Tag: jeff bezos
Big Tech's Ugly Data Centers Finally Meet The Citizen Opposition

Big Tech's Ugly Data Centers Finally Meet The Citizen Opposition

It appears that folks living in the gently rolling farmland of southwestern Ohio don't want a 2-million-square-foot data center plopped down the road from their front porches. What's wrong with them? Are they snotty not-in-my-backyard liberals?

Not quite. Wilmington, Ohio, is a very Republican region marked by modest incomes. Such demographics may have made the locals, and other rural Americans, look like an easy sale to the tech companies hunting for places to plop their massive data centers.

Amazon Web Services, which is proposing this nine-building data center on about 500 acres of a former farm, has its boosters hard at work. The project would create up to 100 full-time jobs, they say. It could also pay for up to $35 million in improving public infrastructure (much of which may not be needed in the absence of a massive data center).

The JobsOhio website crows that data centers "create positive economic momentum" by generating jobs and attracting talented people — people the locals may never have noticed were missing. Touting "100 jobs" could also be read as "only 100 jobs?"

The controversies in southwestern Ohio are being repeated in rural communities across the country. Their land is cheap, incomes are not great and their local officials seem not too picky about "economic development." In addition, some states like Ohio are waving big tax incentives at Big Tech.

It seems that many rural Americans regard modest incomes as the "price" they willingly pay to live in "God's country." Some families have been there for generations, and many want to keep it peaceful for future generations.

No doubt artificial intelligence is taking over. Americans can't stop it and shouldn't want to. It will be essential for national security and economic survival. AI needs these data centers for power. But it does not follow that the human beings living in their path should have no say on how this all develops.

Wisconsin voters have been presented with four local ballot measures designed to rein in data center projects. One that already passed gives the public more control over incentives officials may offer developers. Maine is the first state to pass a law halting big data-center construction for over a year.

I'm not a fan of class warfare. BUT, there is something unfair about the superrich dumping things they don't want to be near on economically struggling communities without giving a lot back.

Amazon zillionaire Jeff Bezos keeps his main mansion on Indian Creek Island, near Miami Beach. This exclusive paradise limits building heights to two stories, lot coverage to 25 percent. Residents may have only two accessory buildings for those essential cabanas, boat houses and such. A little bridge connects Indian Creek Island to Miami's barrier island. People using that bridge are screened.

Bezos cleverly threw out a distraction from Amazon's building plans by suggesting that data centers be put in outer space. That is in a far and, perhaps, never-gonna-happen future. For now, Ohio farm country is the plan.

As for Donald Trump, he's all for building "colossal data centers" and fast. His administration has moved to speed permits for the centers themselves and the infrastructure they need.

As for quality-of-life concerns, Trump limits them to within his own environment. In pre-presidential days, Trump called for moving the Palm Beach airport because he didn't like the jet noise over Mar-a-Lago.

Some data center foes make cost-of-living arguments against them. The centers' ravenous energy needs could raise local electricity rates. However, that could be countered by the tax revenues the centers would generate. Decisions on placing them should be based on more than the locals' cost of living. There are other values.

Froma Harrop is an award winning journalist who covers politics, economics and culture. She has worked on the Reuters business desk, edited economics reports for The New York Times News Service and served on the Providence Journal editorial board.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Legacy News Outlets That Bent Knee To Trump Losing Their Credibility -- And Audience

Legacy News Outlets That Bent Knee To Trump Losing Their Credibility -- And Audience

It turns out that there isn’t a ratings bump for MAGA capitulation.

David Ellison, the son of President Donald Trump’s megabillionaire ally Larry Ellison, took control of CBS last year following a corrupt deal that saw its parent company settle a lawsuit with the president and agree to implement a new conservative ombudsman for CBS News. As part of that takeover, he also installed conservative journalist Bari Weiss at the helm, promising that her “entrepreneurial drive and editorial vision” would “invigorate” the network. But six months into Weiss’ rightward makeover of CBS, the fruits of her labors include cheers from Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth for making the network more palatable to their aims, complaints from the CBS newsroom that she is dismantling its independence — and, it now appears, a viewer exodus.

Status’ Oliver Darcy got ahold of some CBS News ratings data from the first quarter of 2026, and it is brutal. CBS Evening News has lost seven percent of viewers year-over-year, placing it “on track for its lowest-rated first quarter of the 21st century in both total viewers and the advertiser-coveted 25-54 demographic,” while CBS Mornings plummeted 13 percent and “is pacing toward its lowest-rated quarter on record in both total audience and the key demo.” Meanwhile, the audiences of competitor shows at ABC News and NBC News grew over the same period.

The ratings collapse is a devastating indictment of the strategy Ellison and Weiss are executing at CBS — and a blaring warning for CNN if Ellison is able to complete his takeover of that network and let Weiss run the same playbook there.

Meanwhile, new data from the Alliance for Audited Media show that while average daily print circulation among major audited newspapers saw year-over-year declines across the board in the six months running through the end of September 2025, the biggest drops came at The Washington Post, which fell 21.2 percent followed by the Los Angeles Times, down 19.8 percent. Their billionaire owners — Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and biotech mogul Patrick Soon-Shiong, respectively — had responded to Trump’s return to the White House by trying to shift their papers to the right.

None of this should come as a surprise

Ellison and Weiss have suggested that the core problem for American media is that the public does not trust news outlets, and that the reason for this is that the public perceives those outlets as too far left and too critical of the right. They propose to win over a larger audience by deliberately course-correcting in the opposite direction.

“We are not producing a product that enough people want,” Weiss said at a CBS News staff town hall in January. Weiss attributed this to two factors. “First: Not enough people trust us. Not you. Us. As in: the mainstream media,” she said. “Second: We are not doing enough to meet audiences where they are. So they are leaving us.”

Weiss is correct that trust in traditional media has fallen dramatically in recent decades, particularly among conservatives — indeed, this is a banal truth that everyone remotely connected to the media knows. But her strategy of conceding that potential viewers are correct to distrust journalists and seeking to “meet audiences where they are” by signaling that coverage will now be deliberately shifted to the right has had the obvious result of driving away the existing audience without adding a new one.

CBS News’ viewers either liked what they were already watching or they liked what watching Edward R. Murrow’s old network said about them. When the network’s new ownership and management proposed taking its programming in a dramatically different direction in search of a different audience — as the wildly unpopular president cheered — the existing viewers could see that, and some decided that CBS is no longer worth their patronage.

Weiss’ theory of the case is that these losses could be made up by new viewers with more right-leaning views. But the decline in public trust for traditional media among Republicans stems at least in part from a decades-long strategy pursued deliberately by the GOP and conservative movement. That effort revolves around simultaneously denouncing news outlets as liberal propaganda while encouraging conservatives to instead patronize new, deliberately right-wing news sources. And it’s been taken to another level under Trump, who relentlessly attacks the press while using state power to reduce its influence and lift up the MAGA media operation.

That dynamic makes it wildly implausible that the shift Weiss enacted would win over a sizable new segment of viewers. Her version of CBS may garner praise from Trump, but people who might be swayed by his comments already have — and are likely already patronizing — a plethora of pro-Trump outlets. You could imagine a scenario where some slightly more right-wing viewers of the ABC and NBC news shows switched to watching the new CBS. But instead, the data Darcy cited suggests, CBS appears to be shedding viewers who are instead watching its competitors — or exiting broadcast television altogether as their news source.

As for Bezos’ Post and Soon-Shiong’s Times, when the owners similarly bet on trying to make their outlets more acceptable to Trump, their existing audiences looked for the exits and were not replaced. The efforts may win over the likes of Tucker Carlson or even the president himself, but MAGA isn’t rushing to buy subscriptions.

For Ellison, Bezos, and Soon-Shiong, the declines in their news outlets may be a small price to pay to win over Trump. Each owner has massive business holdings outside of the press and can afford the losses from tearing down their news outlets if it wins the Trump administration’s support for their desired mergers, contracts, or patents.

The journalists facing layoffs from their outlets — and the public who lose access to their reporting — are the ones who will actually suffer from this doomed strategy.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters

At 'Washington Post,' Bezos' Bozos Struggle To Justify High Drug Prices

At 'Washington Post,' Bezos' Bozos Struggle To Justify High Drug Prices

I am tempted just to ignore the Washington Trump-Post after Jeff Bezos’ purge, but perhaps there is some ridicule value that can be exploited for the purpose of educating the public. The Post ran an editorial complaining that people looking to lower drug prices in the United States were being short-sighted because it just means that we will see fewer new drugs in the future. It said the real problem is that Europe doesn’t pay enough for drugs because they don’t give drug companies unfettered government-granted patent monopolies, but instead limit prices based on a drug’s usefulness.

Two simple numbers show how ridiculous the Post’s argument is. Last year we spent over $720 billion on drugs and other pharmaceutical products. The industry spent around $150 billion on research. That means patients in the United States paid almost five times as much for drugs as what the industry spent on research.

It likely costs around $150 billion to manufacture and distribute the drugs. (We know this based on the price that generic drugs sell for.) That leaves the industry with $570 billion to cover $150 billion in research. The rest goes to profits, advertising, high pay for CEOs and other top executives, and payoffs to politicians, doctors, and media outlets.

Fans of arithmetic, which I guess excludes the Washington Post editors and other Trumpers, would know that Europe would be paying plenty to cover research costs, even if its prices were 40 percent of U.S. prices. The only thing that would be accomplished by raising the price of drugs in Europe is that Jeff Bezos’ rich friends would become even richer.

If we want to talk seriously about lowering drug prices, we would be looking to change the way we support research. Instead of relying on government-granted patent monopolies, we could just pay for the research upfront, say by vastly increasing the $50 billion we now spend funding research through the National Institutes of Health. Then all the research could be fully open source, with all patents in the public domain.

Not only would this mean that new drugs could be sold as cheap generics from the day they are approved by the FDA, but research would likely advance more quickly since new findings would quickly be made freely available. This would allow researchers all over the world to follow promising leads and avoid proven dead ends.

This way of financing research would also remove the enormous incentive the industry now has to lie about the safety and effectiveness of new drugs. We saw this problem most clearly with the opioid crisis where the industry misled doctors about the addictiveness of the new generation of opioid drugs, but the issue of misrepresenting research comes up all the time. It is exactly what economic theory predicts happens when a government monopoly allows companies to sell products at prices that are thousands of percent above production costs.

I have been screaming about the corruption of the pharmaceutical industry for a long time and pushing direct upfront funding as an alternative. I am happy to see a new paper from Dana Brown at the Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator making the same argument.

There’s an old saying that intellectuals have a hard time dealing with new ideas, and direct upfront funding of pharmaceutical research is certainly a new idea to people who can’t imagine an alternative to patent monopolies. Also, since the major media outlets are controlled by rich people like Jeff Bezos, they aren’t anxious to publicize policies that could cost their rich friends hundreds of billions of dollars.

But at least folks who read my stuff can know. The Washington Post is lying to you. There are more efficient mechanisms to finance biomedical research which can give us both lower drug prices and better medicine. Drugs can and should be cheap, we don’t have to make them expensive with patent monopolies. Maybe one day we will be able to have a serious discussion about alternatives to patents to finance the development of new drugs.

If Trump Cancels Midterms, The Tech Billionaires Wouldn't Even Blink

If Trump Cancels Midterms, The Tech Billionaires Wouldn't Even Blink

The lack of market reaction to the news that Trump ordered his Justice Department to investigate criminal charges against Fed Chair Jerome Powell surprises many people. After all, everyone knows that the claims about cost overruns being the basis for the investigation is nonsense. Trump wants to threaten Powell with criminal charges because he ignored Trump’s demand that he lower interest rates.

This ordinarily would be seen as a very big deal. Ever since Nixon, presidents have been reluctant to be seen as pressuring the Fed. In fact, their concern on this issue often seemed absurd to my view. President Biden didn’t want his Council of Economic Advisors to even comment on interest rate policy, as though giving a view based on the economic data would be undue pressure.

There is a big difference between presenting an economic argument and threatening to imprison a Fed chair who disagrees. And we now see which side Trump comes down on.

But apparently, the markets are just fine with this new threat. The major stock indexes all rose on Monday, although bond prices fell slightly, pushing long-term rates higher. The dollar also fell modestly.

The non-reaction of the stock markets might seem surprising. After all, the independent Fed is considered a sacred feature of U.S. prosperity. There is no shortage of economists who will insist that a Fed that is subordinate to the whims of a president is a quick route to double-digit or even triple-digit inflation. (I’m more agnostic on this one, but the markets generally don’t listen to me.)

Anyhow, Trump is now not just looking to fire an insubordinate Fed chair, he’s looking to throw him in prison. And the markets just yawned.

This reaction should cause us to start asking how the markets might react if Trump just cancels or outright steals the 2026 elections in order to keep his lackeys in control of Congress. Under any other modern president, the fear of a cancelled or stolen election would be silly. While they might have used dubious tactics leading up to an election, we could be comfortable that the votes would be counted, and the outcome would be binding. (Florida in 2000 is a major exception.) No one ever suggested that an election would be cancelled.

But Trump has made it clear that he considers both cancellation and ordering that some votes not be counted as serious options in his recent New York Times interview. No one can be safe in assuming that we will have a normal democratic election this year.

Given this reality, we might want to speculate on how the markets would react in the event that Trump does decide to end American democracy. We now know that most of the big money boys couldn’t care less about democracy. Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and Tim Cook have been happy to cozy up to Trump in Mar-a-Lago, even as he violates one democratic norm after another. Elon Musk has made it clear that he has contempt for democracy, insofar as it means allowing non-white people to vote.

This gang would obviously have no moral issues with a cancelled or stolen election. But what about the economics?

Trump has already made it clear that he will favor businesses whose leaders praise him and punish those who criticize him. His most recent effort in this direction was saying that he intended to ban Exxon-Mobil from access to Venezuelan oil because its CEO said what every oil analyst has said since Trump became president of that country: it will be difficult for companies to profitably invest there.

The economies of countries where the leader can reward or punish companies on a whim tend to not do very well. The courts have provided a limited check on Trump’s whims as has even this pathetic Congress. However, if Trump is deciding who serves in Congress, the checks will be gone. We will have full rule by our demented 79-year-old president.

Perhaps markets will be fine with that. With enough rear-end licking some companies may still do fine, but it would seem on the straight economics most people with money would probably prefer to invest in a serious country. Let’s hope we don’t have to find out.

Dean Baker is a senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and the author of the 2016 book Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Dean Baker.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World