Amazon to Battle Apple iPad With Tablet

At Wall Street Journal:

Amazon.com Inc. has battled Apple Inc. over digital books, digital music and mobile applications. Now the two companies are taking their clash to another front: the tablet market.

Amazon plans to release a tablet computer by October, people familiar with the matter said, intensifying its rivalry with Apple's iPad

While Amazon has long offered digital content on its website, it has lacked much of the hardware to go with it. Now the Seattle company hopes customers will use its tablet to buy and rent that content, said people familiar with its thinking.
An Amazon spokesman didn't respond to requests for comment.

Amazon's looming entry into the tablet market, which Chief Executive Jeff Bezos has hinted at in his appearances this year, is the latest example of how technology companies, once focused on a particular segment of the industry, are increasingly jostling one another on multiple fronts.

Amazon's sure becoming a major player all around. RTWT.

Amazon Wants Voter Referendum to Decide Online Sales Tax

At Los Angeles Times, "Amazon aims to have voters decide on sales-tax law."

I hate government by ballot box, although this one's a referendum rather than initiative, so what the heck? Besides, I miss running Amazon at the blog, and Governor Brown's a blithering idiot.

HuffPo Writer Fired for 'Over-Aggregating' News Stories

I don't read Huffington Post, although I'm always interested in what goes on with Arianna Huffington. And this story's a kicker. At LA Weekly, "Amy Lee Firing by Huffington Post Exposes Hypocrisy When it Comes to Site's News-Stealing Business Model." And SF Weekly, "Huffington Post Suspends Reporter for Rewriting Article."

Amy Lee had summarized an original piece at AdAge, and the latter checked the traffic stats, finding that HuffPo sent a measly 57 visitors to its website. See: "What It's Like to Get Used and Abused by The Huffington Post" (via Mediagazer).

RELATED: Also at AdAge, "Huffington Post Launches U.K. Site Amid Murdoch Scandal: First Venture Outside North America Must Prove Its Appeal to Local Readers."

Obama Rules Out Short-Term Debt Solution

The "eat our peas" line is memorable, at the end of the clip, and discussed at Memeorandum.

And at LAT, "At news conference, Obama portrays himself as compromiser in chief":

President Obama says he will not sign a three- to six-month bill to raise the nation's debt ceiling, and instead is calling on Republicans to set aside politics and agree on a long-term compromise before the country hits the debt limit Aug. 2.

The administration is not making contingency plans in the event that Congress won't vote to raise the debt ceiling in time, Obama told reporters Monday morning, predicting during a news conference that "we are going to get this done" before the deadline.

As leaders prepared for an afternoon meeting on the issue at the White House, Obama pledged to bring Republicans and Democrats together "every single day" until they work out an agreement to avert a credit default with a plan on debt and deficit reduction.

Republicans have been saying for months that it's a "moral imperative" for the president and Congress to tackle debts and deficits, Obama said, arguing that he has moved toward their position in hopes of working out a compromise.

"What I've said to them is, 'Let's go,'" Obama said. Such a deal would let Americans know "this town can actually do something once in a while."

Progressives love to talk about Republican "hostage taking" on the budget, but in fact the administration's dishonesty on negotiations is practically criminal. See Yuval Levin, at National Review, "A Raw Deal" (via Memeorandum).

Clay Shirky: 'Why We Need the New News Environment to be Chaotic'

Take a few minutes and read it all. It's beefy. And my beef comes here:

This fall, I’m joining NYU’s journalism program, where, for the first time in a dozen years, I will teach undergraduates. Someone who turns 19 this year will have not one adult memory of the 20th century; for them, the Contract With America, the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the first Gulf War are roughly contemporaneous events, just as, for my 19 year old cohort, the Summer of Love, the Watts’ riots, and Kent State all seemed to have happened in that one busy month we called The 60s. When it comes time to explain the media landscape of the 20th century, I will be teaching my own youth as ancient history.

I could tell these students that when I was growing up, the only news I read was thrown into our front yard by a boy on a bicycle. They might find this interesting, but only in the way I found it interesting that my father had grown up without indoor plumbing. What 19 year olds need to know isn’t how it was in Ye Olden Tymes of 1992; they need to know what we’ve learned about supporting the creation and dissemination of news between then and now. Contemplating what I should tell them, there are only three things I’m sure of: News has to be subsidized, and it has to be cheap, and it has to be free.

The main thing is the news subsidy, and the other elements follow from the analysis. Shirky argues news --- civic news reporting --- is a public good, and as with any public good, there's under-provision and the need for a leader to pay the cost of the collective benefit. Government is usually the answer, and I hate the idea of government becoming involved in the media industry. I goes against everything we've learned about media decentralization in the Internet age. Frankly, more newspapers will die off, and the ones that make it will change. The last thing we need is a bunch of progressive commissars controlling the production, content, and distribution of the news --- all in the "public good," of course. But read Shirky. He claims there are other ways outside of government involvement to subsidize the news. I'm skeptical, especially in that those most receptive to anti-market proposals for the media are big-government types.

More on News of the World's End

At New York Times, "At a Paper Set to Close, Defiance and Foreboding":

LONDON — With the tremors of The News of the World scandal still spreading across the landscape of British life, the newspaper’s staff assembled on Saturday for the paper’s last working shift before it is shut down by the Murdoch empire as part of its strategy for limiting the damage to its worldwide brand.

At the newspaper’s plant in Wapping, East London, plans were to double the number of copies printed of the Sunday issue, the paper’s last after 168 years of publication. The run of five million copies was expected to sell out.

The paper’s closing also meant the loss of jobs for 280 reporters, editors and other employees. While some of them had hopes of being rehired for a publication said to be planned by News International, the Murdoch subsidiary in Britain — a new Sunday edition of The Sun, Rupert Murdoch’s mass-circulation daily paper — the mood as they prepared to send the final edition to press was one that mixed pride over the paper’s history of revealing some of the most lurid scandals in British life with bitterness at becoming sacrificial lambs.

“We feel like we have paid the price for a small group of people who are no longer at the paper,” Jamie Lyons, the deputy political editor, said in a Twitter post. He said that his colleagues were “appalled and disgusted” by the phone-hacking that brought the paper low, but added a defiant note. “Let’s go out with a bang,” he said.

More at that top link, and at Telegraph UK, "Rebekah Brooks to be questioned by police over phone hacking."

ICYMI: "The End of News of the World."

Google Makes Facebook Look Socially Awkward

At Wall Street Journal:

Mark Zuckerberg might want to fast-track Facebook's initial public offering.

In what appeared to be a hasty response to the launch of Google's rival social-networking product, called Google+, Mr. Zuckerberg on Wednesday unveiled Facebook's new video-chatting feature. He called it "super awesome." Too bad Google made the same feature available in 2008. Indeed, Facebook suddenly looks vulnerable. This could be bad news for investors who have recently paid top dollar for stock in Facebook in private sales.

Rule No. 1 when launching a social network: Make everyone wait in line. Exclusivity was how, in its early days, Facebook built buzz. For more than two years, you couldn't get in unless you had an email address ending in .edu. Google is using a similar strategy with Google+.

Facebook should take note that Google used the strategy before to kneecap Yahoo in all-important email, a key driver of Yahoo's traffic. Then Google rolled out Gmail—but only by invitation at first.

Rule No. 2 is to deliver a better service. Adopting a new social network could prove similar to adopting a new email address: Many will try it out, but to keep using it, they have got to be given good reason. That Gmail offered significantly more storage space than typical Web mail meant millions were willing to make the switch. Similarly, Google+ offers upgrades on what many perceive to be Facebook's shortcomings.

For starters, Google+ gives users a handy way to organize their social contacts into different "circles"—friends, relatives, colleagues, etc.—with which they can share appropriate things. Though Facebook now offers the option to create "Groups," users broadcast their information to everyone by default.

Google+ also offers group video chats. That is why Facebook's announcement of one-on-one video on Wednesday seemed to fall short. Facebook has yet to introduce group video chat.

The biggest hurdle for Google+ is getting users, of course. But it is integrating the service with Gmail, which already has 240 million unique users world-wide, according to comScore. Meanwhile, the user experience on Facebook is a victim of the site's success. Users have accumulated so many online "friends" it can be difficult to organize them. And users often feel assaulted by too much or irrelevant social information, like Zynga game updates. Ultimately, Google+ is a chance for social networkers to start over.

Still more at the link.

Interesting.

And see Midnight Blue, "My Thoughts on Google +."

RELATED: "Managing Google Plus Privacy Settings [Google+]." And, "How to Disable Google Plus Email Notification."

Unemployment Up to 9.2 Percent, Raising Doubt About Economic Recovery

At Los Angeles Times:

The U.S. employment picture went from bad to ugly in June as employers added almost no new net jobs and the unemployment rate edged up for the third straight month, to 9.2%.

The report Friday from the Labor Department was a huge disappointment and raised fresh questions about the sustainability of the recovery, now technically starting its third year.

Major stock indexes fell sharply. Economists once again ratcheted down their expectations for future growth. And many others implored the federal government, deadlocked on how to address the deficit and intent on cutting spending, to step up and help the flagging economy and the millions of unemployed get back on their feet.

Continue reading.

Also, at Bloomberg, "U.S. Payrolls Grow at Slowest Pace in 9 Months." (Via Memeorandum.)

'Twitter and Facebook are like personal wire services that filter the constant flow of information across the Web'

Says Washington Post ombudsman Patrick Pexton. See, "At The Post, reporters get socialized to social media."

And here's this from Post writer Jura Koncius, who has 1,300 followers on Twitter:

Part of being on Twitter is “shameless self-promotion,” Koncius says; “you are your own public relations person” in journalism today. But another part is to engage in a conversation with sources and readers, showing them what interests you and what might interest them. And they respond in kind, showing her things she didn’t know before, Koncius says. “It enhances my day, it provides a smile.”

I've been on Twitter over two years now. I enjoy it. But I don't use it aggressively or addictively. Frankly, I should be using it more. The one thing about it that can't be beat is the instantaneous news reporting. I was blown away at the power of Twitter during the Iranian democracy protests in 2009. The quantity and quality of all kinds of news and social media at the time was transformational. I spoke differently about technology during my lectures. This kind of thing happens often if you're on Twitter quite a bit, but the last time I felt like that was when U.S. forces killed Osama bin Laden. Keith Urbahn, a former staffer for Donald Rumsfeld, tweeted it, and it took off around the Twittersphere. By the time President Obama gave his national address I'd been tweeting for more than 90 minutes, and I was able to post on the release of the initial fake pictures to great effect. Thus it seems really weird that Washington Post writers are just now getting seminars in social media. None of these tools are new. It's the professional norms that are lagging.

More on Amazon Affiliates

I know I've posted on this, but I'm still bothered by the Democrat budget in California, which imposes taxes on online sales from the state, also known as the "Amazon tax," since one of the biggest companies affected is Amazon.com. One of the things I miss about being an affiliate, is that whenever I mentioned a book --- which is pretty often --- I would link to Amazon's associate's link and I could earn a referral commission. That's not an option any more. So now it seems weird linking books knowing that a referral fee could be earned --- and an earning opportunity lost. Anyway, Robert Stacy McCain wrote about his referral success. Every now and then a reader will buy an expensive product through a referral link and that sends a large commission to the blogger. Some time back a reader bought an $800 bunk bed through my links, and I received a hefty commission for the purchase. That was nice. And Robert writes on those as well:

Somebody got a sweet deal — only $499! — on that piece of high-end home video equipment via one of the Amazon links here, which earned me a sweet $20 commission through the Amazon Associates program.

And Robert shares this video of Jeff Bezos:

Meanwhile, I rarely link him but I'll break my rule to send readers to Little Green Footballs for some lulz. Charles Johnson is perterbed by Amazon's decision to pull out of the state, but not so much that Democrat tax hikes are destroying free enterprise in California.

Typical. Charles Johnson's a bleeding-heart progressive with psychological problems. No surprise he'd back big government over business.

Anyway, Common Sense Political Thought has an entry, "Amazon.com going Galt Updated, Saturday morning."

And at Los Angeles Times, "Amazon, California play waiting game in sales tax fight":

Amazon.com Inc. is sticking by its vow not to collect California sales tax on Internet purchases — and state officials must decide what to do about it.

But the showdown over the new tax collection law that took effect Friday could be months away. Companies don't send the taxes to the state until the end of each quarter, which means the California Board of Equalization won't know officially about Amazon's refusal to collect them until Oct. 1.

The tax-collecting agency said Amazon accounts for about half the Internet sales in California from large out-of-state firms that, prior to the new law, did not have to collect sales tax for the state. It said the new law would capture about $317 million a year in sales taxes that previously went uncollected.

Amazon, based in Seattle, has said repeatedly that it would not collect the California sales tax, calling it an unconstitutional infringement on interstate commerce.

Such defiance sets up a major legal battle by this fall, though Amazon could first challenge the law in court, as it has in New York. It has lost a trial court ruling there and has an appeal pending.

Amazon is "going to fight in every state where it can fight," said Tracey G. Sellers, managing director of the Tampa, Fla., office of tax firm True Partners Consulting. "It's going to be years before this whole issue is settled" in the courts.

Amazon declined to say whether it would sue to overturn the new California statute, though state officials expect a lawsuit.

More at that link above, but California officials are looking to novel ways at making this unconstitutional law work:

The new law also gives the Board of Equalization the authority to develop new theories that would establish a nexus or legal connection, making Amazon liable for collecting California sales taxes.

"This swings the gate wide open to establish nexus as we see fit," said Betty Yee, a board member who spearheaded the agency's support for the law. But she acknowledged that any other theories the board devises would probably be tested in court.

As wee see fit? Gotcha.

California's Amazon Tax Driving Business — and People — Out of State

Amazon sent a follow-up email last night confirming that they'd terminated the associates program effective immediately. The number of affiliate retailers is being placed at 25,000 and the effect of Governor Brown's budget is simply to kill business. And it's another reason for some to flee the state. See Fortune, "Will California's 'Amazon tax' cause an affiliate exodus?" And at Cato, "California Wants Amazon to Tax Californians." The article cites the Los Angeles Times, and notes:

The natural result of California doing yet more to make the state uninhabitable for business comes at the end of the story. Californians who earned and spent money in California as part of the Internet remote sales ecosystem plan to move elsewhere:

One affiliate, Ken Rockwell of San Diego, the owner of a 12-year-old photography website, said he planned to move out of state. “Will it be Las Vegas or Scottsdale or Ensenada?” he said. “It’s a question of where, not if.”

See also, Robert Stacy McCain, "Amazon Goes Galt, Cuts Off California to Avoid Internet Tax in Zimbabwe, U.S.A."

There's a disgruntled former affiliate, at Fox News, "An Open Letter to Jeff Bezos On Terminating the Amazon Affiliate Program In California." It's interesting but unpersuasive. Taxes disrupt markets, and while affiliates are getting burned, it's not good business policy to be magnanimous. Competition is fierce. Tax systems vary by state and the U.S. Supreme Court has said out-of-state companies cannot be taxed without actual physical presence at the point of sale. This is not to discount the fairness issue, or arguments that Amazon market share enables it compete in sales tax markets. It's more than California is simply hostile to business. I've noted a couple of times recently how companies and individuals are fleeing the state. Jan Norman's "Small Business" column at the Orange County Register reports frequently on the uncompetitive marketplace for California firms. (See, for example, "O.C. manufacturer to move, create 270 jobs in D.C.") And she has this on Amazon's decision, "How do Amazon affiliates lose out?":

If the online retailer has a physical presence in California — such as Walmart or Target, which have been supporters of the new law — it must charge California sales tax from California buyers.

But many of these online retailers have no physical presence (stores, warehouses, headquarters etc.) in California. And they have not been collecting California sales tax.

Understand that retailers don’t pay sales tax. They collect it for the state or local government entity.

Brick and mortar retailers say they are at a big price disadvantage because they have to collect sales tax (as much as 10% in California right now) that online retailers don’t.

However, in 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a state could only require retailers with some physical presence (stores, warehouses etc.) within the state’s borders to collect the sales tax.

So a California firm that only sells online must collect sales tax for California but not for the other 44 states that charge sales tax (5 states don’t charge sales tax). But an online retailer in Oregon, which has no sales tax, doesn’t have to add sales tax to any of its sales.

States have been trying to figure a way around that Supreme Court ruling ever since.

RELATED: At Instapundit, "THEY REALLY DO SELL EVERYTHING AT AMAZON."

EXTRA: At Sundries Shack, "Clearing the Browser Tabs – Why Does California Hurt Its People Thursday Edition."

Los Angeles Dodgers File for Bankruptcy

Well, the McCourts divorce settlement was only going to work if the Dodgers got a huge Fox Sports television contract, but Selig nixed that, so I guess the bankruptcy was inevitable.

At Los Angeles Times, a huge story, "Dodgers file for bankruptcy — and arrange for $150-million loan."

Congresswoman Renee Ellmers (R-NC) Delivers Weekly Republican Address, 6/25/11

From the House GOP Conference:

Federal Regulators to Probe Google

Google seems like it pisses off a lot of people, but this is an even larger thing.

At WSJ, "Feds to Launch Probe of Google":

Federal regulators are poised to hit Google Inc. with subpoenas, launching a broad, formal investigation into whether the Internet giant has abused its dominance in Web-search advertising, people familiar with the matter said.

The civil probe, which has the potential to reshape how companies compete on the Internet, is the most serious legal threat yet to the 12-year-old company, though it wouldn't necessarily lead to any federal allegations of wrongdoing against Google.
While Google has faced several antitrust probes in recent years, the U.S. has limited its investigations largely to reviews of the company's mergers and acquisitions. The new inquiry, by contrast, will examine fundamental issues relating to Google's core search-advertising business, its biggest money maker, said the people familiar with the matter.

I was reminded of the Microsoft anti-trust lawsuit, and the comparison is made further down at the report. Obviously other search companies have complained:

Those companies said that Google's anticompetitive practices include using other companies' content without their permission, deceptive display of search results, manipulation of search results to favor Google's products, and buying up competitive threats to its dominance.

Google—which handles about two-thirds of all U.S. Web searches, according to comScore Inc., and more than 80% in many parts of Europe—has denied doing any of these things. It argues that users can easily navigate to other choices on the Web. In statements, the company has said it "built Google for users, not websites, and our goal is to give users answers."

RTWT.

I enjoy Google products. Blogger and G-mail work well together, and I'm told Blogger blogs search better on Google than Wordpress. We'll see, for like Legal Insurrection, I'm considering a switch-over. Not only because of Blogger's blackout issues, some of the progressives who've attacked American Power long ago threatened a demonization campaign at Blogger to get this blog deleted. I'm sticking with Blogger for now, but one of the biggest reasons folks bail on Blogger is to gain some security and independence for themselves.

California Economic Recovery Stumbles, New Jobs Report Shows

Atlas is still shrugging.

At Los Angeles Times, "California employers drop 29,200 jobs in May."

California's employers halted hiring in May, shedding 29,200 jobs from payrolls in yet another worrying sign that the nation's economic recovery is foundering.

The state's unemployment rate fell to 11.7%, from 11.8% the month before, according to the state Employment Development Department, but the job losses are the most significant since September of last year. The unemployment rate can fall when the state loses jobs because people drop out of the labor force, either because they're frustrated or are leaving the state.

California has the second-highest jobless rate in the nation, after Nevada.

The jobs data comes among worrying signs in California and the nation. Home sales in California dropped 13.3% in May from a year ago, and prices dropped 10.4%. Stocks teetered this week amid renewed fears that Greece will not be able to service its significant debt burden. And debates in Congress led some economists to worry that the U.S. will default on its debt payments, which would create further financial problems.

Still, economists said the ups and downs in the job market are to be expected in a tepid recovery.

"This is completely consistent with what we expected in California — the recovery is going to be slow," said Bill Watkins, director of the Center for Economic Research and Forecasting at California Lutheran University.

Right.

To be expected, since this is the Obama Depression. They just don't call it that.

Progressives Take Aim at Bush Tax Cuts

No surprise Ed Schultz is mouthing talking points from the Soros-funded Think Progress smear machine. Schultz just came back from his suspension after attacking Laura Ingraham as a "right-wing slut." And here he is going off about exploding deficits and lost jobs, blah, blah. Is there a prize for being too obvious? The Anthony Weiner ethics disaster is just some foul topping for all the horrendous economic news of late, and Democratic prospects for 2012 are simply getting hammered. It's the smell of desperation, and it stinks.

[VIDEO TAKEN DOWN]

Here's Think Progress, "Ten Years Of The Bush Tax Cuts." And here's Joan Walsh, who just got beaten up on Twitter over her attacks on Andrew Breitbart and Weinergate, "Happy anniversary: Bush tax cuts turn 10." Folks can go back and forth on this forever. The truth is that higher taxes stifle initiative and entrepreneurship, and small businesses are among the hardest hit. Besides, no single variable explains current growth trends, least of all the first round up Bush tax cuts on 2001. As Mark Murray points out, "Judging the Bush tax cuts -- 10 years later":

Chris Edwards, the director of tax policy studies at the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute, has a different take on the Bush tax cuts.

Edwards says the 2001 cuts (which included lower individual tax rates) turned out to be less effective than the later ones enacted in 2003 (on dividends and capital gains). "Bush's cuts were half and half in my view."

He also contends that it's too simplistic to extrapolate from the last 10 years that tax cuts -- in general -- don't work. "So much goes on in the economy," Edwards said, referring to external events, trade policies, and spending. "Clinton's higher tax rate doesn't prove any kind of relationship."

The current crop of Republican presidential hopefuls are continuing to bet on lower taxes. In his speech at the University of Chicago today, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty proposed decreasing individual income-tax rates to just two levels: 10% and 25%; 35% is the current top level. And he also called for a lower corporate-tax rate.

"Growing at 5% a year -- rather than at the current level of 1.8% -- would net us millions of new jobs," Pawlenty said. "How do we do it? In short, we create more economic growth by creating more economic freedom."

See also Martin Feldstein, at Wall Street Journal, "The Economy Is Worse Than You Think":

The policies of the Obama administration have led to the weak condition of the American economy. Growth during the coming year will be subpar at best, leaving high or rising levels of unemployment and underemployment.

The drop in GDP growth to just 1.8% in the first quarter of 2011, from 3.1% in the final quarter of last year, understates the extent of the decline. Two-thirds of that 1.8% went into business inventories rather than sales to consumers or other final buyers. This means that final sales growth was at an annual rate of just 0.6% and the actual quarterly increase was just 0.15%—dangerously close to no rise at all. A sustained expansion cannot be built on inventory investment. It takes final sales to induce businesses to hire and to invest.

The picture is even gloomier if we look in more detail. Estimates of monthly GDP indicate that the only growth in the first quarter of 2011 was from February to March. After a temporary rise in March, the economy began sliding again in April, with declines in real wages, in durable-goods orders and manufacturing production, in existing home sales, and in real per-capita disposable incomes. It is not surprising that the index of leading indicators fell in April, only the second decline since it began to rise in the spring of 2009.

The data for May are beginning to arrive and are even worse than April's. They are marked by a collapse in payroll-employment gains; a higher unemployment rate; manufacturers' reports of slower orders and production; weak chain-store sales; and a sharp drop in consumer confidence.

How has the Obama administration contributed to this failure to achieve a robust and sustainable recovery?

The administration's most obvious failure was its misguided fiscal policies: the cash-for-clunkers subsidy for car buyers, the tax credit for first-time home buyers, and the $830 billion "stimulus" package. Cash-for-clunkers gave a temporary boost to motor-vehicle production but had no lasting impact on the economy. The home-buyer credit stimulated the demand for homes only temporarily.

As for the "stimulus" package, both its size and structure were inadequate to offset the enormous decline in aggregate demand. The fall in household wealth by the end of 2008 reduced the annual level of consumer spending by more than $500 billion. The drop in home building subtracted another $200 billion from GDP. The total GDP shortfall was therefore more than $700 billion. The Obama stimulus package that started at less than $300 billion in 2009 and reached a maximum of $400 billion in 2010 wouldn't have been big enough to fill the $700 billion annual GDP gap even if every dollar of the stimulus raised GDP by a dollar.

In fact, each dollar of extra deficit added much less than a dollar to GDP. Experience shows that the most cost-effective form of temporary fiscal stimulus is direct government spending. The most obvious way to achieve that in 2009 was to repair and replace the military equipment used in Iraq and Afghanistan that would otherwise have to be done in the future. But the Obama stimulus had nothing for the Defense Department. Instead, President Obama allowed the Democratic leadership in Congress to design a hodgepodge package of transfers to state and local governments, increased transfers to individuals, temporary tax cuts for lower-income taxpayers, etc. So we got a bigger deficit without economic growth.

More at the link.

The bottom line is that the economy will continue to stagnate until the Democrats cut spending and lower taxes to spur entrepreneurship and investment.