Trump Administration Bails Out Post Office As Workers Whine About “No Letter Left Behind”

Trump Administration Bails Out Post Office As Workers Whine About “No Letter Left Behind”

Tyler Durden

Wed, 07/29/2020 – 18:45

What kind of monster would de-fund the post office?

That’s the message that President Trump’s liberal detractors at media outlets like The Intercept have been pushing as President Trump suggested that he would withhold rescue funds from the postal service, after calling the postal service ” a joke” and suggesting it try getting the money from Amazon and Jeff Bezos instead.

The White House has also bashed the Postal Service for carrying drugs through the mail from within the US and abroad, from Mexico and China.

But the president has evidently changed his mind, and on Wednesday, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said that the White House had agreed to loan the USPS $10 billion for pandemic relief. Much of this money has already been appropriated by Congress, per BBG.

“While the USPS is able to fund its operating expenses without additional borrowing at this time, we are pleased to have reached an agreement on the material terms and conditions of a loan, should the need arise,” Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in a statement.

The funds were included by Congress in the $2 trillion pandemic relief package in March.

While in the past such a shift might have taken the wind out of the sails of the opposition, in the Trump era, issues are never really ‘settled’. And a story published Wednesday by the Intercept claimed that even this bailout isn’t good enough because the Trump Administration is still pushing ahead with cost cuts that could “change the culture” of the postal service in a way that might…gasp….cause slight delays in the timing of mail delivery.

The ethos can be summed up thusly: “no letter left behind”. How dare the Trump Administration threaten to make Americans wait even one single day longer to receive their mail?

“These are changes aimed at changing the entire culture of USPS,” said Mark Dimondstein, the national president of the American Postal Workers Union. “The culture I grew up with, and of generations before me, is that you never leave mail behind. You serve the customer, you get mail to the customer. Prompt, reliable, and efficient.”

We certainly have a lot of respect for The Way Things Are Done. Many of society’s most entrenched problems have resulted from well-meaning attempts to meddle with the status quo. For example, the costs associated with higher education never would have gotten so out of hand if the federal government hadn’t stepped up to backstop Americans’ college loans, granting naive 18-year-olds with little understanding of money and debt the power to borrow tens of thousands of dollars (if not hundreds) and squander it on a BA in “communications”.

However, a lot has changed since Mr. Dimondstein made his first bones in the mail-delivery game. Private parcel services like UPS and FedEx handle much larger percentages of parcel deliveries. For most Americans, the snail mail is just an endless procession of junk.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3hMAdHW Tyler Durden

Daily Briefing – July 29, 2020

Daily Briefing – July 29, 2020


Tyler Durden

Wed, 07/29/2020 – 18:25

Managing editor, Ed Harrison, and senior editor, Ash Bennington, come together to discuss the Fed in light of the FOMC’s announcement today. Ed and Ash drive home how the Fed, at this time, is the dominant agent in these markets and how investors’ feelings regarding Fed action can interfere with one’s ability to make money. Because of the Fed’s mandate, Ed and Ash discuss why they are “the only game in town” and how it’s led them to respond to the crisis with unprecedented force. They then consider the weight of the arguments concerning the dollar losing reserve currency status and examine the implications of the Fed’s latest announcement. In the intro, Nick Correa covers what’s happening in gold markets and whether the rally is “overhyped” as well as Santander’s and Barclays’ earnings announcements.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2ExyvvK Tyler Durden

Snyder: We Are In The Process Of Completely Losing America

Snyder: We Are In The Process Of Completely Losing America

Tyler Durden

Wed, 07/29/2020 – 18:25

Authored by Michael Snyder via TheMostImportantNews.com,

When I was growing up, I was taught to love America.  My father was in the U.S. Navy, our family spent six years overseas as he served at a military base in a foreign land, and every day I would say the Pledge of Allegiance at the local school for military children that I attended.  It was during this period of time that Ronald Reagan was first elected president of the United States, and the things that he said about the greatness of America’s values really inspired me.  Of course no nation has ever been perfect, but at one time the United States was united by a common set of values that we were constantly striving to live up to.  And one of the reasons why I am often so hard on America in my articles is because I want us to rediscover those values and start trying to live up to them once again.

Unfortunately, the truth is that all of the things that once made America so great are slipping away from us a little bit more with each passing day.

For example, just look at how much freedom of speech is being eroded.  Once upon a time, people would gather in homes or marketplaces to exchange ideas, but now we gather on giant social media platforms to share ideas with one another.

And during the early days of social media, speech was left relatively uncensored and it allowed interesting ideas to spread rapidly.  Sadly, things are completely different now, and the level of censorship that we are witnessing is really scary.

There is a certain video that contains footage of prominent doctors talking about potential treatments for COVID-19 that has created quite a stir.  I am sure that most of you know the video that I am talking about, because it started to spread rapidly on Tuesday.  But then Facebook banned it, Twitter banned it, YouTube banned it and other social media platforms banned it as well.  My wife tried to put up a copy of the video herself, and it was taken down immediately.

And when Donald Trump Jr. tried to share the video on Twitter, his entire account got partially suspended.

At this point, freedom of speech is essentially dead on our major social media platforms, and because they have such a dominant position in our marketplace of ideas, that means that freedom of speech has been severely crippled in our society as a whole.

Freedom of religion is being greatly eroded as well.  States such as California continue to ban large church gatherings in order to help prevent the spread of COVID-19, but meanwhile they don’t have any problem with the large groups of protesters that are gathering night after night in our major cities to riot and commit acts of violence.

If conditions are good enough for thousands upon thousands of rioters to get together and cause chaos, and if conditions are good enough for thousands upon thousands of people to go shopping at Wal-Mart, then conditions are certainly good enough for Christians to go to church.

It looks like this pandemic could be with us throughout 2021 and beyond.  Would some of these blue states really try to keep churches closed for that long?

And there is also a tremendous amount of concern that many of these blue states will require people to take a COVID-19 vaccine once it is available.  President Trump is trying to push vaccine development along as rapidly as possible, because he thinks that if he can announce something before November that it will help him win the election.

But rushing a potentially dangerous vaccine through development and forcibly injecting it into the arms of millions of Americans is not only incredibly foolish, it is also deeply un-American.

And the way that Republicans and Democrats in Congress are responding to this crisis is also deeply un-American.

We are supposed to have a free market capitalist system, and when I was growing up the socialists were always regarded as enemies of our Republic.

But now there are very few politicians in Washington that are not socialists.

This week we were informed that another “stimulus bill” is on the way.  This one is going to involve more direct socialist payments to the American people, but at this point hardly anyone is even bothering to point out that this is pure socialism.

Never before in American history have we done such a thing.  We have been through the Civil War, World War I, the Great Depression, World War II and a whole host of other difficult times, and yet we have never passed out “free money” to everyone in the country before.

And of course we can’t afford any of this extra spending that Congress is doing.  This new stimulus bill is “only” going to cost about a trillion dollars, but that is another trillion dollars that we will have to steal from future generations of Americans.

At this moment we are more than 26 trillion dollars in debt, and soon it will be 27 trillion dollars.  We are systematically destroying America’s future, and our founders would be absolutely horrified at what we are doing if they could see us today.

Of course we abandoned most of the values that they held dear long ago.  What was “right” in their day is now “wrong”, and what was “wrong” in their day has now become “right”.

In essence, we are literally turning into the exact opposite of what they originally intended for America to be.

If we stay on the path that we are currently on, there isn’t going to be an America.

And it deeply grieves me to say that, because I was taught to greatly love this country from a very early age.

For years, I have been trying to get people to wake up.

For years, I have been battling the insidious forces that are eating away at the foundations that this nation was built upon.

And I will continue to battle, but the hour is getting very late, and America is slipping away a little bit more with each day that passes.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/30b2bY3 Tyler Durden

Speaker Pelosi Orders Mandatory Mask-Wearing On House Floor

Speaker Pelosi Orders Mandatory Mask-Wearing On House Floor

Tyler Durden

Wed, 07/29/2020 – 18:07

Following the announcement that Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-Texas), who reportedly was rarely seen wearing a mask in the halls of Congress, that he has tested postive for COVID-19, Speaker Nancy Pelosi told House Democrats on a call Wednesday evening that she will require masks to be worn on the floor of the House.

“Members and staff will be required to wear masks in the halls of the House,” she says, adding she can direct House sergeant-at-arms to tell members to leave if they aren’t wearing one.

Given Dr. Fauci’s comments earlier today – and his name is apparently holy writ – we wonder how long before goggles and masks are mandatory in the House?

We note that Mitch McConnell has since said that he believes “a Senate mask mandate appears unnecessary.”

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Xarmb3 Tyler Durden

China’s Military “Will Definitely Retaliate” If Trump Stages October Surprise: State-Run GT

China’s Military “Will Definitely Retaliate” If Trump Stages October Surprise: State-Run GT

Tyler Durden

Wed, 07/29/2020 – 18:05

China’s English language state-run Global Times, which often serves as an unofficial foreign policy arm of Beijing signaling the communist government’s intent and messages to the West, has issued a new article along with tweets saying the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) stands ready to ‘retaliate’ amid rumors the US could launch attacks on Chinese islands and reefs in the South China Sea.

The publication strongly suggested that soaring tensions with China will be used of Trump to facilitate an October surprise. It began by saying that “Chinese experts said on Tuesday that China could be restrained on retaliating to new US provocations on politics, diplomacy or economy, because Chinese policymakers will not let the Trump administration use them for his reelection, and will wait for the presidential election result to decide how to respond.”

“However, if Washington launches military provocations to challenge the bottom line of China’s national security and sovereignty, China will make immediate and effective retaliations. Experts said whether or not the two major powers can avoid military conflict in the next three months depends on the White House, and China needs to make its deterrence ‘more visible’ to warn the US about how dangerous a war could be,” Global Times wrote.

Guided missiles are launched from Chinese destroyer during prior training, via Reuters.

The report, which no doubt is also intended as a warning, said the unexpected surge of hawkish fervor focused on Beijing out of Washington has only served to make the Chinese defense establishment respond in the same measure.

“Direct China-US military conflicts, or even the severance of diplomatic ties, which used to be unimaginable, are being discussed more frequently by the mainstream media outlets and scholars, so the danger of military conflicts exists and is growing,” Jin Canrong, associate dean of Renmin University of China’s School of International Studies in Beijing, was cited as saying.

He explained further “Unfortunately, there is [possibility of an armed confrontation]. Nobody wants it, and everybody would lose if a war erupts. But if you look at what happened in World War I, for example, it was started by a little event, and then the larger countries quickly became involved even though they had not planned to.”

The publication also emphasized the fact that both are nuclear armed, making large-scale war less likely in the end. But it cited a separate analyst to point out that “If there is a little scuffle in the South China Sea, it could soon escalate. And if the countries fail to control it, it could be devastating and everybody would lose. It is very scary.”

Also citing that the US Air Force and Navy has conducted at least 60 close proximity reconnaissance operations with large aircraft in the South China Sea, GT explored the likelihood of an “isolated” encounter which grows to a small then medium-sized conflict. Will all-out war then able to be contained? – it asked.

Beiing-based South China Sea Strategic Situation Probing Initiative (SCSPI) told GT that we are much closer than ever before to such a possibility

Rumors say the US could launch attacks on Chinese islands and reefs in the South China Sea, but “this is basically impossible, as the US knows this will lead to an all-out war,” Hu said.

However, the possibility of small and medium-sized clashes, which could involve ship collisions and occasional firing incidents, is rising, Hu said, noting that the uncertainties mainly come from the US, including its upcoming presidential election, influence of domestic hard-liners, and potential escalations of aircraft and vessel encounters in the South China Sea.

Another analyst quoted in the report said that it’s Taiwan that actually remains the most potentially explosive issue, given recent Congressional authorization to boost military support to the breakaway island.

This is because China simply won’t budge no matter the context and risk of war when it comes to Taiwan and the question of sovereignty: “But there is no room for Chinese policymakers to compromise on sovereignty and security issues. The US could face a direct military operation from the PLA if it provokes China,” the analyst said.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2CTuGka Tyler Durden

Why Texas Is In Trouble

Why Texas Is In Trouble

Tyler Durden

Wed, 07/29/2020 – 17:45

Submitted by Adam Andrzejewski, from OpenTheBooks.com

Why Texas Is In Trouble—78,064 Public Employees With $100,000+ Paychecks Cost Taxpayers $12 Billion

Everything is bigger in Texas—including the supersized salaries of its city managers, school superintendents, state staffers, and other public servants. Last year, 78,064 state and local government employees made more than $100,000 each, and 18,600 of them out-earned Texas Governor Greg Abbott, who made $153,750.

Our auditors at OpentheBooks.com found the speech writers for university presidents making up to $140,000; library directors booking $202,875; community college presidents making up to $505,000; and city managers raking in an eye-popping $1.85 million over the last three-years.

We also found 19,519 federal bureaucrats based in Texas who earned six figures or more. Collectively, these employees cost taxpayers $2.5 billion in 2018, the last year available.

Using our interactive mapping tool, quickly review (by ZIP code) the highly compensated public employees earning more than $100,000 annually from local, state, and federal governments. Just click a pin and scroll down to see the results rendered in the chart beneath the map.

Auditing Texas’ largest local and state pay systems:

Municipalities (22,656 employees who made $100,000+) – Texas is home to some of the most highly compensated city managers in the nation.

In 2018, Sheryl Sculley ($574,594), the then-city manager in San Antonio, ranked number one.  Her base salary was $467,789 plus a $106,805 bonus. Six deputy and assistant city managers also made between $231,544 and $270,125. The library director made $202,875— and outearned all federal bureaucrats employed at the National Archive and Smithsonian Institution ($201,400).  

In 2019, frustrated voters in San Antonio capped city manager pay and term-limited employment to eight-years by passing a referendum.

This hasn’t happened in other Texas towns.

In the past three-years, Laredo poured $1.85 million into their city manager position (2017-2019). Horacio De Leon earned $880,486 in 2019 and $314,556 in 2018. In 2017, the previous city manager, Jesus Olivares, received $651,867 – including $278,028 in severance.

We reached out to Laredo and all the other cities with highly compensated employees for comment. We will update the piece if they respond.

Top-paid city managers included Peter Vargas ($433,842 Allen); T.C. Broadnax ($410,692 Dallas); Spencer Cronk ($378,071 Austin); Bruce Glasscock ($374,537 Plano); Daniel Johnson ($357,744 Richardson); David Cooke ($348,730 Fort Worth); Tomas Gonzalez ($340,746 El Paso); and Robert Wood ($319,946 West Lake Hills).

The city of Plano responded to our comment request:

“Mr. Glasscock’s salary included his retirement payout of benefits since it was 2019 and he retired in April of that year. His actual annual salary was lower than that.”

El Paso gave a lengthy defense of their pay scale. Nevertheless, Tomas Gonzalez $340,746), their city manager, outearned every four-star general in the U.S. military ($268,332) last year.

Other highly compensated workers included the general manager of Austin Energy, Jacqueline Sargent, earned $419,942. Two employees of Garland Power & Light made more than $412,000 last year.

In Dallas, top executives received hefty pay hikes. For example, in 2011, the Dallas city manager made $265,617, which increased to $410,692 last year (a 53 percent bump). The top assistant city manager in 2011 made $198,048, but that position earned $289,001 last year (a 46-percent increase).

“Dallas pays city executives equitably to close gender and cultural compensation gaps. Executive compensation is commensurate with experience to attract and retain the talent needed to provide excellent, equitable, ethical, and empathetic service to our residents and stakeholders.” Catherine Cuellar, City of Dallas spokesperson.

Public Schools (8,975 employees who made $100,000+) – Nearly 9,000 Texas public school administrators, athletic directors, teachers, and other employees pulled down six-figure salaries in 2019 and cost taxpayers $1.1 billion. Nearly 1,000 teachers and administrators out-earned the governor ($153,750).

The $400,000 Club (2019) included six superintendents: David Faltys ($452,014 Carroll); Donald Stockton ($447,879 Conroe); John Henry ($442,917 Cypress-Fairbanks); Susan Simpson ($429,795 Grand Prairie); Bradford Lancaster ($411,148 Lake Travis); and Lawrence Anthony Hindt ($407,787 Katy).

The Dallas Independent School District (DSD) accumulated $3.8 billion in voter-approved debt as of 2018. But DSD still employed the second highest number of six-figure educators (349) which cost taxpayers $44.1 million. Only the district in Houston employed more (367). In 2017, Dallas paid 274 employees more than $100,000 for a total cash compensation of $34 million.

Fort Bend Independent paid their superintendent Charles Dupre $368,852 last year and responded to our request for comment:

“With more than 11,000 employees and a budget that exceeds $1 billion, Fort Bend ISD is the largest employer in Fort Bend County.”

For context, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education made $199,700 last year – a cabinet level position.

State Government (8,310 employees with $100,000+ salaries) – The state governments 8,310 highly compensated six-figure employees made a collective $1.1 billion last year. James McCall earned $1.1 million as chancellor of the Texas State University System and was one of the most highly compensated state employees.

Other state government executives also made a lot of money: Jerry Albright, CIO, ($800,175) and Eric Lang, Sr. Managing Director of Private Markets, ($750,540) at Teacher Retirement System; Paul Ballard, CEO, ($703,692) at Texas Treasury Safekeeping Trust Co.; Barney Timmins III, CIO, ($640,163) at Texas Education Agency; and Charles Tom Tull, CIO, ($577,981) at the Employees Retirement System of Texas.

The Texas Education Agency responded to our comment request by providing FY2020 estimated compensation for Barney Timmins III – who received another pay increase from $640,163 to $685,308.

In the Office of the Governor alone, 48 employees earned six-figure salaries and eleven out-earned their boss ($153,750). This included four deputy directors who made $265,000 each. In addition, ranked against the 50 states, the Texas governor’s office has the largest staff at a headcount of 277.

However, it’s important to note that the Texas governor’s office includes up to 30 departments and these departments operate independently in other states.

“The Texas Legislature appropriates a set amount for staff salaries within the Office of the Governor, and we are currently operating well under budget. In fact, the Office of the Governor has operated under budget since Governor Abbott first took office in 2015.” Read the full statement here. Nan Tolson, Deputy Press Secretary, Office of the Governor

Colleges and Universities (16,981 employees with $100,000+ salaries) –

Football is king in Texas, and head coaches made the largest incomes: Jimbo Fisher ($5.15 million Texas A&M); Tom Herman ($4.72 million University of Texas (UT)); Dana Holgorsen ($3.7 million University of Houston).

The Austin campus at UT employed 3,441 six-figure employees for $618 million in cash compensation. High earners in rank-and-file positions included Matthew Kivel, the president’s speech writer ($140,105); Gary Susswien, chief communications officer ($251,913); and Edmund Gordon, a diversity provost ($280,532).

Not only does UT pay hefty salaries, it also has one of the largest endowments in the nation: $31 billion. However, in March, the UT system took home $173 million in coronavirus relief funds as part of the CARES Act. This doesn’t even include amounts for the M.D. Anderson Medical Center at UT, which had 6,400 employees making between $100,000 and $3.8 million last year.

The Texas A&M University system employed 3,902 six-figure employees for $626 million in cash compensation last year. The university received $82 million in coronavirus bailout funds through the CARES Act despite their $13.5 billion endowment.

A Texas A&M spokesperson responded to our request for comment:

“Even with the CARES Act money, the Texas A&M System to date is experiencing almost $160 million in revenue losses, future cuts in state appropriations and the cost of testing our students, faculty and staff for COVID-19 so we can reopen safely.”

Overall, Texas state government is drowning in $99 billion dollars in debt, according to Truth in Accounting. It amounts to $3,413 per man, woman, and child. By contrast, Florida has only $12 billion in debt and a $600 per-person liability.

To their credit, most of Texas isn’t begging for a coronavirus bailout like many other states. However, Nancy Pelosi’s $3 trillion HEROES Act would deliver an extra $34.3 billion to the Lone Star State over the next two years.

However, critics say that Texas – at every level of state and local government – should tighten its own belt first.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/30a1uhk Tyler Durden

Congress Used the Antitrust Hearing To Peddle Petty Grievances Against Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google

upiphotostwo754578

The top executives of four major tech companies—Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google—were hauled before Congress on Wednesday; each accused of being an online monopoly that may require government action.

Math, as the $26 trillion national debt might suggest, is not exactly Congress’ strong suit.

One thing Congress is quite good at, however, is putting on a show—and Wednesday’s hearing of the House Judiciary Committee was more about theatrics than seriously considering the use of antitrust law. Perhaps that’s because it’s somewhat ridiculous to argue with a straight face that Google or Amazon are actually monopolies, or because it’s quite obvious that consumers who dislike Apple’s or Facebook’s products are perfectly free to give their time, money, and business to competitors on or off the web.

If lawmakers were serious about applying antitrust powers to big tech companies, they’d have to demonstrate that consumers are being actively harmed by anti-competitive behavior. Instead, it quickly became apparent that the real purpose of the hearing was political power.

“I’ll just cut to the chase: Big Tech is out to get conservatives,” said Rep. Jim Jordan (R–Ohio), the ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee. He accused Amazon, Google, and Facebook (and Twitter, which wasn’t even represented at Wednesday’s hearing) of taking political actions that he disliked. “The power these companies have to impact what happens during an election, what American citizens get to see before voting is pretty darn important,” he said, “That’s why this committee hearing is important.”

That criticism went both ways. A short while later, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D–Md.), who labeled the four CEOs “cyber barons” at one point, complained about Facebook supposedly helping Republicans win elections.

It’s almost as if partisans are using the threat of antitrust action to try to force tech firms to take sides. Antitrust laws, it’s important to note, do not allow Congress to break up a company because some lawmakers disagree with its politics.

But the clown show masquerading as a serious investigation was only getting started. Granted five minutes to question some of the most important CEOs in the county, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R–Wis.) chose instead to spar with Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg about whether Donald Trump Jr.’s tweets about the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine had been unfairly deleted.

“I think you might be referring to what happened on Twitter,” Zuckerberg noted.

One of the few lawmakers who tried to maintain the pretense that Wednesday’s affair was about antitrust laws rather than airing random grievances was Rep. Jerry Nadler (D–N.Y.), the committee’s chairman. In his opening remarks, Nadler compared the market share and influence of the four tech companies to that of railroads and other heavy industries in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

“It’s is effectively impossible to use the internet,” Nadler said, without relying on services provided by one of the “big four” firms hauled in front of the committee.

The analogy is a bad one. If you were a farmer in a small town in Ohio in 1897 and there was only one railroad serving the town, you were in some ways at the mercy of the railroad—and whatever prices or services it offered. That’s not at all how the internet works. If anything, the marketplace created by Amazon or the “app store” created by Apple have increased online competition by giving millions of small businesses and web developers a place to sell their digital goods.

And once you look beyond the digital world, it becomes even more apparent that the antitrust argument against Big Tech is hollow. Amazon isn’t just competing with Google for ad revenue online, it’s competing against everything from booksellers to grocery stores in the real world. Facebook competes not only against other social networks, but it’s messaging service competes against telecom companies. Apple isn’t the only, or even the biggest, smartphone manufacturer in the world.

Congress’ case against the “big four” tech firms is so flimsy that it’s no wonder lawmakers wasted everyone’s time on Wednesday by speculating randomly about Google’s connections to the Chinese military, accusing Facebook of not doing enough to combat hate speech, or complaining about the companies’ algorithms. Rep. Greg Steube (R–Fla.), for example, complained that Gmail, Google’s email application, is filing his campaign emails into the “spam” folder. That’s the kind of serious issue Wednesday’s hearing grappled with.

On the rare occasions that more serious issues were raised, they rarely had anything to do with antitrust law. Raskin, for example, complained that Amazon sometimes puts its own products on sale to undercut competitors—a common business practice, and one that, by definition, wouldn’t happen in a monopoly market. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle raised Facebook’s acquisition of Instagram, once a major competitor, as if it were proof that Zuckerberg’s company was a monopoly.

Tech firms should not be immune to criticism, of course, and that’s particularly true if they boost or suppress particular businesses or viewpoints. But those are not remotely close to being antitrust issues—and, in most cases, they aren’t issues that require government action at all.

Indeed, the fact that Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Google have become successful is an indication that consumers find value in those businesses. Apple CEO Tim Cook noted that customers give the iPhone a 99 percent satisfaction rating. What was the last government program to be nearly as beloved?

More importantly to the antitrust argument, Cook pointed out that Apple built the first “app store” and allows most developers to list their apps for free. “If Apple is a gate-keeper, what we’ve done is open the gate wider,” he said.

“You earn trust slowly, over time, by doing hard things well,” Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos said during his opening statement. “And by making principled decisions, even when they are unpopular.”

Instead of trying to break up big tech firms on specious antitrust grounds, maybe Congress should learn from them.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2X8z6u5
via IFTTT

It’s Just Like Saying the N—– Word

OK, I’m reusing the gag, but I can’t help it; see this post from WILX (Maureen Holliday):

Bed and breakfast Nordic Pineapple in Saint Johns has removed their Norwegian flag after dozens of people confuse[d] it for the Confederate flag.

Greg and Kjersten Offbecker moved into the historic mansion two years ago and turned it into a bed and breakfast. As decoration, they hung a Norwegian flag next to the American flag at the front entrance of the inn, but dozens of guests and people driving by have accused the couple of flying a Confederate flag.

“They are the same color, but there are no stars on the Norwegian flag, and the Confederate flag is a big ‘x’ and the Norwegian flag is part of the Nordic countries, they’re all crosses,” Offbecker said.

Last week, the couple decided to remove the flag as they were updating their marketing materials….

Thanks to Iain Murray at InstaPundit for the pointer.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/313R4iy
via IFTTT

Of Course It’s Legitimate to Criticize George Soros’ Spending to Influence American Politics

Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass has apparently had his column moved from page 2 “farther back in the print edition” after being accused of anti-Semitism for his column criticizing George Soros’ influence on American politics:

President Donald Trump is sending federal law enforcement into the big cities run by Democratic mayors, where murder and gang shootings are out of control and where once vibrant downtown areas are on their way to becoming ghost towns.

And naturally, the Democratic mayors, backing Joe Biden, are on the defensive, upset that the president might win political advantage, even as the mayors feud with their own police departments, as the violence rises in their towns, as children are gunned down.

But these Democratic cities are also where left-wing billionaire George Soros has spent millions of dollars to help elect liberal social justice warriors as prosecutors. He remakes the justice system in urban America, flying under the radar.

The Soros-funded prosecutors, not the mayors, are the ones who help release the violent on little or no bond….

I can’t speak with confidence about just why the Tribune decided as it did. (The official Tribune statement was that the columnists were moved into an opinion section to “help … maintain the credibility of our news coverage with our online audience, our print readers and our communities amid what is by all accounts a raw and hyper-partisan political environment.”) But the claim that Kass’s column is anti-Semitic—”The odious, anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that billionaire George Soros is a puppet master controlling America’s big cities does not deserve a mainstream voice, especially at a time when hate crimes are rising”—strikes me as quite unfounded.

George Soros is trying to play a major role in American political life; according to the New York Magazine (Gabriel Debenedetti) story “Ranking the Most Influential Democratic Donors in the 2020 Race,” George Soros was #3 on the list, right behind Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer. People can praise him for that, or can criticize him, just as the Kochs on the right and other such spenders are criticized by people they disagree with. I have nothing against rich people spending money to support speech they like, but it’s perfectly legitimate to fault them for promoting what the author thinks are bad ideas.

Nor does this seem to be some sort of cherry-picking of a Jewish donor just because he’s Jewish. He is indeed a major and long-standing funder of left-wing causes; his role in funding causes he believes in is widely reported in mainstream media outlets, see, e.g., this recent Bloomberg story about his plan to “Invest $220 Million in U.S. Equality Groups,” and this recent Washington Post op-ed on his “trying to change the system that made him rich.” Soros is genuinely a big player here, and thus rightly a big target for those who disagree with him. (For whatever it’s worth, as best I can tell, of the 8 top Democratic donors included on the New York Magazine list, 7 are Jewish, and the one exception, Tom Steyer, is half-Jewish, though a practicing Christian.) We Jews shouldn’t be specially criticized because we are Jewish, but we also aren’t entitled to special immunity from criticism because we are Jewish.

Kass’s response is here. David Bernstein took a somewhat different approach in this 2018 post, though I read David’s point there as focused on lies and distortions about Soros rather than criticisms generally (such as Kass’s).

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2X6JVwO
via IFTTT

Congress Used the Antitrust Hearing To Peddle Petty Grievances Against Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google

upiphotostwo754578

The top executives of four major tech companies—Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google—were hauled before Congress on Wednesday; each accused of being an online monopoly that may require government action.

Math, as the $26 trillion national debt might suggest, is not exactly Congress’ strong suit.

One thing Congress is quite good at, however, is putting on a show—and Wednesday’s hearing of the House Judiciary Committee was more about theatrics than seriously considering the use of antitrust law. Perhaps that’s because it’s somewhat ridiculous to argue with a straight face that Google or Amazon are actually monopolies, or because it’s quite obvious that consumers who dislike Apple’s or Facebook’s products are perfectly free to give their time, money, and business to competitors on or off the web.

If lawmakers were serious about applying antitrust powers to big tech companies, they’d have to demonstrate that consumers are being actively harmed by anti-competitive behavior. Instead, it quickly became apparent that the real purpose of the hearing was political power.

“I’ll just cut to the chase: Big Tech is out to get conservatives,” said Rep. Jim Jordan (R–Ohio), the ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee. He accused Amazon, Google, and Facebook (and Twitter, which wasn’t even represented at Wednesday’s hearing) of taking political actions that he disliked. “The power these companies have to impact what happens during an election, what American citizens get to see before voting is pretty darn important,” he said, “That’s why this committee hearing is important.”

That criticism went both ways. A short while later, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D–Md.), who labeled the four CEOs “cyber barons” at one point, complained about Facebook supposedly helping Republicans win elections.

It’s almost as if partisans are using the threat of antitrust action to try to force tech firms to take sides. Antitrust laws, it’s important to note, do not allow Congress to break up a company because some lawmakers disagree with its politics.

But the clown show masquerading as a serious investigation was only getting started. Granted five minutes to question some of the most important CEOs in the county, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R–Wis.) chose instead to spar with Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg about whether Donald Trump Jr.’s tweets about the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine had been unfairly deleted.

“I think you might be referring to what happened on Twitter,” Zuckerberg noted.

One of the few lawmakers who tried to maintain the pretense that Wednesday’s affair was about antitrust laws rather than airing random grievances was Rep. Jerry Nadler (D–N.Y.), the committee’s chairman. In his opening remarks, Nadler compared the market share and influence of the four tech companies to that of railroads and other heavy industries in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

“It’s is effectively impossible to use the internet,” Nadler said, without relying on services provided by one of the “big four” firms hauled in front of the committee.

The analogy is a bad one. If you were a farmer in a small town in Ohio in 1897 and there was only one railroad serving the town, you were in some ways at the mercy of the railroad—and whatever prices or services it offered. That’s not at all how the internet works. If anything, the marketplace created by Amazon or the “app store” created by Apple have increased online competition by giving millions of small businesses and web developers a place to sell their digital goods.

And once you look beyond the digital world, it becomes even more apparent that the antitrust argument against Big Tech is hollow. Amazon isn’t just competing with Google for ad revenue online, it’s competing against everything from booksellers to grocery stores in the real world. Facebook competes not only against other social networks, but it’s messaging service competes against telecom companies. Apple isn’t the only, or even the biggest, smartphone manufacturer in the world.

Congress’ case against the “big four” tech firms is so flimsy that it’s no wonder lawmakers wasted everyone’s time on Wednesday by speculating randomly about Google’s connections to the Chinese military, accusing Facebook of not doing enough to combat hate speech, or complaining about the companies’ algorithms. Rep. Greg Steube (R–Fla.), for example, complained that Gmail, Google’s email application, is filing his campaign emails into the “spam” folder. That’s the kind of serious issue Wednesday’s hearing grappled with.

On the rare occasions that more serious issues were raised, they rarely had anything to do with antitrust law. Raskin, for example, complained that Amazon sometimes puts its own products on sale to undercut competitors—a common business practice, and one that, by definition, wouldn’t happen in a monopoly market. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle raised Facebook’s acquisition of Instagram, once a major competitor, as if it were proof that Zuckerberg’s company was a monopoly.

Tech firms should not be immune to criticism, of course, and that’s particularly true if they boost or suppress particular businesses or viewpoints. But those are not remotely close to being antitrust issues—and, in most cases, they aren’t issues that require government action at all.

Indeed, the fact that Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Google have become successful is an indication that consumers find value in those businesses. Apple CEO Tim Cook noted that customers give the iPhone a 99 percent satisfaction rating. What was the last government program to be nearly as beloved?

More importantly to the antitrust argument, Cook pointed out that Apple built the first “app store” and allows most developers to list their apps for free. “If Apple is a gate-keeper, what we’ve done is open the gate wider,” he said.

“You earn trust slowly, over time, by doing hard things well,” Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos said during his opening statement. “And by making principled decisions, even when they are unpopular.”

Instead of trying to break up big tech firms on specious antitrust grounds, maybe Congress should learn from them.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2X8z6u5
via IFTTT