Abortion Isn't the Way to Weed Out Criminals

This is a particularly frightening commentary on how to reduce crime (''Does abortion lower the crime rate?'' Economic Viewpoint, Sept. 27). The suggestion that abortion assists society in ''weeding out children'' who would likely become criminals moves you into the category of people with extreme political views. While there may be some cause-and-effect relationship between abortion and crime, there must be also thousands of other determinants not mentioned in your summary of the Donahue and Levitt research.

It is probable, for example, that the increase in abortions is happening in geographic areas that are not socioeconomically depressed, therefore diminishing the likelihood that those unborn children would have grown up to become criminals.

Nonetheless, even if these theories can be proven, do we want a society that weeds out children of young and poorly educated single parents? For every petty criminal we lose, we may also be losing great leaders, artists, researchers, or a Harvard professor.

If you are looking for anticrime policies to advocate, please stick to issues of education and empowerment. Undoubtedly, researchers can show a nice correlation between education and lower crime rates.

Jim Joyce
Hoboken, N.J.

The study cited is seriously flawed. While it may be true that the existence of a shrinking number of teens leads to fewer crimes, that is probably a reflection of a general reduction in population growth across the nation and cannot be ascribed to children who never made it into this world because of abortion. How can the authors of this study presume what kind of person the unborn will develop into?

While deciding to have an abortion is a difficult decision for any woman, let's not forget that many who choose abortion are not poor. Also, let's not assume that poor mothers who do not have abortions will end up with kids who become hoodlums. Many people from disadvantaged backgrounds have made it in this country without killing and maiming. Who's to say that the next aborted baby will be a menace to society, rather than the next Bill Gates, Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King Jr., or Albert Einstein?

Mr. Barro quotes: ''The main effect, however, is the reduced frequency of crime among those in the 15-to-24 age group who did manage to be born and grow up.'' Thank goodness we seem to be weeding out the right people. Why can't we give law enforcement and a strong economy credit for some of this? Now it seems we advocate abortion as a crime prevention measure on an economic sliding scale. We have taken injustice to a new level.

John St. Germain
Plaistow, N.H.

Amtrak Is on Track to Get Rid of Federal Subsidies

''Fast train to nowhere?'' (News: Analysis & Commentary, Sept. 27) misrepresented a number of exciting things happening at Amtrak that are part of a dramatic turnaround.

One of those components is a strategy to develop partnerships and new revenue sources beyond our passenger business. I was dismayed that you portray Amtrak's effort to structure revenue-generating partnerships as a concession. In fact, the strategy is deliberate. The corporation is aggressively pursuing such new revenue streams and, like any other business, this diversification should be perceived as a strength, not a weakness.

The article also implied a need for federal operating support nearly double the real number, and it exaggerated the impact of the delay of the high-speed Acela service. For that reason, you missed the fact that Amtrak's bottom line is $11 million ahead of our targets this year, and therefore Amtrak is on track to eliminate the need for federal operating support. The picture the story paints for our business is much weaker than the facts would suggest.

Governor Tommy G. Thompson
Chairman
Amtrak Board of Directors
Washington

Who Will Survive the Coming E-Commerce Shakeout?

In ''Is that e-commerce roadkill I see?'' (e.biz, Sept. 27), Robert D. Hof provides an interesting perspective on the looming e-commerce shakeout. There are many complex factors that will determine which e-tailers survive. One that has not received enough attention until recently is customer satisfaction.

Forrester Research recently predicted that the continued growth of e-commerce hinges on logistics--getting the goods to the customer. And a recent GartnerGroup survey showed 20% of online customers dissatisfied with the online buying experience. These numbers should serve as a wake-up call to everyone in the e-commerce market space. Time-starved e-shoppers have too many other options to put up with customer service headaches such as confusing sites, delayed deliveries, slow response to inquiries, and billing errors.

Who will survive? Some e-tailers have seized a competitive advantage by building a seamless end-to-end e-fulfillment strategy that ensures a superior online experience, including an easy-to-use Web site, quality brands, great prices, and excellent service. E-tailers without such a strategy are wandering blind along the Information Superhighway--a sure way to end up as roadkill.

J.T. Kreager
SubmitOrder.com
Columbus, Ohio

What's Sexy about E.Biz--and What's Not

My complaint isn't about your selections per se, but the fact that BUSINESS WEEK labels the e.biz 25 (e.biz, Sept. 27) as representing e-businesses. In reality, most are e-commerce firms. The semantic differences are not trivial.

First of all, e-commerce is a subset of e-business. E-commerce is selling over the Internet and represents an evolutionary change in the way an enterprise does business. E-business affects all aspects of a business (not just revenue creation), and fundamentally changes how business is conducted.

E-business encompasses all the internal business processes of a firm, from simple e-commerce storefronts to purchasing and human resources. Also, e-business is largely driven by the burgeoning market for ''buy-side'' extranet/Internet procurement and supply chain management/business-to-business (B2B), Web-based transactions. It's not as sexy as business-to-consumer (B2C), but it has a much larger market potential and an exponential growth rate. One could even argue that diffusion of B2B will surpass B2C rates within the next year or so.

Amazon.com is, for the most part, an e-business, in large part because of its focus on back-office activities such as procurement. Its customer facing system is superb, perhaps the best. But it's the ''buy side'' that gives Amazon.com a sustainable competitive advantage. Bottom line: ''E-biz'' is a lot more than a cute Web storefront.

David Scott Lewis, Director
E-Business Special Operations
Oracle Corp.
Redwood Shores, Calif.

I don't understand those people in ''The e.biz 25'' (Cover Story, Sept. 27). Their companies are losing millions of dollars, and they look so happy!

Takeshi Yoshida
Torrance, Calif.

Jeff Bezos, Meg Whitman, and Tim Koogle spend more time on the front cover of magazines than all the world's supermodels. Could BUSINESS WEEK have a Bezos-, Whitman-, and Koogle-free fourth quarter, please?

Matthew B. Brady
Lemont, Ill.

Don't Be Too Hard on Campaign Soft Money

In ''The real truth about campaign cash'' (Government, Sept. 27), I thought your comparison of campaign spending to the overall economy was a refreshing way to reasonably look at the recent increases in political spending.

However, while I agree that we need campaign-finance reform, you have omitted an important factor that has helped drive the system to its current state. Election laws currently allow unlimited spending by unions, including extensive media buys targeting specific candidates. As long as we consider this to be free speech, we must allow alternate methods of fund-raising by the opposition (i.e., soft money).

If there is any hope to bring about campaign-finance reform, this issue must be addressed. Perhaps one way would be to require that individuals or organizations consider any expenditures (including media buys) that mention the name of a specific candidate as campaign contributions, subject to the same limits as other individuals or political action committees.

Martha Chayet
Manchester, Mass.

Even in the New Economy, Someone Has to Grow Crops

I found ''The prosperity gap'' (Economics, Sept. 27) both eye-opening and alarming. Two points not included in your analysis:

1) Coal must be dug, it must be shipped to the steel plants so steel can be made, then sent to the auto plants to become a car, which must be transported to the final consumer. Cardealer.com might provide the consumer with the means to find the best deal around, and the auto manufacturers might finally provide mass customization and build to order. But humans (of the old economy) will still be needed. If everyone becomes a programmer and systems analyst, who will provide the goods?

The analogy to the farms becomes critical: Someone still had to stay on the farms and grow the crops that fed all the industrial workers. Wages will have to rise to induce labor to continue with the old economy. What good is a $1 billion IPO if no nurses are available to treat your heart attack?

2) Those tens of millions of the old economy who will be swept away (similar to the middle-manager bloodbath of the 1990s) must be attended to. This is a legitimate endeavor for the government--to provide retraining, relocation, and incentives for ''new economy'' companies to locate where the old economy labor is. Not everyone wants to live in Silicon Valley (nor could everyone). By not addressing the problem of industrialization at the turn of the century, urban crises were created. This time let's pro-act, not react.

Paul Herbig
Professor of Marketing
Tri-State University
Angola, Ind.

You did an excellent job of highlighting examples of relative prosperity in both the ''old'' and ''new'' economies. However, while you noted agriculture was part of the ''old'' economy in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, you neglected to include it in the ''old'' economy of today. I feel production agriculture belongs there today as well.

Most family farmers and ranchers have lost relative position in the economy during the 1980s and 1990s. As a result of society placing a relatively low value on its food supply at the farm gate (compare the capitalization of eBay, Amazon, Yahoo!, etc., to the value of farm products produced in California in 1998), many farmers and ranchers are receiving real prices for a unit of production equal to that of 20 or 30 years ago. Additionally, many of their investment portfolios are almost exclusively agricultural real estate, which hasn't kept up with the booming stock market. Farmers and ranchers generally work long hours with little in net return for their labor or any meaningful return on investment or assets.

In 1975, I left what was then Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. and entered the world of production agriculture. I had the altruistic idea that this was an honorable profession and one that had a high intrinsic value to society. In retrospect, I would have been better off financially to have pursued a more important career like whitewater rafting and investing in sports memorabilia.

Jack Hanson
Susanville, Calif.

''It's a tech stock? Bring it on!'' (Business Week Investor, Oct. 4)

In ''It's a tech stock? Bring it on!'' (Business Week Investor, Oct. 4), portfolio manager Craig Ellis was incorrectly quoted as estimating profits for Juniper Networks Inc. in 2000. He was estimating Juniper's revenues.

''Why gold is precious again'' (News: Analysis & Commentary, Oct. 11)

The wrong chart appeared in the print edition of Business Week with the story ''Why gold is precious again'' (News: Analysis & Commentary, Oct. 11). The correct chart, ''Restoring the Glitter'', appeared online.