U.S. Commitment to Internet

David Friedman’s “The Dot-Com Obsession Warping the U.S. Economy” (Opinion, Feb. 6) should be required reading for those of us contemplating further investment in the fast-growing “Net stock sector.” Dot-com marketeers exploit mail-order state-tax exemptions to offer products at prices the local stores can’t match. Eventually the tax-revenue stream will either be corrected with higher sales and use taxes or higher property taxes. The loss of jobs at local stores as well as the businesses themselves will be the outcome.

The article also points out that stock options commonly given to company executives are not charged against the business revenues, as are wages. This distorts the balance sheet most review prior to investing. I’ve rethought my investment plan for this year.

GERRY NELL

Westlake Village

*

To “close the digital divide” (Feb. 3), President Clinton proposes $2 billion in tax incentives and $380 million in federal grants. This is above the millions already being spent now on computer-related technology in the schools. In response to critics who indicate there is no digital divide, the administration claims there is a “need to connect more Americans to the Internet” (Jan. 29).

The president is irresponsibly exploiting a “sexy” issue that is politically motivated. Why this need? To sell more computers? To sell more products? To promote pornography? To spread hate, prejudice and violence? Surely if the president were truly interested in closing an economic “divide,” he could provide a more efficient system of vocational-special education schools for our disadvantaged students now neglected in our public schools. These are the young people who need access not to the Internet but to special instruction that will train them for a successful future.

KENNETH CARTER

Laguna Beach

*

I got a letter from a New York pharmaceutical company. They told me that one of my ongoing prescriptions was about to run out and I could refill it with them for less money. After talking to my own pharmacist it turns out they’re probably right.

But the scary part is, how did this New York company know about my Los Angeles prescription? The answer, of course, is the Internet. They saw the orders my pharmacist made, saw an opportunity for a sale and contacted me. It clearly never occurred to them that I would be the least bit upset by this invasion of privacy. Every single facet of our lives that deals with the Internet in any way whatsoever is now open to examination by anyone who knows how to look for it. I’m not at all sure the wonders of the Internet are worth the total lack of privacy it brings.

BART BRAVERMAN

Los Angeles