Science & Technology

Fauci: No Reason People Cannot Vote in Person

The science “experts” tell us that those who break curfews, do not socially distance, and do not wear masks, are responsible for COVID-19 deaths, which is why the economy, churches, and schools should remain closed. (For a proper approach to handling pandemics click here.)

These same priests of “science” also tell us that if one carries BLM Inc. signs, harasses policeman, and blocks traffic, one is exempted.

Now in a similar vein, the political talking heads, continue that these same “protestors” are unable to vote in polling booths in person because of the dangers of COVID-19, and therefore an untested new system designed by the DNC of nationwide mail-in voting must be implemented at the last minute, that goes beyond the present system of absentee ballotting (where a potential voter is verified before they cast a mail-in ballot).

Is their concern really over COVID-19 or to enable election fraud on a nationwide scale?

As for the dangers of in-person voting Dr. Fauci sets the record straight:

The

Jason Hill: Nihilistic Attempts to Abolish History and Grammar

Professor Jason Hill, author of We Have Overcome, mostly channeling Ayn Rand, made this important statement:

“What we’re seeing in the educational system is systemic nihilism. So let us go back a step further. A couple weeks ago Rutgers University declared that grammar was racist. Now grammar is the science that deals with the proper method of oral and written communication. When you attack grammar you attack language, which is the method of cognition. You attack man’s mind, you attack his ability to reason. So you attack man’s mind, which means you leave us on the level of grunting farm animals, so you leave us incapacitated to reason, to think. And then you take away his history, you take away human history, our Constitutional rights, our Bill of Rights, our Second Amendment, our First Amendment, or time-worn principles that we use to defend our way of life. Our Judeo-Christianity. Your looking at sysemtic nihilism. You are looking at the Anti-Christ as far as I am concerned. You’re looking at a bunch of nihilists and anarchists that want to destroy the system and replace it with nothing – nothing at all. They want to destroy the good for the sake of it being the good. I have been warning about these post-modern nihilists that started back in the 1960s, when we had these fake disciplines attacking reason, valorizing feelings as the only criterion for adjudicating disputes – one’s feelings and one’s feeling of being offended as the only criteria for adjudicating disputes – and dispensing with reason, objective reality, and logic as the construct of imperialist, racist, white men. That’s what we’re seeing today, and so you dispense with history altogether.”

Critical Thoughts on Matt Ridley, Individualism, and Innovation as a Collective Process

Some thoughts on Matt Ridley’s take on individualism and the collective from his discussion with Adam Mossoff on his book How Innovation Works: And Why It Flourishes in Freedom:

  • Innovation as a collective process is not a knock against individualism as Ridley’s “lone-wolf” conception of individualism makes it. Ridley sees “individualism” as doing things entirely by oneself. I see “unrugged individualism” as a straw-man. Individualism means one takes an independent, first-hand attitude in one’s thinking and decision-making. It means not bowing down to others when one’s mind thinks otherwise, and willing to “stand-alone” when one’s mind determines this is the best course of action. In any group or collective under-taking, it is the “individualist” who is willing to buck the trend and think differently, which provides the intellectual “mutation” for the development of new ideas.
  • To say there is a “collective brain” is not reality, but a metaphor, much like Adam Smith’s “invisible hand.” I think both conceptions, though poetic, can hide the operations of the market rather than explaining them. This is why methodological individualism, favored by Professors Mises and Hayek, the latter that Ridley so approvingly quotes is so important.
  • A group, or collective (whether association, society, corporation, etc.) is not fundamental. A group is made of individuals. It is individuals that exist. A collection is a collection of something. The unit is the individual. The problem with political “collectivism” is that that it entirely forgets this.
  • In any collective undertaking, different individuals perform different actions towards the achievement of a commonly agreed-upon goal. Each individual is making an individual contribution that advances and builds on the work of others – and more often than not some, individuals contribute more than others and some less.
  • The “heroic” inventor does not exist in a vacuum, but one needs to be careful not to slip into the “You didn’t build that!” attitude popularized by political collectivists like President Obama. Innovators do rely on the efforts and knowledge of those before them (“stands on their shoulders.”) What makes them heroic is the results they do produce by their efforts, as individuals, which in turn contributes to the process. The success of a group undertaking is that such individuals are able to coordinate their individual efforts together toward a shared goal.
  • Ridley states that knowledge is not stored in individual heads, but knowledge is stored between them. I think a more accurate formulation would be: knowledge is conceptualized and stored inside an individual’s head and is shared between them. (It can then be stored in that wonderful innovation: the book).
  • This is not to disagree that knowledge is dispersed, but to point out that it is dispersed among the minds of various individuals, which is why free markets  — where individuals are left free to disagree and act against the desires of others so long as they do not violate their rights through the initiation of force and fraud  — are so important as a coordinating mechanism for knowledge. As philosopher Ayn Rand has observed a free-market is a corollary of a free-mind.

Anyways How Innovation Works: And Why It Flourishes in Freedom is a must-read.

Intellectual Property and Innovation: Adam Mossoff Interview with Matt Ridley on “How Innovation Works”

Adam Mossoff, Chair of the Forum for Intellectual Property, Hudson Institute interviews Matt Ridley on How Innovation Works: And Why It Flourishes in Freedom.”

Adam interviews Ridley on the role of innovation in a free economy, and the two end up having a fascinating discussion on the role of intellectual property and its relationship to innovation.

Ridley sees an overall negative correlation between innovation and intellectual property empirically today, and Adam an unequivocally positive one.

Ridley takes a utilitarian justification of patents (“made to be shared” to benefit society) and Adam takes a property rights justification (made to benefit the patent owner’s intellectual work).

Adam sees the creation of intellectual property rights, such as patents, as similar to the initial creation of physical property rights in land (such as via the Homestead Act), where those who develop the land, that was once in the commons, first get title to the land. Brilliant.

As to Ridley’s concerns over copyrights being the life of the author plus 50 (or 70) years, I think that it makes a lot of sense if you release a book later in your lifetime — say in your 70’s. You can sell the publishing rights to the book now, for the 50 plus years to someone else, who can pay you a lump sum for the expected future sales after your death, in the present. That would not be possible if copyrights ended with the death of the author. Whereas if copyright ends at your death you would not get much for your efforts for selling the rights to a book at 70. Or, imagine if copyrights ended at the author’s death and you were J.K Rowling who just released the final book in the fantastic Harry Potter series.

I’m still digesting Adam’s thoughts — which also gave Ridley some pause to mull over — which I will post on later.

The two end the conversation with:

“I’ve probably learned more from you than you have from me but it’s it’s always interesting to do that.” — Matt Ridley

“I learned a lot from your book and I really appreciated the the depth of research and effort that you put into it I really hope it has a wide readership.” — Adam Mossoff

It’s always heart-warming that two great minds who disagree, on what can be a cantankerous issue in other circles, can discuss issues in such a collegial manner.

Recommended Reading: How Innovation Works: And Why It Flourishes in Freedom” by Matt Ridley

Energy: When Green Is Not So Clean

As some policymakers push to include “green energy” initiatives as a key feature of economic recovery, a new Manhattan Institute report by senior fellow Mark Mills offers a sobering reality check. Any large-scale shift to using so-called green energy technologies instead of oil and gas as primary energy sources would require an unprecedented increase in the mining of key minerals across the globe.

Building wind turbines, solar panels, and electric vehicle batteries is far more resource-intensive than building hydrocarbon-fueled machines. These green technologies require, on average, more than ten times the quantity of materials to deliver the same amount of energy. If widely implemented, this will require far more mining, mainly in foreign countries, often with questionable environmental and labor practices. And while essentially all hydrocarbons America uses are produced domestically, nearly all green energy materials and the components of green machines are produced overseas. An aggressive green-energy path will exacerbate foreign supply-chain vulnerabilities at a time when many policymakers are considering the benefits of reshoring supply chains.

Among the report’s key findings:

  • A single electric car contains more cobalt than 1,000 smartphone batteries; the blades on a single wind turbine require more plastic than five million smartphones; and a solar array that could power one data center uses more glass than 50 million smartphones.
  • A single electric car battery weighing 1,000 pounds requires extracting and processing some 500,000 pounds of materials to obtain the key “energy minerals.” Averaged over a battery’s life, each mile of driving an electric car “consumes” five pounds of earth. Using an internal combustion engine consumes about 0.2 pounds of liquids per mile.
  • As recently as 1990, the U.S. was the world’s number-one producer of minerals. Today, it is in seventh place. even though the nation has vast mineral reserves worth trillions of dollars, America is now 100 percent dependent on imports for some 17 key minerals, and for another 29, over half of domestic needs are imported.
  • Oil, natural gas, and coal are needed to produce the concrete, steel, plastics, and purified minerals used to build green machines. The energy equivalent of 100 barrels of oil is used in the processes to fabricate a single battery that can store the equivalent of one barrel of oil.
  • By 2050, with current plans, the quantity of worn-out solar panels—much of it nonrecyclable—will constitute double the tonnage of all today’s global plastic waste, along with over 3 million tons per year of unrecyclable plastics from worn-out wind turbine blades. By 2030, more than 10 million tons per year of batteries will become garbage.

Click here to read the full report.

Source: Manhattan Institute

Alex Epstein: Energy Talking Points

From Alex Epstein at the Center for Industrial Progress:

Energy policy, including climate policy, will be one of the main issues of the 2020 elections.

I believe that the best policy for America’s future and the world’s future is a policy of energy freedom, in which all sources of energy–including fossil fuels–can compete to produce the most reliable, lowest-cost energy for billions of people.

I am extremely worried that a large percentage of candidates running for office are advocating “renewables only” policies that, if actually implemented, would quickly turn America into a third-world country.

I want to use my years of experience studying energy and persuading people about energy to help pro-freedom, pro-energy candidates and citizens as much as I can.

Thus, I will be sharing what I think are the best talking points, along with references, on every major energy and environmental issue this election.

For now I am sharing them as publicly-accessible Google docs at EnergyTalkingPoints.com.

Please share this link with any candidates you support. Also, if you know of any shows that would like to interview me about these points, please feel free to put them in contact with me.

Currently I have messaging on the so-called climate crisis, Joe Biden’s energy plan, the wind Production Tax Credit, and reducing CO2 emissions. Many more are in the pipeline.

Note that each talking point is the length of a Tweet so they’re super easy to share.

You can download the talking points at EnergyTalkingPoints.com.

Jeff Bezos Testimony To House Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law

Amazon has posted the prepared statement by Amazon CEO and Founder Jeff Bezos to be given to the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary as Testimony before the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law.

Bezo reflects about his early life and the lessons he learned from his family on dealing with setbacks and adversity, the greatness of America in its worship of innovation and entrepreneurial risk-taking, and his excitement for creating things. Though there are things that one can criticize in the statement, it is an important read inside the mind of the CEO of one America’s most admired and successful companies.

Statement by Jeffrey P. Bezos
Founder & Chief Executive Officer, Amazon
before the U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law
July 29, 2020

Thank you, Chairman Cicilline, Ranking Member Sensenbrenner, and members of the Subcommittee. I’m Jeff Bezos. I founded Amazon 26 years ago with the long-term mission of making it Earth’s most customer-centric company.

 

My mom, Jackie, had me when she was a 17-year-old high school student in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Being pregnant in high school was not popular in Albuquerque in 1964. It was difficult for her. When they tried to kick her out of school, my grandfather went to bat for her. After some negotiation, the principal said, “OK, she can stay and finish high school, but she can’t do any extracurricular activities, and she can’t have a locker.” My grandfather took the deal, and my mother finished high school, though she wasn’t allowed to walk across the stage with her classmates to get her diploma. Determined to keep up with her education, she enrolled in night school, picking classes led by professors who would let her bring an infant to class. She would show up with two duffel bags—one full of textbooks, and one packed with diapers, bottles, and anything that would keep me interested and quiet for a few minutes.

My dad’s name is Miguel. He adopted me when I was four years old. He was 16 when he came to the United States from Cuba as part of Operation Pedro Pan, shortly after Castro took over. My dad arrived in America alone. His parents felt he’d be safer here. His mom imagined America would be cold, so she made him a jacket sewn entirely out of cleaning cloths, the only material they had on hand. We still have that jacket; it hangs in my parents’ dining room. My dad spent two weeks at Camp Matecumbe, a refugee center in Florida, before being moved to a Catholic mission in Wilmington, Delaware. He was lucky to get to the mission, but even so, he didn’t speak English and didn’t have an easy path. What he did have was a lot of grit and determination. He received a scholarship to college in Albuquerque, which is where he met my mom. You get different gifts in life, and one of my great gifts is my mom and dad. They have been incredible role models for me and my siblings our entire lives.

You learn different things from your grandparents than you do from your parents, and I had the opportunity to spend my summers from ages four to 16 on my grandparents’ ranch in Texas. My grandfather was a civil servant and a rancher—he worked on space technology and missile-defense systems in the 1950s and ‘60s for the Atomic Energy Commission—and he was self-reliant and resourceful. When you’re in the middle of nowhere, you don’t pick up a phone and call somebody when something breaks. You fix it yourself. As a kid, I got to see him solve many seemingly unsolvable problems himself, whether he was restoring a broken-down Caterpillar bulldozer or doing his own veterinary work. He taught me that you can take on hard problems. When you have a setback, you get back up and try again. You can invent your way to a better place.

I took these lessons to heart as a teenager, and became a garage inventor. I invented an automatic gate closer out of cement-filled tires, a solar cooker out of an umbrella and tinfoil, and alarms made from baking pans to entrap my siblings.

The concept for Amazon came to me in 1994. The idea of building an online bookstore with millions of titles—something that simply couldn’t exist in the physical world—was exciting to me. At the time, I was working at an investment firm in New York City. When I told my boss I was leaving, he took me on a long walk in Central Park. After a lot of listening, he finally said, “You know what, Jeff, I think this is a good idea, but it would be a better idea for somebody who didn’t already have a good job.” He convinced me to think about it for two days before making a final decision. It was a decision I made with my heart and not my head. When I’m 80 and reflecting back, I want to have minimized the number of regrets that I have in my life. And most of our regrets are acts of omission—the things we didn’t try, the paths untraveled. Those are the things that haunt us. And I decided that if I didn’t at least give it my best shot, I was going to regret not trying to participate in this thing called the internet that I thought was going to be a big deal.

The initial start-up capital for Amazon.com came primarily from my parents, who invested a large fraction of their life savings in something they didn’t understand. They weren’t making a bet on Amazon or the concept of a bookstore on the internet. They were making a bet on their son. I told them that I thought there was a 70% chance they would lose their investment, and they did it anyway. It took more than 50 meetings for me to raise $1 million from investors, and over the course of all those meetings, the most common question was, “What’s the internet?”

Unlike many other countries around the world, this great nation we live in supports and does not stigmatize entrepreneurial risk-taking. I walked away from a steady job into a Seattle garage to found my startup, fully understanding that it might not work. It feels like just yesterday I was driving the packages to the post office myself, dreaming that one day we might be able to afford a forklift.

Amazon’s success was anything but preordained. Investing in Amazon early on was a very risky proposition. From our founding through the end of 2001, our business had cumulative losses of nearly $3 billion, and we did not have a profitable quarter until the fourth quarter of that year. Smart analysts predicted Barnes & Noble would steamroll us, and branded us “Amazon.toast.” In 1999, after we’d been in business for nearly five years, Barron’s headlined a story about our impending demise “Amazon.bomb.” My annual shareholder letter for 2000 started with a one-word sentence: “Ouch.” At the pinnacle of the internet bubble our stock price peaked at $116, and then after the bubble burst our stock went down to $6. Experts and pundits thought we were going out of business. It took a lot of smart people with a willingness to take a risk with me, and a willingness to stick to our convictions, for Amazon to survive and ultimately to succeed.

And it wasn’t just those early years. In addition to good luck and great people, we have been able to succeed as a company only because we have continued to take big risks. To invent you have to experiment, and if you know in advance that it’s going to work, it’s not an experiment. Outsized returns come from betting against conventional wisdom, but conventional wisdom is usually right. A lot of observers characterized Amazon Web Services as a risky distraction when we started. “What does selling compute and storage have to do with selling books?” they wondered. No one asked for AWS. It turned out the world was ready and hungry for cloud computing but didn’t know it yet. We were right about AWS, but the truth is we’ve also taken plenty of risks that didn’t pan out. In fact, Amazon has made billions of dollars of failures. Failure inevitably comes along with invention and risk-taking, which is why we try to make Amazon the best place in the world to fail.

Since our founding, we have strived to maintain a “Day One” mentality at the company. By that I mean approaching everything we do with the energy and entrepreneurial spirit of Day One. Even though Amazon is a large company, I have always believed that if we commit ourselves to maintaining a Day One mentality as a critical part of our DNA, we can have both the scope and capabilities of a large company and the spirit and heart of a small one.

In my view, obsessive customer focus is by far the best way to achieve and maintain Day One vitality. Why? Because customers are always beautifully, wonderfully dissatisfied, even when they report being happy and business is great. Even when they don’t yet know it, customers want something better, and a constant desire to delight customers drives us to constantly invent on their behalf. As a result, by focusing obsessively on customers, we are internally driven to improve our services, add benefits and features, invent new products, lower prices, and speed up shipping times—before we have to. No customer ever asked Amazon to create the Prime membership program, but it sure turns out they wanted it. And I could give you many such examples. Not every business takes this customer-first approach, but we do, and it’s our greatest strength.

Customer trust is hard to win and easy to lose. When you let customers make your business what it is, then they will be loyal to you—right up to the second that someone else offers them better service. We know that customers are perceptive and smart. We take as an article of faith that customers will notice when we work hard to do the right thing, and that by doing so again and again, we will earn trust. You earn trust slowly, over time, by doing hard things well—delivering on time; offering everyday low prices; making promises and keeping them; making principled decisions, even when they’re unpopular; and giving customers more time to spend with their families by inventing more convenient ways of shopping, reading, and automating their homes. As I have said since my first shareholder letter in 1997, we make decisions based on the long-term value we create as we invent to meet customer needs. When we’re criticized for those choices, we listen and look at ourselves in the mirror. When we think our critics are right, we change. When we make mistakes, we apologize. But when you look in the mirror, assess the criticism, and still believe you’re doing the right thing, no force in the world should be able to move you.

Fortunately, our approach is working. Eighty percent of Americans have a favorable impression of Amazon overall, according to leading independent polls. Who do Americans trust more than Amazon “to do the right thing?” Only their primary physicians and the military, according to a January 2020 Morning Consult survey. Researchers at Georgetown and New York University found in 2018 that Amazon trailed only the military among all respondents to a survey on institutional and brand trust. Among Republicans, we trailed only the military and local police; among Democrats, we were at the top, leading every branch of government, universities, and the press. In Fortune’s 2020 rankings of the World’s Most Admired Companies, we came in second place (Apple was #1). We are grateful that customers notice the hard work we do on their behalf, and that they reward us with their trust. Working to earn and keep that trust is the single biggest driver of Amazon’s Day One culture.

The company most of you know as Amazon is the one that sends you your online orders in the brown boxes with the smile on the side. That’s where we started, and retail remains our largest business by far, accounting for over 80% of our total revenue. The very nature of that business is getting products to customers. Those operations need to be close to customers, and we can’t outsource these jobs to China or anywhere else. To fulfill our promises to customers in this country, we need American workers to get products to American customers. When customers shop on Amazon, they are helping to create jobs in their local communities. As a result, Amazon directly employs a million people, many of them entry-level and paid by the hour. We don’t just employ highly educated computer scientists and MBAs in Seattle and Silicon Valley. We hire and train hundreds of thousands of people in states across the country such as West Virginia, Tennessee, Kansas, and Idaho. These employees are package stowers, mechanics, and plant managers. For many, it’s their first job. For some, these jobs are a stepping stone to other careers, and we are proud to help them with that. We are spending more than $700 million to give more than 100,000 Amazon employees access to training programs in fields such as healthcare, transportation, machine learning, and cloud computing. That program is called Career Choice, and we pay 95% of tuition and fees toward a certificate or diploma for in-demand, high-paying fields, regardless of whether it’s relevant to a career at Amazon.

Patricia Soto, one of our associates, is a Career Choice success story. Patricia always wanted to pursue a career in the medical field to help care for others, but with only a high school diploma and facing the costs of post-secondary education, she wasn’t sure she’d be able to accomplish that goal. After earning her medical certification through Career Choice, Patricia left Amazon to start her new career as a medical assistant at Sutter Gould Medical Foundation, supporting a pulmonary medicine doctor. Career Choice has given Patricia and so many others a shot at a second career that once seemed out of reach.

Amazon has invested more than $270 billion in the U.S. over the last decade. Beyond our own workforce, Amazon’s investments have created nearly 700,000 indirect jobs in fields like construction, building services, and hospitality. Our hiring and investments have brought much-needed jobs and added hundreds of millions of dollars in economic activity to areas like Fall River, Massachusetts, California’s Inland Empire, and Rust Belt states like Ohio. During the COVID-19 crisis, we hired an additional 175,000 employees, including many laid off from other jobs during the economic shutdown. We spent more than $4 billion in the second quarter alone to get essential products to customers and keep our employees safe during the COVID-19 crisis. And a dedicated team of Amazon employees from across the company has created a program to regularly test our workers for COVID-19. We look forward to sharing our learnings with other interested companies and government partners.

The global retail market we compete in is strikingly large and extraordinarily competitive. Amazon accounts for less than 1% of the $25 trillion global retail market and less than 4% of retail in the U.S. Unlike industries that are winner-take-all, there’s room in retail for many winners. For example, more than 80 retailers in the U.S. alone earn over $1 billion in annual revenue. Like any retailer, we know that the success of our store depends entirely on customers’ satisfaction with their experience in our store. Every day, Amazon competes against large, established players like Target, Costco, Kroger, and, of course, Walmart—a company more than twice Amazon’s size. And while we have always focused on producing a great customer experience for retail sales done primarily online, sales initiated online are now an even larger growth area for other stores. Walmart’s online sales grew 74% in the first quarter. And customers are increasingly flocking to services invented by other stores that Amazon still can’t match at the scale of other large companies, like curbside pickup and in-store returns. The COVID-19 pandemic has put a spotlight on these trends, which have been growing for years. In recent months, curbside pickup of online orders has increased over 200%, in part due to COVID-19 concerns. We also face new competition from the likes of Shopify and Instacart—companies that enable traditionally physical stores to put up a full online store almost instantaneously and to deliver products directly to customers in new and innovative ways—and a growing list of omnichannel business models. Like almost every other segment of our economy, technology is used everywhere in retail and has only made retail more competitive, whether online, in physical stores, or in the various combinations of the two that make up most stores today. And we and all other stores are acutely aware that, regardless of how the best features of “online” and “physical” stores are combined, we are all competing for and serving the same customers. The range of retail competitors and related services is constantly changing, and the only real constant in retail is customers’ desire for lower prices, better selection, and convenience.

It’s also important to understand that Amazon’s success depends overwhelmingly on the success of the thousands of small and medium-sized businesses that also sell their products in Amazon’s stores. Back in 1999, we took what at the time was the unprecedented step of welcoming third-party sellers into our stores and enabling them to offer their products right alongside our own. Internally, this was extremely controversial, with many disagreeing and some predicting this would be the beginning of a long, losing battle. We didn’t have to invite third-party sellers into the store. We could have kept this valuable real estate for ourselves. But we committed to the idea that over the long term it would increase selection for customers, and that more satisfied customers would be great for both third-party sellers and for Amazon. And that’s what happened. Within a year of adding those sellers, third-party sales accounted for 5% of unit sales, and it quickly became clear that customers loved the convenience of being able to shop for the best products and to see prices from different sellers all in the same store. These small and medium-sized third-party businesses now add significantly more product selection to Amazon’s stores than Amazon’s own retail operation. Third-party sales now account for approximately 60% of physical product sales on Amazon, and those sales are growing faster than Amazon’s own retail sales. We guessed that it wasn’t a zero sum game. And we were right—the whole pie did grow, third-party sellers did very well and are growing fast, and that has been great for customers and for Amazon.

There are now 1.7 million small and medium-sized businesses around the world selling in Amazon’s stores. More than 200,000 entrepreneurs worldwide surpassed $100,000 in sales in our stores in 2019. On top of that, we estimate that third-party businesses selling in Amazon’s stores have created over 2.2 million new jobs around the world.

One of those sellers is Sherri Yukel, who wanted to change careers to be home more for her children. She started handcrafting gifts and party supplies for friends as a hobby, and eventually began selling her products on Amazon. Today, Sherri’s company employs nearly 80 people and has a global customer base. Another is Christine Krogue, a stay-at-home mother of five in Salt Lake City. Christine started a business selling baby clothes through her own website before taking a chance on Amazon. She has since seen her sales more than double, and she’s been able to expand her product line and hire a team of part-time employees. Selling on Amazon has allowed Sherri and Christine to grow their own businesses and satisfy customers on their own terms.

And it is striking to remember how recent all of this is. We did not start out as the largest marketplace—eBay was many times our size. It was only by focusing on supporting sellers and giving them the best tools we could invent that we were able to succeed and eventually surpass eBay. One such tool is Fulfillment by Amazon, which enables our third-party sellers to stow their inventory in our fulfillment centers, and we take on all logistics, customer service, and product returns. By dramatically simplifying all of those challenging aspects of the selling experience in a cost-effective way, we have helped many thousands of sellers grow their businesses on Amazon. Our success may help explain the wide proliferation of marketplaces of all types and sizes around the world. This includes U.S. companies like Walmart, eBay, Etsy, and Target, as well as retailers based overseas but selling globally, such as Alibaba and Rakuten. These marketplaces further intensify competition within retail.

The trust customers put in us every day has allowed Amazon to create more jobs in the United States over the past decade than any other company—hundreds of thousands of jobs across 42 states. Amazon employees make a minimum of $15 an hour, more than double the federal minimum wage (which we have urged Congress to increase). We’ve challenged other large retailers to match our $15 minimum wage. Target did so recently, and just last week so did Best Buy. We welcome them, and they remain the only ones to have done so. We do not skimp on benefits, either. Our full-time hourly employees receive the same benefits as our salaried headquarters employees, including comprehensive health insurance starting on the first day of employment, a 401(k) retirement plan, and parental leave, including 20 weeks of paid maternity leave. I encourage you to benchmark our pay and benefits against any of our retail competitors.

More than 80% of Amazon shares are owned by outsiders, and over the last 26 years—starting from zero—we’ve created more than $1 trillion of wealth for those outside shareholders. Who are those shareowners? They are pension funds: fire, police, and school teacher pension funds. Others are 401(k)s—mutual funds that own pieces of Amazon. University endowments, too, and the list goes on. Many people will retire better because of the wealth we’ve created for so many, and we’re enormously proud of this.

At Amazon, customer obsession has made us what we are, and allowed us to do ever greater things. I know what Amazon could do when we were 10 people. I know what we could do when we were 1,000 people, and when we were 10,000 people. And I know what we can do today when we’re nearly a million. I love garage entrepreneurs—I was one. But, just like the world needs small companies, it also needs large ones. There are things small companies simply can’t do. I don’t care how good an entrepreneur you are, you’re not going to build an all-fiber Boeing 787 in your garage.

Our scale allows us to make a meaningful impact on important societal issues. The Climate Pledge is a commitment made by Amazon and joined by other companies to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement 10 years early and be net zero carbon by 2040. We plan to meet the pledge, in part, by purchasing 100,000 electric delivery vans from Rivian—a Michigan-based producer of electric vehicles. Amazon aims to have 10,000 of Rivian’s new electric vans on the road as early as 2022, and all 100,000 vehicles on the road by 2030. Globally, Amazon operates 91 solar and wind projects that have the capacity to generate over 2,900 MW and deliver more than 7.6 million MWh of energy annually—enough to power more than 680,000 U.S. homes. Amazon is also investing $100 million in global reforestation projects through the Right Now Climate Fund, including $10 million Amazon committed in April to conserve, restore, and support sustainable forestry, wildlife and nature-based solutions across the Appalachian Mountains—funding two innovative projects in collaboration with The Nature Conservancy. Four global companies—Verizon, Reckitt Benckiser, Infosys, and Oak View Group—recently signed The Climate Pledge, and we continue to encourage others to join us in this fight. Together, we will use our size and scale to address the climate crisis right away. And last month, Amazon introduced The Climate Pledge Fund, started with $2 billion in funding from Amazon. The Fund will support the development of sustainable technologies and services that in turn will enable Amazon and other companies to meet The Climate Pledge. The Fund will invest in visionary entrepreneurs and innovators who are building products and services to help companies reduce their carbon impact and operate more sustainably.

We recently opened the largest homeless shelter in Washington state—and it’s located inside one of our newest headquarters buildings in downtown Seattle. The shelter is for Mary’s Place, an incredible Seattle-based nonprofit. The shelter, part of Amazon’s $100 million investment in Mary’s Place, spans eight floors and can accommodate up to 200 family members each night. It has its own health clinic and provides critical tools and services to help families fighting homelessness get back on their feet. And there is dedicated space for Amazon to provide weekly pro-bono legal clinics offering counsel on credit and debt issues, personal injury, housing and tenant rights. Since 2018, Amazon’s legal team has supported hundreds of Mary’s Place guests and volunteered more than 1,000 pro-bono hours.

Amazon Future Engineer is a global childhood-to-career program designed to inspire, educate, and prepare thousands of children and young adults from underrepresented and underserved communities to pursue a computer science career. The program funds computer science coursework and professional teacher development for hundreds of elementary schools, introductory and AP Computer Science classes for more than 2,000 schools in underserved communities across the country, and 100 four-year, $40,000 college scholarships to computer science students from low-income backgrounds. Those scholarship recipients also receive guaranteed internships at Amazon. There is a diversity pipeline problem in tech, and this has an outsized impact on the Black community. We want to invest in building out the next generation of technical talent for the industry and expanding the opportunities for underrepresented minorities. We also want to accelerate this change right now. To find the best talent for technical and non-technical roles, we actively partner with historically Black colleges and universities on our recruiting, internship, and upskilling initiatives.

Let me close by saying that I believe Amazon should be scrutinized. We should scrutinize all large institutions, whether they’re companies, government agencies, or non-profits. Our responsibility is to make sure we pass such scrutiny with flying colors.

It’s not a coincidence that Amazon was born in this country. More than any other place on Earth, new companies can start, grow, and thrive here in the U.S. Our country embraces resourcefulness and self-reliance, and it embraces builders who start from scratch. We nurture entrepreneurs and start-ups with stable rule of law, the finest university system in the world, the freedom of democracy, and a deeply accepted culture of risk-taking. Of course, this great nation of ours is far from perfect. Even as we remember Congressman John Lewis and honor his legacy, we’re in the middle of a much-needed race reckoning. We also face the challenges of climate change and income inequality, and we’re stumbling through the crisis of a global pandemic. Still, the rest of the world would love even the tiniest sip of the elixir we have here in the U.S. Immigrants like my dad see what a treasure this country is—they have perspective and can often see it even more clearly than those of us who were lucky enough to be born here. It’s still Day One for this country, and even in the face of today’s humbling challenges, I have never been more optimistic about our future.

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and am happy to take your questions.

Related Reading:

What Motivates Amazon’s Critics?
What really drives Amazin’s critics is a hatred of success: success of anyone who is achieving more than others.

No Need to Boycott Amazon.com
There is absolutely no moral reason to boycott the company.

Amazon Advocates Government Force To Increase The Minimum Wage
While Amazon has every right to choose how to compensate its workers, this minimum wage increase and Bezos’ encouraging the federal government to do the same are wrong.

Hands Off Amazon.com and Sell Off the Post Office
President Trump should focus on getting government out of business by deregulating—and privatizing the United States Postal Service.

Alex Epstein: Interviews Bjorn Lomborg on The “False Alarm” About Climate Change

In Alex Epstein’s popular Power Hour podcast he interviews Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, author of False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet. Writes Epstein:

As I discussed in my review of the book several weeks ago, I think this is an extremely valuable book, on two counts above all. 1. It documents in case after case how the media and political leaders wildly distort the conclusions of mainstream climate research.2. It documents in case after case how human adaptation can neutralize climate danger. The book was recently attacked in a New York Times “review” by the famous near-socialist economist Joseph Stiglitz. Bjorn systematically refuted the pseudo-review in this impressive LinkedIn article.

On the show we discuss:

  • How trusted media sources manipulated a climate research paper to predict 187 million climate refugees when the number was actually around 300,000 (half the number of people who move out of California every year)
  • Why we always need to look for positive and negative impacts, not just one or the other
  • How many seconds worth of electricity all of America’s batteries can store today
  • The true state of solar and wind in the world today
  • How people in developing countries around the world demand “real electricity,” not the meager, unreliable electricity provided by much-heralded solar installations
  • The prospects for nuclear energy
  • Some of the crude errors of the New York Times review of False Alarm
  • How global capitalism will encourage energy progress even when specific technophobic countries reject it

Far-UVC light Kills Viruses and Bacteria in the Air without Damaging Human Cells

From “Could a New Ultraviolet Technology Fight the Spread of Coronavirus?” by Carla Cantor (April 21, 2020) Columbia News:

Scientists have known for decades that germicidal UV light (wavelength around 254 nm) has the capacity to kill viruses and bacteria. Hospitals and laboratories often use germicidal UV light to sterilize unoccupied rooms, as well as other equipment. But conventional germicidal UV light cannot be used in the presence of people as it can causes health problems to the skin and eyes.

In contrast, far-UVC light, which has a very short wavelength (in the range from about 205 to 230 nm), cannot reach or damage living human cells. But these wavelengths can still penetrate and kill very small viruses and bacteria floating in the air or on surfaces.

Far-UVC lamps are now in production by several companies, although ramping up to large-scale production, as well as approval by the Food and Drug Administration and Environmental Protection Agency, will take several months. At between $500 and $1000 per lamp, the lamps are relatively inexpensive, and once they are mass produced the prices would likely fall, [Columbia researcher David] Brenner said.

In other news “YouTube removes video on possible coronavirus treatment based on UV rays“:

YouTube removed a video Friday touting an ultraviolet-based medical platform as a possible treatment for COVID-19 coronavirus. The video in question was posted by Aytu BioScience, a publicly-traded special pharmaceutical company focused on “commercializing novel products,” after the White House said there was evidence humidity and ultra-violet light could greatly affect the virus. It promoted a product called Healight, developed by Californian Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and exclusively licensed to Aytu BioScience, as per a press release published April 20.

The Google subsidiary took down the clip for “violating community guidelines” after being flagged by a New York Times reporter. Previously, YouTube said it was going to take down coronavirus content that did not follow the World Health Organization’s guidelines on COVID-19.

The basic idea by Californian Cedars-Sinai Medical Center is to put a UV light that can kill viruses but no harm human tissue within the lungs. From their press release:

Led by Mark Pimentel, MD, the research team of the Medically Associated Science and Technology (MAST) Program at Cedars-Sinai has been developing the patent-pending Healight platform since 2016 and has produced a growing body of scientific evidence demonstrating pre-clinical safety and effectiveness of the technology as an antiviral and antibacterial treatment. The Healight technology employs proprietary methods of administering intermittent ultraviolet (UV) A light via a novel endotracheal medical device. Pre-clinical findings indicate the technology’s significant impact on eradicating a wide range of viruses and bacteria, inclusive of coronavirus. The data have been the basis of discussions with the FDA for a near-term path to enable human use for the potential treatment of coronavirus in intubated patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Beyond the initial pursuit of a coronavirus ICU indication, additional data suggest broader clinical applications for the technology across a range of viral and bacterial pathogens. This includes bacteria implicated in ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP).

“Our team has shown that administering a specific spectrum of UV-A light can eradicate viruses in infected human cells (including coronavirus) and bacteria in the area while preserving healthy cells,” stated Dr. Pimentel of Cedars-Sinai. Ali Rezaie, MD, one of the inventors of this technology states, “Our lab at Cedars-Sinai has extensively studied the effects of this unique technology on bacteria and viruses. Based on our findings we believe this therapeutic approach has the potential to significantly impact the high morbidity and mortality of coronavirus-infected patients and patients infected with other respiratory pathogens. We are looking forward to partnering with Aytu BioScience to move this technology forward for the benefit of patients all over the world.”

#MeSometimes: Tara Reade, Joe Biden and Justice Kavanaugh

In this Analysis (download) of the Christine Blasey Ford Allegations, a 25-year prosecutor of sex-crimes shows that in a criminal court of law, Dr. Ford’s accusations against Justice Kavanaugh would be found baseless.

Or in her the Prosecutor’s words,

“In the legal context, here is my bottom line: A “he said, she said” case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.”

Some of the reasons for this include:

“Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened.”

“Dr. Ford has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name.”

“When speaking with her husband, Dr. Ford changed her description of the incident to become less specific.”

“Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question—details that could help corroborate her account.”

“Dr. Ford’s account of the alleged assault has not been corroborated by anyone she identified as having attended—including her lifelong friend.”

“Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of the alleged assault.”

“Her account of who was at the party has been inconsistent.”

Such is not the case with the account given by Tara Reade of her 1993 encounter with Biden.

The response — or rather the non-response and silence — of the Democrats and their media allies, to Tara Reade’s allegations against Joe Biden, is ominous.

It demonstrates that to the Democrats and their media allies, the #MeToo movement to “Believe Women” was nothing more than a weapon to smear their political enemies, such as Republican Supreme Court nominee, Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

It is a vivid demonstration of the moral hypocrisy of the Democratic Party and its supporters.

***

Well, not all of them.

Rose McGowan, the actress from the popular series Charmed, also a victim of convicted rapist Harvey Weinstein, slammed her co-star Alyssa Milano — a Biden supporter — on Twitter, saying:

You are a fraud. This is about holding the media accountable. You go after Trump & Kavanaugh saying Believe Victims, you are a lie. You have always been a lie. The corrupt DNC is in on the smear job of Tara Reade, so are you. SHAME https://t.co/B7NHK4k09K
— rose mcgowan (@rosemcgowan) April 6, 2020

Furthermore, according to McGowan, the Washington Post’s “report” on the Reade allegations was nothing more than “victim shaming”:

“This is not journalism, this is an agenda. This is a hit piece. You’ve sunk to a new low in slanted journalism and victim shaming @WashingtonPost …

“As a survivor, the way you launched into this woman’s assault is truly vile …. Your motto is ‘Democracy Dies in Darkness’ well I guess it’s dead because you are dark. Evil lives and it loves the DNC.”

Whether you agree with McGowan or not, at least she is consistent.

***

Of course, Biden should be held with the presumption of innocence by any objective standard.

Yet, where was this presumption in the Kavanaugh House Witch Hunt Hearings?

But the presumption of innocence — a legal application of the ethical principle of justice — is not the professed standard of the Democratic Party and the Anti-Capitalist “Progressive” New Left.

To the Democrats and their media allies, “justice” is only necessary when it can be used as a political weapon to advance their lust for power, and like the Communist call for freedom of speech, can be dispensed with when it no longer serves their unjust purpose: the destruction of the American Capitalist Republic.

***

Update: Cathy Young over at the Quilette on “Tara Reade’s Dubious Claims and Shifting Stories Show the Limits of #BelieveWomen” (March 14, 2020) examines Tara’s Reade’s allegations and does not find her top be a “credible complainant.” Writes Young:

Last week, this theater of the absurd got slightly more surreal when a prominent feminist wrote in the New York Times that she thinks Biden is a rapist, but will vote for him anyway. Linda Hirshman, a retired professor of women’s studies and philosophy, and a prolific author (most recently of Reckoning: The Epic Battle Against Sexual Abuse and Harassment), explained to Times readers that she believes Reade, but also believes that “the cost of dismissing Tara Reade—and, worse, weakening the voices of future survivors” is justified on purely utilitarian grounds, since (as she sees it) Trump is the greater evil. Hirshman argued that the Democrats’ current strategy of defending Biden’s innocence is both cowardly (since it avoids the “hard work of moral analysis”) and harmful, since it means “casting a reasonably credible complainant as a liar.”

[…]

By casting the Democratic leadership as dishonest and cynical, Hirshman is kneecapping the party she says she supports.

And she is doing it quite needlessly, because the totality of evidence suggests that Reade is in no way a “credible complainant.” Her credibility is further undermined by court documents that contradict her account of an entirely separate 1996 episode involving her ex-husband. In an ironic twist, these documents, part of Reade’s 1996–1997 California divorce files, were uncovered not through a dirt-digging expedition, but by researchers seeking evidence corroborating her allegations against Biden.

After much analysis of Reade’s complaints, she ends that whatever the outcome the Democrats have played into Trump’s hands:

Biden will probably ride out this scandal: As Hirshman candidly notes, there’s simply too much at stake in the election for Democrats to follow their #MeToo conscience. But if Reade’s claims really do sink Biden in November, the Democrats will merely be reaping what their moral panic has sowed. Hamstrung by slogans that depict half of the human population as inveterate truth-tellers incapable of dishonesty, the party has backed itself into a corner. Democrats must either stipulate that the church of #MeToo shall provide Biden with a one-off indulgence—or else urge Americans to vote for a presumed rapist. It’s hard to say which narrative would make Trump happier.

COVID-19 Roundup: (April 2020)

Fact 1: The overwhelming majority of people do not have any significant risk of dying from COVID-19.
Fact 2: Protecting older, at-risk people eliminates hospital overcrowding.
Fact 3: Vital population immunity is prevented by total isolation policies, prolonging the problem.
Fact 4: People are dying because other medical care is not getting done due to hypothetical projections.
Fact 5: We have a clearly defined population at risk who can be protected with targeted measures.

After providing evidence for the above facts he goes on to conclude:

The appropriate policy, based on fundamental biology and the evidence already in hand, is to institute a more focused strategy like some outlined in the first place: Strictly protect the known vulnerable, self-isolate the mildly sick and open most workplaces and small businesses with some prudent large-group precautions. This would allow the essential socializing to generate immunity among those with minimal risk of serious consequence, while saving lives, preventing overcrowding of hospitals and limiting the enormous harms compounded by continued total isolation.

A pandemic does not alter the role of a government. For example, it can limit the freedom of those individuals who carry the virus for limited periods to protect others, whose right to life would be violated. This could involve testing, tracing contacts, and tracking. When governments are involved in operating health care systems, as they are in most mixed economies, they would isolate nursing home residents and other vulnerable people, increase hospital capacity, and set guidelines for physical distancing—as opposed to violating everybody’s right to liberty by locking down economies.

We need to learn to appreciate progress—both what we’ve already done, and why we can’t stop now. We need to tell the amazing story of progress: how comfort, safety, health, and luxury have become commonplace, and what a dramatic achievement that has been.

More recently, in the wake of the Covid-19 virus outbreak, we’ve seen unwarranted, unprecedented violations of all three realms of freedom in America – mandates to close businesses, edicts that people stay in their homes (“shelter in place,” akin to a nationwide house arrest of innocents presumed guilty), decrees against assembling (compelling “social distancing”), orders restricting access to gun shops, even the classification of some street protests (against the illiberal controls) as prohibited because a “non-essential” activity.  We’ve yet to see challenges from the ACLU or court orders staying the rights violations. Why?

The lockdowns, whatever one thinks of them, were never sold to us as a way to eradicate the disease. They were sold as a way to “flatten the curve” so that the medical system didn’t become overwhelmed, leading to *unnecessary* deaths. […] We must open the economy as fast as we can. And we must do so while managing the disease as best we can. That includes selective isolation for the most vulnerable. (I have family members in this category…and, if it matters, they support re-opening the economy. They recognize that it would be immoral to demand that we sacrifice the whole country to reduce their odds of getting the disease.)

  • Alex Epstein’s video “A pro-freedom approach to fighting COVID-19″: (Power Hour, April 15, 2020):

If you’re seeking to avoid COVID-19, the hand sanitizer gel you carry in a pocket or purse did not exist until the 1960s. If you start to show symptoms, the pulse oximeter that tests your blood oxygenation was not developed until the 1970s. If your case worsens, the mechanical ventilator that keeps you alive was invented in the 1950s—in fact, no form of artificial respiration was widely available until the “iron lung” used to treat polio patients in the 1930s. Even the modern emergency medical system did not exist until recently: if during the 1918 flu pandemic you became seriously ill, there was no 911 hotline to call, and any ambulance that showed up would likely have been a modified van or hearse, with no equipment or trained staff.

If you are a scientist at an academic institution currently working on a COVID-19 related project and in need of funding, we invite you to apply for a Fast Grant. Fast Grants are $10k to $500k and decisions are made in under 48 hours. If you wish to apply to grants for scientific or biomedical COVID-19 projects, please apply through FastGrants.org.

Stored Away 2013 Bat Sample Found To Contained Covid-19

Writes Matt Ridley on the Bats Behind The Pandemic (WSJ, April 9, 2020):

RaTG13 is the name, rank and serial number of an individual horseshoe bat of the species Rhinolophus affinis, or rather of a sample of its feces collected in 2013 in a cave in Yunnan, China. The sample was collected by hazmat-clad scientists from the Institute of Virology in Wuhan that year. Stored away and forgotten until January this year, the sample from the horseshoe bat contains the virus that causes Covid-19.

[…]

In a paper published in February last year, Patrick Woo and colleagues at Hong Kong University surveyed the coronaviruses found in bats and came to a prescient conclusion: “Bat–animal and bat–human interactions, such as the presence of live bats in wildlife wet markets and restaurants in Southern China, are important for interspecies transmission of [coronaviruses] and may lead to devastating global outbreaks.”