not as black-and-white as it was in the Cold War era when the dominating forces were the United States and the U.S.S.R.Todays world is less structured, as communications and technologies have run rampant, and information has exploded at such a rate that governments cannot regulate (and wonder if they should) the changes fast enough. In the Cold War era, the psychological war between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. was regulated by the governments, as Haass points out. The media (television, radio, press) were controlled nationally, telephone communication lines being run by operators; and direct confrontation and intervention were through the government institutions. Today, communications and technologies, such as the Internet, offer far more information than ever before. (In minutes or seconds, people can actually access blueprints of how to make weapons, and privileged government documents.) This could be quite dangerous since the threat posed to the security of governments and formal institutions is broader than before. One wonders if the plethora of accessible knowledge, due to the advancement of communications and technologies, offers any form of stability in a potentially unstable world. As Haas points out, in order for any system to enjoy stability, there are two criteria that need to be achieved: a balance of strength (similar to a balance of power), and a consensus (direction) of change by all.

 

Since the United States would like to remain an actor on the world stage, it must also give in gracefully to balancing its strength with other actors. The most beneficial changes for the good of humanity come from the diffusion of power, where there is an emergence of new centers of decision. Indeed, the United States must ask itself whether it wants to maintain a stance of unilateralism or multilateralism in international relations. Forcing sanctions upon any one country, such as Cuba or Iraq, also unfairly forces other countries between the proverbial rock and a hard place. Sanctions do not resolve any problems, and persuasive diplomacy takes a further step backwards as external (third) parties view the United States as the aggressor in the situation by hindering trade and humanitarian progress. While it is true that an advantage of unilateral behavior is the essence of time (the ability to act within a certain amount of time), a major disadvantage that occurs is whether the decision to act rationally was achieved. Similarly, the major disadvantage of multilateralism is the essence of time, yet an advantage of that is the ability to present a rational and worthwhile change. The situation with Bosnia –too little done too late– was an act of indecisiveness on the international communitys part. If the United States wants to act as a sheriff of the international community, it should also be consistent within its agenda.

 

The United States cannot hide in isolationism as it did before WWI. If it retreats back into such a state, it will only hinder its own self interests. As a country that promotes globalization efforts in the world economy, the United States would suffer dramatically if it tended toward isolationist behavior. If the United States wants to remain a superpower, it cannot give in to the obsolete whim of isolationism. The citizens of the United States need to take a more active hand internally, as many of them remain apathetic to international affairs unless such issues concern them directly. Change begins at home. If the American public does not get involved with its own politics (the last presidential voter turnout in 1996 was less than 44%), then the politicians will tout their own agendas abroad (take, for example, the illustrious Senator Jesse Helms) at the American publics expense. I am frightened that the presidential candidate from Texas, George W. Bush, might find himself in the executive seat of power when he hasnt an inkling of who the other heads of state are in some politically unstable countries.

 

The United States has also had a topsy-turvy view on the environment. While it claims the importance of preserving biodiversity and etching environmental concerns in the international community, the citizens of the United States consume more than a third of the worlds energy and fuel. Actions speak louder than words, and if the United States believes in environmental causes, maybe it should take a page from the famed Greenpeace slogan think globally, act locally. The U.S. governments actions remain inconsistent with the causes in which it claims to believe.

 

If the United States wants to remain the international communitys sheriff, maybe it should practice the art of empathy. It should not play sheriff unless it knows exactly what the job description calls for. Partiality and favors are always made –have always been made– by the United States. Perhaps the United States should redefine its goals and stick to them. It has already lost face with the international community through its reluctance to help in certain situations when it could have made a difference for the better. If the United States touts itself as sheriff, it should clearly define its goals and assert itself: that its own self-interests economically are far more important than those of humanitarian and environmental change. While this may be a dark view on American foreign policy, it is a pragmatic and realistic view.

 

Unfortunately, I am an idealist at heart concerning changes in the international arena. This paper is a reflection I had after reading The Reluctant Sheriff by Richard Haas and was written to spark some comment from others.

 


Sejal Patel has an all-encompassing fascination with international relations (since it was her major in college).  In her spare time she likes reading Henry Kissinger’s memoirs, gardening, and dreaming up idealistic solutions for a utopian future.

 

Share

Refusing Bad Blood

Share

by Ray Deonandan

This article first appeared in BioScan magazine in March, 2000, under the title “Response to Uncertain Risk – Using Deferral of Blood Donors As a Case Study”. It is reproduced here with the author’s permission.

Creutzfeld-Jakob disease (CJD) is an untreatable prion pathogen that Dr. Neil Cashman of the Centre for Research in Neurogenerative Diseases wouldnt wish upon [his] worst enemy. Dr. Cashman presented some of the science behind this terrifying disease at the last Toronto Biotechnology Initiative (TBI) breakfast meeting, citing his support for the Canadian Blood Services (CBS) new policy of banning UK donors for fear that some of them are CJD carriers.

Also present was Dr. Durhane Wong Regier, a founder of the CBS who left the organisation in protest over this new policy which she characterised as having introduced a real risk to defer against a hypothetical risk.

The recent outbreak of BSE (a bovine form of CJD) infection in UK cattle, resulting in the slaughter of more than a million animals, and in the deaths of 48 Britons who had supposedly ingested tainted beef and thus acquired a variant of CJD, prompted the CBS to change their donor policy to prohibit donors who had spent, in Dr. Wong Regiers words, an arbitrary time in the UK.. In seeming support of Dr. Wong Regiers declaration of arbitrariness, both Drs. Cashman and Penny Chan, the sessions emcee, agreed that the extent of the UK stay was determined by extrapolating its impact upon the blood supply, and not by measuring the incubation period of the prion.

While Dr. Wong Regier insisted that the policy did more measurable harm than good, Dr. Cashman felt that the CBS action was a reasonable and responsible thing to do, faced with a threat for which the science is unclear. But, countered Dr. Wong Regier, is this truly the best way to balance a hypothetical risk against the known risk of a depleted blood supply? She pointed out that it will cost the federal government $19 million to replace the diminished blood supply: money that could be spent to address known, quantified risks. The result, she claims, is that the reduced blood supply and re-directed funds would constitute a greater threat to Canadian health than would an unsubstantiated threat of CJD contamination, a disease for which there is as yet no evidence that humans can be infected via blood transfusions.

The Wall Street Journal called the CBS decision Mad Regulatory Disease, and the policy was widely chastised across the USA. However, in the days after the TBI meeting, the FDA announced that it was considering similar steps for its blood supply. As noted by all the TBI presenters, in a litigious environment such as ours, doing nothing is often politically more risky than doing something, even the wrong thing. Hence Dr. Wong Regiers insistence that the CBS policy –and, one might assume, the subsequent FDA policy were pressured political decisions made by those who had a commitment to act reasonably, not politically.

One of Dr. Chans slides best summarised the potential damage this policy may wreak upon our blood supply: over 30% of Canadian donors have travelled to BSE/CJD countries since 1980. But, since the horrors of HIV and hepatitis wrought by faulty Red Cross policies upon Canadian transfusion recipients, public sensibilities are delicate with regard to the safety and purity of donor blood.

 

 


Ray Deonandan is an epidemiologist, biotechnology consultant and an owner of The Podium. His personal website can be found at www.deonandan.com.

 

Share

Dont Believe The Hype by Andrew Hui

Share

 

Don’t believe the hype!

by Andrew Hui
March 21, 2000

A version of this article first appeared on Andrew Hui’s website on Dec. 24, 1999
 


 

I was watching some financial show with Garth Turner where he was interviewing this 20-something yahoo about e-retailing. This num-nut had no idea what the hell he was talking about. He kept blathering on about how e-retailing would save money by reducing rent and staffing costs. As the old (and wrong) argument goes, since a company that sells on-line uses a web site, it doesn’t need a storefront or people in the store. Therefore, it saves money and can sell for less.

Bollocks! I’ve never heard such a pile of crap. Ok, wait a second, I should be fair. I did believe it myself, but, after thinking about it, I realised that e-retailing is going to do very little. In fact, I wrote a paper about it. You can check it out at http://www.geocities.com/ahui.geo/other/essays.htm. It’s called: “Will the Internet mean the end for intermediaries?”

Basically, there are 4 reasons for why e-retailing isn’t going to make a big dent:

 

1. The “savings” aren’t real.

Sure you don’t need the store and the sales staff, but you do need a big warehouse and staff to take care of inventory. The advantage with retailing is that your staff act as sales people and inventory people. With e-retailing, you just have inventory staff. So basically, the staffing changes and rental changes are not significant.

Also, it goes down to very basic economics. It is often cheaper to ship 1000 goods to 1 location that it is to ship 1 good to 1000 locations. With the Internet, your distribution system is the latter and therefore, it is more expensive for the e-retailer to get the goods to the customer. Furthermore, since the onus is on the consumer to buy the good, the cost will be paid, in full, by the customer. That’s why most e-retailers such as Chapters Online have a $10 shipping fee.

Some argue though that I should have included the travel time and the line-ups as part of the equation in that they represent a cost savings. I would argue that the amount is so little and the expense is so hidden that it doesn’t really factor into the equation. I mean, does anyone know (or care) how much it costs to drive to the corner store?

 

2. The advertising factor

If a tree falls in a forest does it make a sound? That’s the kind of idea for e-retailing. The Internet is just so big, and competition is so fierce that it is impossible for a startup retailer to generate enough buzz to generate enough traffic. I mean, even “successful” e-retailers such as Amazon.com have yet to make a profit!

Regular stores are useful because they let people go to one place and browse. With the Internet, there aren’t enough central locations for people to go. And when there are, they will either be too big (i.e. too many affiliated retailers listed) or too expensive (the site charges too much “virtual” rent).

 

3. The human factor

Shopping is such an engrained tradition among citizens of most Western societies. Marketers have long recognized this as part of the buying process. Simply said: people like to go out and be with other people. E-retailing negates this. This is not to say that no one will be attracted to e-retailing because they don’t go out, just that there are not enough of these people right now to make it profitable.

 

4. Some goods can’t be sold on-line

Can you imagine test-driving a car on-line? Or maybe buying an engagement ring online? Generally, unless you have more money that Bill Gates, these goods need to be tested and touched before a sale is made. Commodities, on the other hand, such as pop and toilet paper, can be sold this way since they are fairly generic and low risk. But therein lies the problem. Competition will be fierce for these products, and the value-to-volume ratio is just too low to justify selling it online. Basically, there is almost no money to be made selling commoditized goods.

Anyway, I’ve bored you all enough. Those four reasons are basically why e-retailing isn’t going to revolutionize anything. As per usual, if you think I’m off the deep-end, let me know!

 

 


Andrew Hui is a 4th year Commerce student at the University of Toronto. In the future, he hopes to be one of those annoyingly young and rich owners of a dot.com business. In the meanwhile, he enjoys writing controversial and revealing rants, and sharing them with his friends in an effort to spur some intellectual or, in many cases, pseudo-intellectual discussion about a variety of topics. His objective with the rants is not to engage in serious discussion, but to spur thought and encourage people to frame their ideas and opinions in writing.
His personal website may be found here.

Share