
Statement by Jeff Bezos to the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary - minimaxir
https://blog.aboutamazon.com/policy/statement-by-jeff-bezos-to-the-u-s-house-committee-on-the-judiciary
======
supernova87a
I know that he (and others in positions like CEO in such industries) cannot
say it, but I would be glad to hear him say:

 _" Representatives, Amazon is a company focused on innovation, efficiency,
and getting the best and most out of people, and giving the best and most to
people, wherever it can.

Tech allows us to tap into economies of scale, create new products and give
consumers choices never seen before, squeeze out waste in ways that were not
possible up to now, and create net benefit for people in this country. Each
one of you can probably personally think of how Amazon technology has improved
the lives of yourselves and people you know.

We seek to do this as far as the law allows us to do, and other companies do
that as well. We operate within the rules placed on us by the legislatures of
this country and its states.

As you know, sometimes even under fair laws, some people will lose out
compared to others. Innovation comes with risk and change -- that's an
unavoidable consequence of progress. And technology has been doing this for
hundreds of years. But that's what laws are meant to set the boundaries of,
based on people like you determining how best to create those rules.

If this body is concerned with what we are doing within the laws, it should
change those laws based on the best interests of this country and its people.
And Amazon will follow those laws.

We want that clarity, and want to follow our responsibilities under the law.
It's your responsibility to set out those laws. Amazon welcomes performing our
responsibilities to American consumers, and we invite you to do the same to
the people you are responsible to."_

~~~
slg
Isn't it hypocritical to make a comment like this while also lobbying the
government for laws that favor your business? "I'm just playing by the rules"
shouldn't be a valid defense when you are actively taking a role in deciding
those rules.

~~~
pound
but maybe problem here is in that corrupted thing called lobbying is allowed
in the very first place.. I don't see how legal buying politicians this way is
different from illegal corruption.

~~~
harshalizee
Yeah, as an immigrant in the US, I still can't wrap my head around it. I
originate from a country with rampant corruption amongst beauracrats and
politician. The most common, that's always in the news, is one where the
wealthy pay off political leaders to influence policies. But in the US, it's
just legal!

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _I still can 't wrap my head around it_

Pick something you’re knowledgeable about. Uniquely knowledgeable. Now imagine
the Congress is writing legislation on it. Would you think your views might be
helpful?

Let’s say you and a few other people are in the same position. Travelling to
D.C. isn’t free, so you decide to--as a group--reimburse the expenses of the
person who travels. Would this be unfair?

Scale that up to a full-time job, as an explainer of specific things to
lawmakers, and lobbying makes sense. Barring lobbying would mean barring
people knowledgeable about specific topics from organising to inform
lawmakers. That applies to large companies as much as to the Sierra Club.

The trouble is in campaign contributions, post-service jobs and _e.g._ fancy
dinners. These are closer to, or overtly, bribery. Democracy can’t exist
without organisation and education of lawmakers, and that means it requires
lobbying. Democracy also cannot survive in the presence of chronic bribery.
These aims aren't mutually exclusive.

~~~
supernova87a
This is very true.

Lobbying, for its many faults, helps lawmakers (who are understaffed and
generally underresourced) filter and figure out which opinions are worth
listening to. Even the most well-intentioned / good ideas have trouble being
advocated by one smart person in this system. You need an organization to
attach to that gives you credibility.

Not saying that this is the right way -- and certainly often the less
privileged opinions get short shrift in this system. A good
government/political structure would give lawmakers effective ways to not have
to have to rely on lobbyists.

But it is the system that has arisen in the absence of that.

------
simonebrunozzi
The statement is a work of art, and should be read, perhaps even studied. It's
perfect. Jeff is a master at doing PR. Learn from him.

The big question for him and Amazon should be: why does Amazon paid an average
of 8% tax rate [0], when average people pay much more?

[0]: [https://www.wsj.com/articles/does-amazon-really-pay-no-
taxes...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/does-amazon-really-pay-no-taxes-heres-
the-complicated-answer-11560504602)

~~~
supernova87a
It pays 8% because US tax law is set up to allow that to happen. Perhaps, even
incentivize that.

And maybe that's not a good thing. But there are well defined ways to change
that. If we can't, then there is something else wrong.

~~~
spectramax
Yes and the whole multi million/billion dollar law business exists around it.
Tax law and tax attorneys. Their job is to find legal loopholes.

------
umvi
> 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

I don't disagree, but in my opinion, many of these things are actively under
attack. We used to have stable rule of law, but since the protests I'm not so
sure now. We used to value self-reliance and risk taking, but a growing chunk
of America now wants a more risk-averse government-reliant (in the form of
guaranteed pensions, etc) European style society.

~~~
rayiner
> We used to value self-reliance and risk taking, but a growing chunk of
> America now wants a more risk-averse government-reliant (in the form of
> guaranteed pensions, etc) European style society.

I’d be happy if that’s all they wanted. Some people want to “dismantl[e] White
Supremacy, Patriarchy, Capitalism, Imperialism and the role the state plays in
supporting them.” And instead of saying “hey, one of those things is not like
the other” I now drive past a street in DC every day named after an
organization that has this quote on their DC chapter’s front page.
(Technically, it’s an honorary name, but DC streets have proper street signs
for those.) Meanwhile, the Smithsonian is publishing materials condemning
“objective, rational linear thinking” and “progress” and “competition.”

I get that these are fringe academic ideas that fringe people have injected
into an otherwise really important conversation. But I’m pretty alarmed about
the degree to which mainstream sources are implicitly sanctioning these kinds
of assertions. Silicon Valley as we know it can’t exist within this
intellectual framework.

~~~
tptacek
Why are you alarmed by this, when all the available evidence suggests that the
mainstream of America is receptive to the obvious parts of these ideas ("stop
killing unarmed black people") and not at all receptive to the rest ("seize
the means of production")? Look at who won the nomination.

~~~
rayiner
I mean that’s fair. To calm myself down I listen to Keisha Lance Bottoms talk
about public private partnerships. But, I do need that talking down because:

1) I don’t trust academics and I think they have outsized influence on
culture. I think, for example, academics destroyed the original understanding
of the Establishment Clause, and thereby hastened the decline of organized
religion as one of the institutions of civil society. I think that is a bad
thing. I worry about what’s next on the chopping block. For example, while I
don’t think the government is going to seize the means of production, I worry
“life, liberty, and property” doesn’t have the cachet it used to. Many people
don’t really believe the constitution protects economic rights.

2) Related to (1), I’m worried some well-meaning teacher will tell my brown
daughter that “rational linear thinking” is “white culture.” (That would
result in a lawsuit.)

3) I know few people my age and economic/educational class who actually wanted
Biden to win. The “wonk” set seems to be much more amenable to these fringe
ideas. And because we’ve sanctioned an unconstitutional administrative state
where unelected wonks wield great power, I worry.

4) There is a disconnect between what I consider mainstream sources out of
historical inertia, and maybe what they are now. I have a hard time reading
the NYT these days. But I also recognize that, due to massive declines in
readership, the NYT is more of a niche source than it used to be. But who
still reads it? See (3).

~~~
tptacek
By all the accounts I've read, what we're looking at right now is nothing even
close to the Long Hot Summer. You'd have to know where to look to find
evidence of protests in Chicago.

It's tough to metabolize not knowing anyone who wanted Biden to win, because
he won the primary overwhelmingly; compare the map in Michigan in 2016 to
2020. Biden won Washtenaw County! Single-payer health care polls well in the
abstract, but failed as an actual ballot measure in Colorado and Vermont;
people support all sorts of things in the abstract, but in reality don't
support radical change.

I have the same contempt you do for the "rational linear thinking" thing and
haven't shut up about it for weeks. But then, the Black History Museum took
down the poster; it looks like it survived as long as it did because nobody
was paying attention to it. Both The New York Times and the Washington Post
ran reviews tearing down _White Fragility_; when people actually _read the
book_ , rather than nodding their head to the title (it's a great title! admit
it!), the scales from their eyes.

If anything, I think the most reasonable concern is that we won't change
_enough_. The police violence and accountability problem is very real and very
serious.

~~~
rayiner
> If anything, I think the most reasonable concern is that we won't change
> enough. The police violence and accountability problem is very real and very
> serious.

That’s reasonable, but there is also another possibility: we’ll make changes
in form but not substance. There are attempts underway to rename the high
school I attended (named after Thomas Jefferson). Those efforts arose as a
result of the fact that this year no African Americans were admitted in a
class of about 450. At the moment it seems like changing the name is a lot
more likely than changing admissions or recruiting policies.

------
epberry
If nothing else this is going to be a fun show. I have a feeling the House is
overmatched.

~~~
ponker
Overmatched in intellect but not in raw power. Bezos has managed to piss off
Democrats and Trumpists so any anti-Amazon legislation is viable.

~~~
zozin
Let's not pretend that Bezos spent much time on this statement. His lawyers
and other employees wrote it for him.

~~~
p0rkbelly
I would think a smart, driven person who is passionate about the topic would
be more than happy to write this and spend a lot of time on it.

Seems like his writing style.

------
numakerg
> I founded Amazon 26 years ago with the long-term mission of making it
> Earth’s most customer-centric company

I wonder if he still thinks that's the case.

~~~
dencodev
I feel like customer centric is just another way of saying money centric. Big
difference between customer-centric and people-centric

------
thecleaner
Am I the only one who thinks that Bezos gives the same generic statements
everywhere. I have heard all of these before in an interview with David
Rubinstein and other interviews before that.

------
shadowmore
You know it's 2020 when a judiciary committee address begins with a
billionaire attempting to cloak himself in a victim narrative.

I can't wait for the world to go back to normal, so it once again becomes
shameful to show any weakness and immorality, so we can deal with people's
actions rather than their position on the victimhood totem pole.

~~~
MONTREAL_TAYLOR
Bezos is a victim of intrusive government.

~~~
throwaway2048
and how mightily he suffers

------
m0zg
Lays on the schmaltz pretty thick in the beginning. In fact I couldn't even
get past all the schmaltz. Then I remembered he has warehouses where underpaid
workers pass out from exhaustion and I stopped reading.

~~~
mft_
I’d you’d continued lower down, you’d have read:

> 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.

They might still be ‘underpaid’, but maybe they’re less underpaid than other
similar businesses? Could it be true to say that all entry-level jobs suck,
but maybe working for Amazon sucks slightly less than some others?

