Cargill Shuts Down Soy Plant in the Amazon; "Whole Foods" Arrives in Britain; Itella, Nutella, Risella, A Rose by Any Other Name

Environmentalists and local politicians and activists celebrated, as local authorities in Brazil shut down a soy distribution plant in Santarem (here's where it is on the map.) The rainforest region has lost 20 percent of its trees and environmentalists claimed that it would lose more, if the plant was allowed to continue distribution.
---
US organic food mega chain Whole Foods arrives in Britain.
---
Now, apologies in advance, if I get a bit political on this next topic.

Established in 1638, Suomen Posti is changing its name to Itella in June. This begs the question, and just one question -- WHY? (Why on earth?) "Itella" is a publicly owned corporation that delivers mail, and as taxpayer-shareholders, wouldn't we all want to know:

a) How much does "Itella" rebranding cost? How much does it cost to redo all post office logos in stationary, vans, post boxes, office buildings? How much does it cost to advertise "Itella"? I don't mean "cost" with "unrealized gains" and hot air, I mean, how much does it really cost?

b) Who were the consultants, how were they chosen, and how much did they get paid -- and for what?

c) Who suggested this and who approved it? Did management actively solicit this brand change, or were they approached by "consultants"?

d) When will the investment bankers walk in, talking synergies, "strategic alternatives", "ownership structure", outside financing, leverage, IPO?

Is this paving way to privatization? It sure sounds more fitting to do a public offering of "Itella", as opposed to creating a primary market in the shares of Suomen Posti, which just sounds ... wrong. Because for almost four hundred years Posti- ja telelaitos, later Suomen Posti has belonged to, that's right, Sweden, Russia and finally Suomi. The name says so. I'm dreading that someone actually approves the privatization of postal services, which means Itella will then be majority owned by mostly US institutional investors (represented by a guy in a Brooks Brothers suit sitting in front of a computer terminal in Boston, Westchester, or Midtown Manhattan) who couldn't care less about whether the guys and gals in Jämijärvi get their morning paper before their afternoon coffee.

Here's an idea: why can't you just make it a better run business?

Why couldn't the company be well run and make nice profits even as Suomen Posti owned by the state of Finland?

A lively discussion on the Helsingin Sanomat website continues about Itella. Someone chose the username "Nutella" and I realized that's it -- my mind had frantically tried to recall what I was associating with the name Itella. Yes. Nutella. That's why it sounded wrong. Synesthesia means that names do matter. Why not use an X in the name? FPX? (Finland Post X -- for no other reason than the fact that X as well as Z sound speedy and cool. Sort of. American Express, Fedex, Rizzo, Zio, Cazze, Mexx, Jamie Foxx, taxpayer money, what have you.)

All in all, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. When rap star Puff Daddy changed his name to P Diddy, it sounded pretty stupid (really stupid), but apparently the guy was still cool. Postal services aren't cool even if they're called Itella. They're just ... postal services. Maybe they're just more privatizable (just coined a word.) Think TeliaSonera -- TS reminds me of two things: how my stock broker friend north of Boston made a killing with the Sonera IPO money left on the table and how Sonera used to be a part of Posti- ja telelaitos. Most importantly, there are precedents; this has been done before, in Shakespeare country, and it didn't work out.

Who is making money off of real public corporations and who is paying the bill? If someone out there actually considers future privatization a viable strategic alternative, please answer me this: Why would it be better to have a bunch of nameless, faceless US shareholders presumably running the show (especially when they'd probably rather be golfing in the Carolinas) as opposed to continuing to employ local people that represent 5 million Finns who care about getting their mail safely and on time? If you consider the countryside, there are many old people out there who hope they could get their mail delivered to their front door, because they're too tired to walk to their mailbox. Those are the people who this business ought to be answering to.

This corporation used to be subsidized by the government. It was built up with government money, our money. On one hand we have potential government profit centers (such as "Itella") and on the other, we have cost centers (such as old people's homes and city hospitals for the elderly.) Everyone and their second cousin seems more interested in these profit centers.

I appreciate the fact that while considering these highly charged issues one is supposed to remain credible, cool, calm, collected and analytical, but sometimes I don't think it's halfway human. Even in business schools, I wish people took more stands. Why is it any less normative and any more credible to rely on some of the dogma that economics and business books spew out, including the dogma that private = better? Milton Friedman got a Nobel prize. My personal opinion still remains that he was wrong about CSR, with or without the prize. Was his opinion really more credible because he appeared unaffected while speaking, or did he merely wear, on that issue, the cloak of intellectualism like the emperor's new clothes? Do we all when we focus on snazzying up the "Itellas" of the world, as opposed to doing what's gotta be done and running lives and businesses better and more sensibly?

Rant over. Thank you.