Pinochet Should Be Tried for Human Rights Abuses

It apparently escaped Robert J. Barro's notice that the superiority of the free-market system rests on a democratic government (''One Pinochet legacy that deserves to live,'' Economic Viewpoint, Jan. 17). Over time, dictators of all stripes have attempted to justify their authoritarian rule on the pursuit of some general good. Yet free people know otherwise. General Pinochet chose to use or allow the state apparatus and other far-right elements to terrorize and abuse his opponents. It is fair that he be held accountable before a court of law.

George J. Papaioannou
New York


Professor Barro deserves an F in economics and political science for his criticism of Chile's decision to prosecute human-rights violations and to change its policy to reduce 11% unemployment.

Barro's understanding of the Chilean economy is questionable. Chile depends on exports of copper, wood, and other primary goods. Given the glut in those markets, Chile's economy is in trouble. The success of Pinochet's policies owed a great deal to favorable commodity markets. Neoliberal reforms of the 1970s and '80s also resulted in huge income inequality and hard times for the lower classes, flawed environmental policies, and too little public investment in education and human capital.

Unemployment is high, and times are tough in the major Latin American countries--particularly Argentina, Brazil, and Ecuador; privatization and dependence on fickle foreign capital, as a solution for these problems, are under attack elsewhere in South America.

Pinochet was a military oligarch who belongs in a courthouse being tried for human-rights abuses. His economic legacy should also be severely scrutinized.

John Reeder
Arlington, Va.

Taxing Internet Sales Doesn't Make Sense

''No Net taxes: A break for the well-off'' (News: Analysis & Commentary, Jan. 17) should serve as a warning to Internet entrepreneurs that Big Business and Big Government are trying to legislate away the pure competition that e-tailers represent. If a tax firewall is erected, e-tail startups will find the costs of compliance prohibitive. As noted in ''B2B: The hottest Net bet yet?'' (News: Analysis & Commentary, Jan. 17), the Internet can become the most powerful engine of deflation in the modern era, but not if the only business models allowed to gain entry are those of already existing brick-and-mortar retailers.

While ''mostly well-off people'' may represent the majority of Internet users, the user population will explode in the next three to five years. Using today's affluent population to justify tax moves that could harm the less affluent masses for generations to come is shortsighted.

As an Internet e-tailer startup, I trust our representatives in government will resist the intense lobbying and keep the Internet a tax-free zone where the small-business person can compete in the global arena.

David S. Boyer
CEO
CheapShoe-Mart.com Inc.
Topeka, Kan.


Sales taxes are now collected only from companies with a major presence in a state. Regulation of interstate commerce is a reserved federal power.

Author Andy Reinhardt suggests that e-tailers will take sales away from brick-and-mortar stores and catalog merchandisers, and he uses data that seem to presume that all Net sales will be tax-free. That is not the case. Toys 'R' Us Inc., or a similar company with stores in Texas, would continue to have to collect state tax on its sales, even if the goods were bought over the Net. But purchases from Lands' End Inc. or other catalog merchandisers with no physical presence there would not be subject to Texas sales tax.

Estimating state tax losses based on Net sales alone is a stretch. Some states have ''use'' taxes, which may partially offset lost sales taxes, but they are generally only on large items, such as cars, that require state licensing.

The current tax structure has been in place for years. The founding fathers had it right: Regulation of interstate commerce should be a reserved power of the federal government. The states may control activities that occur within their boundaries. This is not a social or fairness question; it is simply an attempted revenue grab by the states.

William L. Hughes
Dallas

U.S. Had Early Knowledge of China's Famine

In ''The top technological blunders of the (just past) century'' (Up Front, Jan. 17), you include the Great Leap Forward, China's botched technological revolution that caused the deaths of upwards of 30 million in 1958-62. This item had particular significance for me, since I was the first to attempt to alert Washington to the famine. I did so as a foreign service officer in Hong Kong in 1960 in a report entitled ''Famine: Grim specter over China.'' My report, prepared for the U.S. Information Agency, was killed as soon as it reached Washington; it was deemed irresponsible speculation--there was no famine in China. It took more than 35 years for the famine to be acknowledged by our intelligence agencies.

Wes Pedersen
Public Affairs Council
Washington

''Lots more money to count'' (In Business This Week, Jan. 10, 2000)

''Lots more money to count'' (In Business This Week, Jan. 10) included some inaccuracies. Microsoft Corp.'s revenue-recognition policy, begun by former Chief Financial Officer Mike Brown, recognizes a portion of the revenues of some products in quarterly increments over periods extending as long as three years. The accounting method is required by generally accepted accounting principles. Although Microsoft sets the percentage and the time span, it does not alter the recognition schedule once set. It is not a rainy-day fund.

''Vintage year for wine Web sites'' (Lifestyle, Jan. 24, 2000)

''Vintage year for wine Web sites'' (Lifestyle, Jan. 24) incorrectly said that WineShopper.com, among other online wine merchants, was getting local licenses to sell products. The San Francisco company says it has not obtained these licenses, adding that ''in many states, because of legal or contractual constraints, [it] would not be able to operate lawfully or in accordance with its business plan if it had any such licenses.''

TABLE: ''Burying the hatchet buys a lot of drug research'' (News: Analysis & Commentary, Jan. 31, 2000)

An incorrect table accompanied ''Burying the hatchet buys a lot of drug research'' (News: Analysis & Commentary, Jan. 31). The correct table follows:

A Big Pill to Swallow

Top 10 Pharmaceuticals

                                   2000 ESTIMATED
   COMPANY                        SALES IN BILLIONS

1  GLAXO SMITHKLINE                    $25.0
2  MERCK                                20.0
3  PFIZER                               16.9
4  BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB                 16.5
5  ASTRAZENECA                          16.4
6  AVENTIS                              14.6
7  JOHNSON & JOHNSON                    12.4
8  PHARMACIA & UPJOHN/MONSANTO          12.3
9  NOVARTIS                             11.7
10 ROCHE                                11.2