RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
RSN: The I's Have It - And We All Pay the Price Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=27921"><span class="small">Mort Rosenblum, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Tuesday, 11 June 2019 12:33

Rosenblum writes: "You can still get to Sesame Street from here and just about everywhere else in spite of Donald Trump's attempt to wall it off. So as Big Bird might have it, this dispatch about countless global crises is brought to you by the letter 'I.'"

U.S. troops leave their base in Tikrit, Iraq, in November 2003. (photo: AFP)
U.S. troops leave their base in Tikrit, Iraq, in November 2003. (photo: AFP)


The I’s Have It - And We All Pay the Price

By Mort Rosenblum, Reader Supported News

11 June 19

 

APLES, Italy – You can still get to Sesame Street from here and just about everywhere else in spite of Donald Trump’s attempt to wall it off. So as Big Bird might have it, this dispatch about countless global crises is brought to you by the letter “I.”

Put aside 25 other letters in the alphabet and consider only what is happening behind that single capitalized vowel.

Iran, Iraq, and Israel are at risk of accidental Armageddon. India’s demagogic Hindu nationalist leader plays chicken with Pakistan. Indonesia faces climate calamities and Islamist zealotry. Iceland, warming fast, may soon be Rockland. Ireland now has a border to protect.

And here in the heart of an Atlantic Alliance that just commemorated victory over Nazis and Fascists 75 years ago, easy-going Italy is making a sharp right turn. Matteo Salvini, vice premier, is gaining popularity fast by blaming Italian woes on migrants and liberals.

This is no time for America to obsess about itself. Yet the pronoun “I,” and its inseparable partner, “me,” define thinking today in the White House, the Senate, and among much of an apathetic electorate. A cohesive worldview has sunk into whatever.

I often liken Trump to Mussolini, but even many Italians who fear a return to fascism say that is unfair to Il Duce. He was no fool, they argue. When he put Italy first, it was more than an excuse to bilk the poor and fatten up the rich. Nonetheless, he ended up hanged by his heels.

Viewed from Europe, Trump seems more like a Charlie Chaplin caricature of Hitler, a puffed-up martinet enraptured with himself. But unlike Hollywood’s Little Dictator, Trump has the means to trigger unstoppable conflicts and thwart global efforts to keep Earth habitable.

It is too early to worry much about Italy, with its entrenched family values and uncanny ability to get through just about anything as long as the coffee and grappa hold out. Those I-states in the Middle East are the real threat.

Before Trump rattles any more missiles, he needs a ten-minute briefing on what happened the last time someone invaded Iran – and on how Iran’s 27-century-deep Persian roots underlie a sophisticated society that belies stereotypes about extremist ayatollahs.

Even if John Bolton’s usual chest-bumping doesn’t ignite war, it solidifies hardline leaders. Crippling sanctions on a complex nation of 81 million only embitter moderate and Western-oriented Iranians eager to reconnect with the wider world.

Sanctions mean Iran has fewer funds to underwrite proxy guerrilla armies, but deepening hatreds increase their fervor. Low-cost weaponry and simple terror devices can take a heavy toll.

The “horrible Iran deal” that Trump excoriates was hard-won progress, linking the United States, Western Europe, Russian, and China in joint diplomacy to pull Iran back from a headlong rush toward a nuclear arsenal.

Trump’s reaction is likely because Hillary Clinton was instrumental in negotiating the deal. It allows for de-escalation without unenforceable ultimatums. Sending troops that could spark hostilities is among the dumbest moves of an administration that excels at dumb moves.

In 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini routed the Shah, who took power in 1953 after American and British agents engineered a coup against a popular prime minister who nationalized Iran’s oil. Saddam Hussein seized on the revolutionary upheaval to storm across the border.

For eight years, despite increasing American, Soviet, and French military aid to Saddam, Iran fought Iraq to a standstill. Human waves of Koran-clutching volunteers faced air assaults and heavy artillery. The death toll among combatants and civilians soared above a half million.

The war cost Iraq $687 billion. Iran’s naval blockade, missile attacks and air strikes all but paralyzed shipping in the region. More than 500 commercial ships suffered damage. When it ended, Iran spent billions arming for any subsequent future threat.

And now Trump, clueless, tweets: “If Iran wants a fight, it’s the official end of Iran.” As with North Korea, his unhinged non-policy of alternating sticks with carrots has turned slow, steady diplomacy into a high-stakes game of liars’ poker.

The world is moving on. While Trump invented cheering crowds in a Britain that largely reviles him, then avoided the gaze of Normandy war heroes, Vladimir Putin embraced Xi Jinping in Beijing. After wary coexistence, they are bosom buddies with a common nemesis.

In Italy, as elsewhere, people ask how Trump gets away with what Robert Mueller made blindingly clear. How can he obstruct justice, condone Russian meddling, overstep authority, weasel out of taxes, and promote personal interests? The answer is easy: no one stops him.

And that takes us back to Sesame Street. It’s not about money. The cost to taxpayers is chump change for a president who has squandered $106 million on golf holidays. He knows that the writers make young people think, and Big Bird is onto him.

In the 1980s, the show savaged Ronald Grump, who bulldozed a neighborhood to build a Grump Tower and yelled at evicted residents who protested. In 2005, Oscar the Grouch, who lives in a garbage can, lauded Donald Grump for having the most trash in the world.

When Trump targeted Sesame Street in 2017, Jimmy Kimmel responded in a monologue: “That show teaches so many things he needs to know: which thing is bigger than the other, how to spell, the importance of telling the truth and sharing, listening to others. Maybe throw in some ‘Schoolhouse Rock!’ He could find out how government works.”

Plenty of I-words apply to America’s man who would be king, including apt if uncharitable adjectives that start with “ig” or “im.” One reflects a distressing reality: Incumbent. But there is also that keyword, which looms larger by the day: Impeach.

Email This Page


Mort Rosenblum has reported from seven continents as Associated Press special correspondent, edited the International Herald Tribune in Paris, and written 14 books on subjects ranging from global geopolitics to chocolate. He now runs MortReport.org.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
RSN: Why Is NPR Carrying Water for Trump on Venezuela? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=36478"><span class="small">John Kiriakou, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Tuesday, 11 June 2019 11:44

Kiriakou writes: "If I told you that NPR, National Public Radio, was fronting propaganda operations for Donald Trump and John Bolton, would you call me crazy? If I said that NPR was just another voice for an imperial media, would you believe me? That's the situation we find ourselves in on Venezuela."

John Bolton. (photo: Darren McCollester/Getty Images/JTA)
John Bolton. (photo: Darren McCollester/Getty Images/JTA)


Why Is NPR Carrying Water for Trump on Venezuela?

By John Kiriakou, Reader Supported News

11 June 19

 

f I told you that NPR, National Public Radio, was fronting propaganda operations for Donald Trump and John Bolton, would you call me crazy? If I said that NPR was just another voice for an imperial media, would you believe me? That’s the situation we find ourselves in on Venezuela.

NPR, like every other major US media outlet, is towing Donald Trump’s line, perpetuating propaganda, half-truths, and outright lies in furtherance of an expansionist foreign policy. And it’s not just NPR. Most of the mainstream media just touts the government line without doing any background research to get the story straight. It’s a problem that is getting worse.

As an example, take a look at this article from NPR. It’s innocuously entitled, “After Four Months, Venezuela’s Border with Colombia Reopens.” It’s common knowledge that the economic situation in Venezuela is dire. The country suffers from hyperinflation and a lack of medicine and basic foodstuffs. Crime is rampant. But what the article never mentions is that many of Venezuela’s economic problems stem from crippling US and international economic sanctions that have blocked the export of Venezuelan oil and the import of those same medicines and foodstuffs that the country so desperately needs. I’m actually willing to give NPR a pass on that, at least for the sake of argument. Perhaps an editor took that pertinent information out of the article. Perhaps it was a space issue. But things quickly worsen.

In the article’s third paragraph, NPR nakedly chooses a side. The reporter writes, “In a tweet announcing the move, Venezuela’s authoritarian president, Nicolas Maduro, ordered the reopening of the border with Colombia on Friday and said in Spanish, “We are a people of peace who firmly defend our independence and self-determination.”

Who is it that made the determination that Maduro is an “authoritarian?” Whether we like his politics or not, the man is the democratically-elected president of Venezuela. The opposition did not contest the last election. They boycotted it. That’s on them, not on Maduro. In fact, it was the White House that insisted that the opposition boycott the election just so that it could later accuse Maduro of being an illegitimate leader. NPR and others have fallen right in line.

The article’s very next sentence promotes the blind expansionism and imperialism that National Security Advisor John Bolton is famous for. It says, “The border with Colombia was closed earlier this year in an attempt by Maduro’s government to block opposition and humanitarian groups from delivering foreign aid to Venezuelans in need.” The problem there is that there were no “humanitarian groups” delivering food to Venezuelans.

Here’s what happened. The US and the European Union cut off food deliveries to Venezuela as a way to squeeze Maduro. When he didn’t resign and flee to Cuba, which is what Western leaders wanted to happen, the White House ordered a cut-off of food imports. The only way for Venezuelans to get food, then, was to have the US provide it — and the “opposition” ship it — across the border from Colombia. But the US and the opposition used the open border to also smuggle arms to supporters of US puppet Juan Gauido to help overthrow the Venezuelan government. I would have closed the border, too. But NPR doesn’t tell you any of that.

In only the fifth paragraph of the article, the author introduces Juan Guaido. Guaido is a nobody whom John Bolton decided should be the new president of Venezuela. NPR, with a completely straight face, says, “Maduro is in a power struggle with opposition leader Juan Guaido, the head of Venezuela’s National Assembly who declared himself Venezuela’s president in January. Guaido has been recognized as Venezuela’s rightful head of state by more than 50 countries, including the United States.”

This paragraph is an outrage. Maduro and Guaido are not “in a power struggle.” Guaido was chosen by the Trump White House to be the fact of the US coup in Venezuela. He’s a traitor who has taken up arms against his own country on behalf of a foreign power, the United States.

Imagine for a moment that a foreign country that didn’t like a US president decided that the Speaker of the House or the President pro tempore of the Senate or some other politician should be the “rightful head of state.” Since when is it up to the US to decide who the rightful head of state of Venezuela is? Shouldn’t that be up to the Venezuelan voters? Imagine if the Russians decided that some schmo they happen to like should be President of the United States. They strong-arm 50 countries into recognizing the schmo, and then they send “humanitarian aid” and arms to the border. That’s an act of war, plain and simple. I can easily imagine every American taking up arms to defend the country.

NPR and other mainstream outlets should be ashamed of themselves. They toe the (illegal) official line just like the compliant propaganda outlets they have become. There’s no end in sight.

Remember, and forgive me if I sound like a broken record, the White House’s actions in Venezuela are a violation of international law. This is a coup attempt. It’s a crime. I’m not a Nicolas Maduro fan-boy. But it’s none of our business who leads a foreign country, especially when his or her people hold an election. This intervention is just plain wrong. Hands off Venezuela. And every other country.

Email This Page


John Kiriakou is a former CIA counterterrorism officer and a former senior investigator with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. John became the sixth whistleblower indicted by the Obama administration under the Espionage Act – a law designed to punish spies. He served 23 months in prison as a result of his attempts to oppose the Bush administration's torture program.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: My Opening Statement to Congress, Trump Committed Multiple Crimes Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=46833"><span class="small">Barbara McQuade, The Daily Beast</span></a>   
Tuesday, 11 June 2019 10:49

McQuade writes: "The conduct described in the report constitutes multiple crimes of obstruction of justice, supported by evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."

Former U.S. attorney Barbara McQuade. (photo: U of M Law)
Former U.S. attorney Barbara McQuade. (photo: U of M Law)


My Opening Statement to Congress, Trump Committed Multiple Crimes

By Barbara McQuade, The Daily Beast

11 June 19


‘If anyone other than a sitting president had committed this conduct, I am confident that he would be charged with crimes.’

hairman Nadler, Ranking Member Collins, and distinguished members of the Committee: Thank you for inviting me to speak with you today about lessons from the Mueller Report regarding obstruction of justice.

***

Overview of Testimony

The most significant finding in the Special Counsel’s Report is that Russia interfered with our election in “sweeping and systematic fashion.”

Through that lens, I will share 2 observations about the report—

What happened and why it matters.

First, the conduct described in the report constitutes multiple crimes of obstruction of justice, supported by evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

If anyone other than a sitting president had committed this conduct, I am confident that he would be charged with crimes.

One thousand former federal prosecutors signed a letter agreeing that the president committed crimes.

Second, why it matters.

The obstruction described in the report created a risk to our national security because it was designed to prevent investigators from learning all of the facts about an attack on our country by a hostile foreign adversary.

Let me explain each of those observations.

***

Obstruction of Justice Occurred

First, what happened.

The special counsel’s report describes ten episodes of potential obstruction of justice.

With regard to four of these episodes, the special counsel found “substantial evidence” for all elements of obstruction of justice.

First, the evidence shows a request to White House Counsel Don McGahn to remove Mr. Mueller as special counsel.

Second, a request to falsely deny public reports about that order and to create a false document to support the lie.

Third, efforts to persuade Attorney General Jeff Sessions to reverse his recusal decision, and to publicly announce that the Russia investigation would focus on future elections only.

Fourth, efforts to influence the testimony of Paul Manafort, another former campaign chairman.

Let me focus on one of those incidents.

The report describes President Donald Trump’s persistent efforts to curtail the special counsel’s investigation by directing Attorney General Sessions to reverse his recusal decision and to limit the investigation to future elections.

President Trump asked various intermediaries, including Corey Lewandowski, a private citizen, to convey his message to Mr. Sessions, but they ultimately didn’t do it.

But for the acts of his associates, Mr. Trump would have limited the investigation to future elections, That would have prevented Mr. Mueller from learning the facts about Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Although Mr. Mueller’s investigation did not establish the crime of conspiracy against the Trump campaign under federal statutes, proof of an underlying crime is not required to prove obstruction, because it is the interference with the search for the truth that the law prohibits.

And let’s not forget that the investigation did establish sufficient evidence to charge 37 defendants with crimes, including Russian intelligence officials.

That’s despite the fact that some people, including the president, refused to talk to Mr. Mueller, lied to him, used encrypted messaging apps.

We don’t know what he would have been able to find if not for that kind of obstruction.

The report identified possible motives animating the president’s conduct, all of which would legally support obstruction charges.

One motive was concerns that the investigation would raise doubts about the legitimacy of Trump's election.

Another motive was concern that the contacts with Russia, documented by Mr. Mueller, would be seen as criminal activity by the president, his campaign or his family. (P. 157)

In fact, President Trump was described as an unindicted co-conspirator in the indictment against Michael Cohen for campaign finance violations relating to payments to silence a woman from making allegations about Donald Trump.

Regardless of motive, the conduct described in the report was an attempt to interfere with Mr. Mueller’s investigation, and it amounts to obstruction of justice under the criminal obstruction statute.

Second, why it matters.

Mr. Trump’s attempt to limit the scope of the investigation to future elections, had it been successful, would have harmed our national security by shielding Russia’s conduct in attacking the 2016 election from the investigation.

But for the conduct of other individuals, Mr. Trump would have thwarted Mr. Mueller’s efforts to gain valuable intelligence.

By seeking to end or curtail the investigation, President Trump attempted to limit our country’s understanding of how Russia attacked our election, which would also diminish our ability to detect and defend against future threats.

That is a threat to our national security.

Mr. Mueller concluded his public remarks by “reiterating the central allegation of our indictments—that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election.

That allegation deserves the attention of every American.”

I hope to answer your questions to give that allegation the attention that it deserves.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
RSN: Will Sanders and Warren Defeat Each Other? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=63"><span class="small">Marc Ash, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Tuesday, 11 June 2019 08:26

Ash writes: "Twenty-plus candidates are officially running for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, but the policy is being defined by the senators from Vermont and Massachusetts."

Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren greets Vermont senator Bernie Sanders at a 2017 Our Revolution rally in Boston. (photo: Steven Senne/AP)
Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren greets Vermont senator Bernie Sanders at a 2017 Our Revolution rally in Boston. (photo: Steven Senne/AP)


Will Sanders and Warren Defeat Each Other?

By Marc Ash, Reader Supported News

11 June 19

 

wenty-plus candidates are officially running for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, but the policy is being defined by the senators from Vermont and Massachusetts. There are differences and distinctions, to be sure, but the core ideas and the tone are being established by Sanders and Warren.

Sanders and Warren have clearly defined track records, and that sets them apart. It’s not just what they say they will do, or what they think would be a good idea, but what their entire body of work in public office over decades illustrates that they will and actually can do. You know what you’re getting – they’ve proven it.

Some of the other candidates are certainly inspiring.

California senator Kamala Harris is razor-sharp. She exudes confidence and competence. She’s not going to get pushed around, period. But you do sense that she’s not likely to rock the boat or interfere with longstanding relationships on which Democratic leadership depends. It’s easy to imagine her moving to the right if elected.

South Bend Indiana mayor Pete Buttigieg (Mayor Pete) just makes you sigh with relief as you listen to him speak: sanity and reason in a time of unreason and insanity. But you wonder what he might do if confronted by Mitch (Darth Vader) McConnell determined to thwart and defeat him at all costs. Would he approve yet another massive increase in military spending? If he were painted by the right as “soft on defense,” would he use the military in a foreign land to counter that assertion? Buttigieg is young and somewhat idealistic. You wonder if he fully grasps the utter ruthlessness that stalks the Oval Office.

Former Texas representative Beto O'Rourke, like Buttigieg, brings that fresh energy and spirit of optimism that provide badly needed oxygen to the debate. His voting record in Congress however wasn’t nearly as progressive as his supporters think, and like Harris, he gives the impression that if elected anything is possible.

That brings us to former Delaware senator and vice president Joe Biden. Jill Filipovic, writing for The New York Times, asked the simple question, “Does Anyone Actually Want Joe Biden to Be President?” It was an emperor has no clothes moment. We’re still waiting for the answer. Biden’s apparent lead in the polls, for now, seems to be based on the notion that he is the Democratic candidate most likely to defeat Donald Trump. Not that anyone is particularly enthused about him or his candidacy.

The notion goes something like this: Biden is not the most popular candidate with his own base, but his base will hold their noses and vote for him because they are desperate to rid themselves of Trump, and because of his conservatism he will do well with conservative swing voters and win anyway. That’s pretty tortured logic and pretty thin ice.

Conversely, Sanders and Warren not only have ideological solidarity and the enthusiastic support of the Democratic base, but are running as well if not better than Biden in critical swing states. #Enthusiasm matters. Presidential elections do not get won without it (ask Hillary Clinton). A groundswell of support is essential, not only to win the presidency but to carry the majorities in both houses of Congress necessary to accomplish anything legislatively.

While Sanders and Warren are the best known Progressive candidates vying for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, the Progressive vote is actually fractured among at least Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg, Harris, and O'Rourke.

This is creating a perception that Biden is leading the race. In fact, it is the Progressive policies and direction authored by Sanders and Warren and adopted by several rivals that are leading the race and have the greatest support from the Democratic base.

If it were just Sanders or just Warren, one Progressive would likely be leading the race. Rightly, the battle for the nomination should be between Sanders and Warren. They’re both setting the tone Democratic/Progressive voters are most receptive to and the agenda for the campaign.

With Sanders, Warren, and Biden all running for the nomination and the Progressive vote divided, the policies the voters are most enthusiastic about are being overshadowed by what amounts to a red herring argument for electability, for which there is scant substantiation.

Much to the dismay of Democratic/Progressive voters, Sanders and Warren don’t interact particularly well. There is little communication or interaction between the two camps. They are natural allies behaving like ducks and cats. It may be the reason Joe Biden is still viable.

Email This Page


Marc Ash is the founder and former Executive Director of Truthout, and is now founder and Editor of Reader Supported News.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Jeff Bezos's Corporate Takeover of Our Lives Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=49144"><span class="small">David Dayen, In These Times</span></a>   
Tuesday, 11 June 2019 08:24

Dayen writes: "Whether you share concerns about Amazon's economic and political power or you just like getting free shipping on cheap toilet paper, you should at least know the implications of living in Amazon's world - so you can assess whether it's the world you want, and how it could be different."

Jeff Bezos. (photo: David Ryder/Getty Images)
Jeff Bezos. (photo: David Ryder/Getty Images)


Jeff Bezos's Corporate Takeover of Our Lives

By David Dayen, In These Times

11 June 19


How Amazon’s relentless pursuit of profit is squeezing us all—and what we can do about it

mazon is an online retailer. It also runs a marketplace for other online retailers. It’s also a shipper for those sellers, and a lender to them, and a warehouse, an advertiser, a data manager and a search engine. It also runs brick-and-mortar bookstores. And grocery stores.

There are over 100 million Amazon Prime subscribers in the United States—more than half of all U.S. households. Amazon makes 45 percent of all e-commerce sales. Amazon is also a product manufacturer; its Alexa controls two-thirds of the digital assistant market, and the Kindle represents 84 percent of all e-readers. Amazon created its own holiday, Prime Day, and the surge in demand for Prime Day discounts, followed by a drop afterward, skewed the nation’s retail sales figures with a 1.8% bump in July 2017.

Oh, it’s also a major television and film studio. Its CEO owns a national newspaper. And it runs a streaming video game company called Twitch. And its cloud computing business, Amazon Web Services, runs an astonishing portion of the Internet and U.S. financial infrastructure. And it wants to be a logistics company. And a furniture seller. It’s angling to become one of the nation’s largest online fashion designers. It recently picked up an online pharmacy and partnered with JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon and Warren Buffett to create a healthcare company. And at the same time, it’s competing with JPMorgan, pushing Amazon Pay as a digital-based alternative to credit cards and Amazon Lending as a source of capital for its small business marketplace partners.

To quote Liberty Media chair John Malone, himself a billionaire titan of industry, Amazon is a “Death Star” moving its super-laser “into striking range of every industry on the planet.” If you are engaging in any economic activity, Amazon wants in, and its position in the market can distort and shape you in vital ways.

Elizabeth Warren’s proposal to break up Amazon, along with the FTC’s new oversight and investigation, has spurred a conversation on the Left about its overwhelming power. No entity has held the potential for this kind of dominance since the railroad tycoons of the first Gilded Age were brought to heel. Whether you share concerns about Amazon’s economic and political power or you just like getting free shipping on cheap toilet paper, you should at least know the implications of living in Amazon’s world—so you can assess whether it’s the world you want, and how it could be different.

***

Booksellers were the first to find themselves at the tip of Amazon’s spear, at the company’s founding in 1994. Years of Amazon peddling books below cost shuttered thousands of bookstores. Today, Amazon sells 42 percent of all books in America.

With such a large share of the market, Amazon determines what ideas reach readers. It ruthlessly squeezes publishers on wholesale costs; in 2014, it deliberately slowed down deliveries of books published by Hachette during a pricing dispute. By stocking best-sellers over independents and backlist copies, and giving publishers less money to work with, Amazon homogenizes the market. Publishers can’t afford to take a chance on a book that Amazon won’t keep in its inventory. “The core belief of bookselling is that we need to have the ideas out there so we can discuss them,” says Seattle independent bookseller Robert Sindelar. “You don’t want one company deciding, only based on profitability, what choice we have.”

These issues in just the book sector are a microcosm of Amazon’s effect on commerce.

The term “retail apocalypse” took hold in 2017 amid bankruptcies of established chains like The Limited, RadioShack, Payless ShoeSource and Toys “R” Us. According to frequent Amazon critic Stacy Mitchell, “more people lost jobs in general-merchandise stores than the total number of workers in the coal industry” in 2017.

Amazon isn’t the only cause; private equity looting must share much of the blame, and a shift to e-commerce was always going to hurt brick-and-mortar stores. But Amazon transformed a diverse collection of website sales into one mammoth business with the logistical power to perform rapid delivery of millions of products and a strategy to underprice everyone. That transformation accelerated a decline going back to the Great Recession (and much earlier for booksellers). Analysts at Swiss bank UBS estimate that every percentage point e-commerce takes from brick-and-mortar translates into 8,000 store closures, and right now e-commerce only has a 16 percent market share.

Take Harry Copeland (or, as he calls himself, “Crazy Harry”) of Harry’s Famous Flowers in Orlando, Fla., at one time a 40-employee retail/wholesale business. Revenue at his operation has shrunk by half since 2008, equal to millions of dollars in gross sales. “The internet … killed us,” Harry says. “I was in a Kroger, this guy walks up and says, ‘I want to apologize. It’s so easy to go on the internet.’ I said, ‘I did your wedding, I did flowers for your babies, and you’re buying [flowers] on the internet?’ ” Even Harry’s own employees receive Amazon packages at the shop every day. In January, tired of the fight, Harry sold his shop after 36 years in business.

Amazon was particularly deadly to the original “everything stores,” the department stores like Sears and J.C. Penney that anchor malls. When the anchor stores shut down, foot traffic slows and smaller shops struggle. Retailers are planning to close more than 4,000 stores in 2019; the 41,201 retail job losses in the first two months of this year were the highest since the Great Recession.

Dead malls trigger not only blight but also property tax losses. The broader shift to online shopping also transfers economic activity from local businesses to corporate coffers, like Amazon’s headquarters in Seattle.

Some of these failed retail spaces have been scooped up, ironically, by Amazon’s suite of physical stores, such as Whole Foods. Amazon also skillfully pits cities against one another and wins tax breaks for its warehouse and data center facilities, starving local budgets even more.

Amazon, of course, argues it is the best friend small business ever had. Jeff Bezos’ 2019 annual letter indicated that 58% of all sales on the website are made by over 2 million independent third-party sellers, who are mostly small in size. In this rendering, Amazon is just a mall, opening its doors for the little guy to access billions of potential customers. “Third-party sellers are kicking our first-party butt,” Bezos exclaimed.

It was a line I repeated to several merchants, mostly to snickers. Take Crazy Harry. In late 2017, Amazon reached out with the opportunity for Harry’s Famous Flowers to sell through its website. Sales representatives promised instant success. “We went live in November,” he says. “I made three transactions, [including] one on Valentine’s Day and one on Christmas.” The closest delivery to his shop was 34 miles away. By the time Harry paid his $39.99 monthly subscription fee for selling on Amazon and a 15% cut of sales, his check came to $6.92. “The gas was $50,” he says.

It wasn’t hard to find the source of the trouble: When Harry searched on Amazon under “flowers in Orlando,” his shop didn’t come up. Without including his name in the search, there was no way for customers to find him. Before long, Harry closed his Amazon account.

Crazy Harry’s troubles could be a function of Amazon running a platform that’s too big to manage. Two million Americans, close to 1% of the U.S. population, sell goods on Amazon. “There’s so much at stake for these sellers,” says Chris McCabe, a former Amazon employee who now runs the consulting site eCommerceChris.com. “They’ve left jobs [to sell on Amazon]. They are supporting themselves and their families.”

Third-party sellers have been a great deal for Amazon—unsurprisingly, since Amazon sets the terms. Sellers pay a flat subscription fee and a percentage of sales, and an extra fee for “Fulfillment by Amazon,” for which Amazon handles customer service, storage and shipping through its vast logistics network. Fee revenue grew to nearly $43 billion in 2018, equal to more than one out of every four dollars that third-party sellers earned.

In other words, Amazon is collecting rent on every sale on its website. This strategy increases selection and convenience for customers, but the sellers, who have nowhere else to go, can get squeezed in the process. Once on the website, sellers are at the mercy of Amazon’s algorithmic placement in search results. They must also navigate rivals’ dirty tricks (like fake one-star reviews that sink sellers in search results) and counterfeit products. And if you get past all that, you must fight the boss level: Amazon, which has 138 house brands. Armed with all the data on sellers’ businesses, Amazon can easily figure out what’s hot and what can be cheaply produced, and then out-compete its own sellers with lower prices and prioritized search results.

Any failure to follow Amazon’s always-changing rules of the road can get a seller suspended, and in that case, Amazon not only stops all future sales, but refuses to release funds from prior sales. And all sellers must sign mandatory arbitration agreements that prevent them from suing Amazon. Several consultants I interviewed talked of sellers crying on the phone, finding themselves trapped after upending their lives to sell on Amazon.

***

While retail workers lose jobs, Amazon picks up some of the unemployment slack, hiring personnel to assemble its packages, make its electronics, and deliver its goods, with a U.S. workforce of more than 200,000, and another 100,000 seasonal workers—though 2018 research from the Conference Board confirmed the jobs created by e-commerce companies like Amazon do not make up for the loss of millions of retail jobs.

Plus, the experience of being a cog in Amazon’s great machine is, shall we say, unhealthy. We know much about the horrors of being an Amazon warehouse worker in the United States. These workplaces are aggressively anti-union. Amazon sets quotas for how many orders are fulfilled, monitoring a worker’s every move. Poor performers may be fired, typically over email. The daily monotony and pressure to perform has pushed workers to suicidal despair. A Daily Beast investigation found 189 instances between October 2013 and October 2018 of 911 calls summoning assistance to deal with suicide attempts or other mental-health emergencies at Amazon warehouses. And even these grunt jobs are insecure; Amazon had to reassure people this year that it wouldn’t turn over all warehouse jobs to robots, even as it rolled out machines that box orders.

Amazon’s other jobs, while less scrutinized than the warehouse workers, can be just as brutal. Thousands of delivery drivers wear Amazon uniforms, use Amazon equipment and work out of Amazon facilities. But they are not technically Amazon employees; they work for outside contractors called delivery service partners. These workers do not qualify for the guaranteed $15 minimum wage Bezos announced to much fanfare last year.

Contracting work out lets Amazon dodge liability for poor labor practices, a trick used by many corporations. At one such contractor in the mid-Atlantic, TL Transportation, one former employee (who requested anonymity) described the work as “running, running, running, rushing. There was no break time.” According to pay stubs, TL built two hours of overtime into its base rate, which is illegal under U.S. labor law. Other workers reported they always worked longer than the time on their pay stubs. Driver Tyhee Hickman of Pennsylvania testified to having to urinate into bottles to maintain the schedule.

Amazon runs plenty of air freight these days as well, through an “Amazon Air” fleet of planes branded with the Amazon logo—but these are also contracted out. At Atlas Air, one of three cargo carriers with Amazon business, pilots have been working without a new union contract since 2011. Atlas pays pilots 30% to 60% below the industry standard, according to Captain Daniel Wells, an Atlas Air pilot and president of the Airline Professionals Association Teamsters Local 1224. Planes are understaffed. “We’ve been critically short of crews,” Wells says. “Everyone is scrambling to keep operations going.”

The go-go-go schedule leaves little time for mechanics; planes go out with stickers indicating deferred maintenance. One Atlas Air flight carrying Amazon packages crashed in Texas in February, killing three workers.

***

Even while driving workers at a frenetic pace, Amazon doesn’t always deliver on its promise of convenience and efficiency. Many products no longer arrive in 48 hours under Prime’s guaranteed two-day shipping. It’s so challenging to reach customer service that Amazon sells a book on its website about how to do that. Whole Foods shoppers who have groceries delivered get bizarre food substitutions without warning.

Even as two-day shipping is creaking, Amazon has announced a move to one-day shipping, which will strain its systems even further while forcing competitors to adjust. Amazon’s one-day shipping announcement alone caused retail stocks to plummet on April 26, before any changes were implemented.

This feedback effect reveals how Amazon is not merely riding the wave of online retail’s convenience; only a company with ambitions as vast as Amazon’s could influence Fortune 500 business models across America.

Some retailers have given in. Walmart quickly announced its own next-day shipping. Kohl’s sells Amazon Echo devices. Target has bought up competitors to compete with Amazon on a larger scale. Call it concentration creep; one giant business triggers the need for others to get big, too. Corporate America is at once terrified of Amazon and reshaping itself to imitate it.

Take Amazon’s ever more sophisticated ploys to modify consumer behavior. With “personalized pricing,” Amazon uses the data of what someone has paid in the past to test what that person is willing to pay. The price of an item featured in the “buy” box on Amazon’s website may change multiple times per day, and can be tailored to individual shoppers. Amazon has charged more for Kindles based on a buyer’s location, and has steered people to higher-priced products where it makes a greater profit, rather than cheaper versions from outside sellers.

Now, even big-box stores have electronic price tags that retailers can “surge price” when demand increases. Amazon’s Whole Foods stores have become a testing ground for advancing this technique. Prices shown on electronic tags are tested, combined with discounts for Prime members, and relentlessly tweaked.

The potential damage to society from personalized pricing is significant, notes Maurice Stucke, a professor at the University of Tennessee. “It’s not just price discrimination, but also behavioral discrimination,” he says. “Getting people to buy things they might not have otherwise purchased, at the highest price they’re willing to pay.”

Amazon has plenty of options for this behavioral nudging, from listing a fake higher price and crossing it out to make it look like the customer is getting a deal, to its work on a facial recognition system using phone or computer cameras to authenticate purchases. With this tool, Amazon could theoretically read faces and increase prices when someone shows excitement about a product. Amazon has already licensed facial recognition software to local police units for criminal investigations, to outcry from privacy groups.

Then there’s Alexa, Amazon’s digital assistant, a powerful tool for manipulation. Alexa was designed to “be like the Star Trek computer,” said Paul Cutsinger, Amazon’s head of voice design education, at a developer conference earlier this year. Users can ask Alexa to play music and podcasts, answer questions, run health and wellness programs, set appointments, make purchases, even raise the temperature in the shower.

Psychologist Robert Epstein, who has pioneered research into search engine manipulation, has done preliminary studies on Alexa. “It looks like you can very easily impact the thinking and decision-making and purchases of people who are undecided,” Epstein says. “That unfortunately gives a small number of companies tremendous power to influence people without them being aware.” For example, Alexa can suggest a wine to go with the pizza you just ordered. It can also encourage you to set up a recurring purchase, the price of which may then go up based on Amazon’s list price.

The influence only increases as Alexa takes in more data. We know that Alexa is constantly watching and listening to users, transcribing what it hears and even transmitting some of that data back to a team of human listeners at Amazon, who “refine” the machine’s comprehension. The surveillance doesn’t only happen on Alexa, but in the smart home devices it integrates with, and on the website where Amazon tracks search and purchase activity. Amazon even has a Ring doorbell and in-home monitor, which sends information back to Amazon. There is no escape. “Devices all around us are watching everything we do, talking to each other, sharing data,” Epstein says. “We’re embedded in a surveillance network.”

***

Even as it's influencing our behavior, Amazon is transforming our physical world. José Holguín-Veras, a logistics and urban freight expert at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, estimates that in 2009, there was one daily internet-derived delivery for every 25 people. By 2017, he calculates, this had tripled. “The number of deliveries to households is now larger than the number of deliveries to commercial establishments,” Holguín-Veras says. “In skyscrapers in New York City where 5,000 people live, it’s 750 deliveries a day.”

Think of the difference between one trip to the grocery store for the week, and five or ten trips from the warehouse to your house. Our streets are too narrow and our traffic too plentiful to handle that additional traffic without crippling congestion. Plus, every idling car, and every extra delivery truck on the road, spews more carbon into the atmosphere. Our cities are not designed for the level of freight that instant delivery demands.

More deliveries also means more people staying indoors. “One thing I think about is how much we overlook the community and democracy value of running errands,” says Stacy Mitchell of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance. “These exchanges—chatting with someone in line, bumping into a neighbor on the street, talking with the store owner—may not be all that significant personally. But this kind of interaction pays off for us collectively in ways we don’t think about or measure or account for in policy-making.”

In These Times asked Frank McAndrew of Knox College, who has researched social isolation, whether Amazon’s perfect efficiency could be alienating. He wasn’t ready to make a definitive statement but did see some red flags. “I do think we’re sort of wired to interact with real people in face-to-face situations,” McAndrew says. “When most of our interactions take place virtually, or with Alexa, it’s not going to be satisfying.”

***

For most of our history, Americans didn’t require a personal digital assistant to answer our every whim. Why are we now reordering our social and economic lives, so one man can accumulate more money than anyone in the history of the planet?

One answer is that Amazon has paid as much attention to capturing government as it has to captivating customers. Amazon’s lobbying spending is among the highest of any company in America. After winning a nationwide procurement contract, over 1,500 cities and states can buy office items through the Amazon Business portal; a federal procurement platform is on the way. Amazon Web Services has the inside track on a $10 billion cloud contract to manage sensitive data for the Pentagon, something it already does for the CIA. That’s part of the reason why Amazon moved its second headquarters (after an absurd, game show-style bidding war that gave the company access to valuable data on hundreds of cities’ planning decisions) to a suburb of Washington, D.C., the seat of national power.

Making the directors of the regulatory state dependent on your services is a genius move. What political figure would dare crack down on the behavior of a trusted partner like Amazon?

In fact, Amazon has relied on government largesse since day one. No sales taxes for online purchases gave it a pricing advantage over other sellers (while a 2018 Supreme Court ruling changed that, the damage had been done). No carbon taxes helped Amazon build energy-intensive businesses dependent on fossil fuels for transportation and server farms. A lack of antitrust enforcement created a path for Amazon to super-size into an e-commerce monopoly. Weak federal labor rules let Amazon stamp out collective bargaining and rely on independent contractors. Mandatory arbitration locked third-party sellers inside Amazon’s private appeals process. Favorable tax law allowed Amazon to apply annual losses in previous years to its past two tax returns, paying no federal taxes on billions in income.

Of course, these rules helped all corporate giants and made executives filthy rich, often at the expense of workers. But Amazon tests the laissez-faire system in unique ways. In a future where Amazon broadens its control over our lives such that citizens have nowhere else to shop, businesses have nowhere else to sell, workers have nowhere else to toil, and governments have no other way to function, then who actually holds the power in our society? Avoiding that dark future requires leaders with the political will to stop it.

Elizabeth Warren’s plan to break up Amazon would rein in what she sees as unfair competition by preventing Amazon from selling products while hosting a website platform for other sellers. Warren also suggests splitting off Whole Foods and the online retailer Zappos, which Amazon bought in 2017 and 2009, respectively.

Fostering competition is a good start, but regulation must also prevent Amazon from bullying suppliers and partners. Lawmakers must force Amazon to pay for the externalities associated with its carbon-intensive delivery network. The company must pay a living wage to its workers, including its so-called independent contractors. It must be accountable to the legal system rather than a corporate-friendly arbitration process. It must not profit from spying on its customers.

If Amazon has caused this much upheaval today, when online shopping is still only 16 percent of retail sales, the future is limitless and grim. We have time to reverse this transfer of power and make it our world instead of Amazon’s. It’s an opportunity we cannot afford to squander.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 Next > End >>

Page 863 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN