There is no regulation or legislation that is telling Amazon they can/can't or should/shouldn't post this information. Amazon appears to be responding to the wishes of the President out of fealty or fear. The threat of a negative response by the President is enough to change the behavior of the company.
Let’s not also forget that Apple and Google are currently illegally distributing the TikTok app in their platforms. Despite a law passed by Congress and upheld by the supreme court that this shouldn’t be happening. But I guess the president, with no legal basis, gets to just order an extension and pinky promise not to enforce it. This is the new crazy dynamic between the administration and tech companies.
To me, this calls into question to what degree Amazon will willfully comply with government requests that come in via phone call and not a warrant.
From the Amazon shopping side, you can build quite a profile on someone based on their past order history. Want to find protesters? There’s been a number of folks who don’t usually order office supplies suddenly ordering the thick Sharpie markers in a certain area...
Hopefully AWS steers clear of this, I suppose. That’d have even worse implications.
> Amazon appears to be responding to the wishes of the President out of fealty or fear.
Ah yes. When a company does something at the ask of a Democratic administration it’s an act of valor or bravery. When they do it at the ask of a Republican one, it’s fear or fealty.
In reality it’s neither. It’s always just business.
Whenever I visit the US I get annoyed that the prices listed on the store shelves aren't actually what I pay; in Europe all prices are VAT-inclusive, but in the US none of the prices include sales tax, they're all broken out separately at checkout.
I found this unreasonable and confusing until one day I read a conservative argument that this is actually a good thing, because it stops the government from increasing sales tax too much. It constantly reminds residents of how much extra they're paying for sales tax and encourages voting for politicians who will reduce sales tax if it's too high. Okay, it's a reasonable argument, I wasn't super against it anymore.
It's fairly shocking to now see this happen, not even as a result of any law but just one of the biggest companies deciding to obey in advance.
He is correct too. Compare tax rates in the European continent to the USA. US taxes are much lower. Some states, like New Hampshire, have 0 sales tax. So if you buy something that costs a dollar, you actually pay a dollar. Not 1.06 like in Pennnsylvania, or a whopping 1.27 like in Hungary.
That conservative argument is just an excuse. The price is not shown in full, to make it harder for customer to know how much they are spending before they are at the counter.
It is fully possible to show full price along with tariffs and taxes, if you want to show them. It does not necessitates misleading prices. This is just conservatives being pro-manipulation and against informed customers.
When I was ordering package to a country that had tariffs, an online store shown me item price, shipping, tariffs and total price. Nothing new or shocking about showing a full price along with its breakdown.
> found this unreasonable and confusing until one day I read a conservative argument that this is actually a good thing, because it stops the government from increasing sales tax too much. It constantly reminds residents of how much extra they're paying for sales tax and encourages voting for politicians who will reduce sales tax if it's too high. Okay, it's a reasonable argument, I wasn't super against it anymore
It's not really reasonable. Like, at all.
You can know how much sales tax/VAT is without having to do math every time you pay a bill. For one thing, receipts can and AFAIK always include VAT separately in the EU, with a line for each VAT amount if different (e.g. in France food and alcohol are under different VAT rates, so on the receipt it says you paid X in VAT, of which Y was under 20% for alcohol, Z under 5.5% for food).
You retain the same "power" while being more informed and you're spared quick mental math every time you pay.
The executive really shouldn't be interfering with private companies in this way. This is Amazon bowing to fears of retaliation. For what, giving customers true information?
The executive really shouldn't be referring to their emergency orders as laws or be suggesting that those orders supersede the US Constitution or laws passed by the legislature and enforced by the courts but that's not where we are.
Someone made the observation that if the WH is proud of the tariffs and think they are good policy to bring back manufacturing (or whatever), then wouldn't they want their (according-to-them) awesome idea to be as widely publicized as possible?
If tariffs are a good thing why not allow them to be 'advertised' that much more? Don't you want credit for the good idea you came up with?
If the primary objective of tariffs was really to promote American manufacturing there would be an associated "Made in America" campaign that informed consumers that they're supporting American manufacturing. These types of campaigns are almost always popular and successful. I believe this isn't occurring because increasing American manufacturing is not the only stated objective of Trump's economic policies. His stated secondary objective, replacing revenue from income tax with tariff revenue, conflicts significantly with the first. If enough tariff revenue is never achieved, Trump would not have the excuse or the opportunity to disband the IRS. Informing consumers of their tax burden puts this objective in peril.
If a change in tax policy is the short term goal, is manufacturing a long term goal? Wouldn't a robust manufacturing sector mean decreased tariff revenue? The picture isn't clear because Trump is being very opaque with his policies.
> No country has ever taxed it's citizens into greatness.
Why do people repeat this? The greatest era of middle-class growth and success was when the rich paid much more in taxes. Perhaps a better phrase is "No government maintained a middle-class by letting the rich soak up all the gains".
Politics aside, how could they decide not to show it?
If something cost $50 yesterday and now suddenly it's $75 or $100 with no explanation wouldn't that make more people think it's inflation which in turn has its own set of negative impacts?
No one is just going to blindly forget a massive price hike on a wide range of things.
All this does is allow businesses to raise their prices arbitrarily and blame tarrifs on the side if anyone complains. Basically the same thing that happened with inflation after covid. I guess this explains why they are not showing it. If that's not the truth, that's ok. That's what happens when you're not transparent. People will make assumptions based on their beliefs.
That’s why it can’t be “politics aside”: a politician decidedly unilaterally to make one of the largest tax hikes in American history. There just isn’t a way to talk about that without recognizing that it was a political act made for political reasons.
I think you’re right about the cover this provides for businesses, too, which makes it interesting from a political standpoint. The president clearly recognizes that the tariffs are a political liability if voters are allowed to see the unblended costs but if the costs are hidden, that gives carte blanche to every business to raise prices now knowing that consumers will assume it’s tariff-related like all of the other price increases they’re seeing.
I wonder if this “prostration” is a direct result of becoming too big as a company. I cannot imagine a company as big Amazon just succumbing to political pressure to their own detriment like this unless it benefits them somehow. The only way the government can help is through their kuiper project. If only Amazon was split into smaller groups then the store will not be beholden to the satellite internet group and AWS’ integrity wouldn’t be questioned, may be. Also if split each of them will be run by a different individual and so may be have more practical
A thought I had is that they shouldn't show the "impact", they should simply show the tariff that was paid for a given product. Let the consumers develop their own facts, knowledge and biases about the actual effect.
They could also show the pre-tariff and post-tariff prices; that would be the most helpful thing. Or a price chart, which would be interesting ex-tariff.
It was not practical from the get-go, because showing how tariffs are affecting the consumer price requires to expose the supplier cost to buyers and I find it hard to believe sellers (or Amazon itself) would want that.
Amazon does not have this information, nor would a competitive seller wish to provider it. Who my suppliers are and what they charge? So what, Amazon can better decide whether to enter my market?
WH says something in outrage (like they did) and amazon backs down.. but its such big news that the awareness has been heightened. Now even the most rabid MAGAhead knows that this is going to cost them at the hip pocket, and knows that the WH knew, and used their power to shut amazon up.
If they wish to incentivize purchasing of domestic manufactured goods then surely they would welcome this? Consumers could see at a glance if they where buying American, or paying a penalty to buy foreign. I don't get the WH response.
For years Amazon has refused to display a consistent “Made in ____” label on product pages. They also will not let you filter on (or exclude) country of origin.
They’re free to do whatever they want, but it’s hardly some conspiracy theory. It’s just business. That includes deciding to or deciding not to show tariff impact on prices.
mmcconnell1618|10 months ago
hapticmonkey|10 months ago
https://www.theverge.com/23651507/tiktok-ban-us-news
redserk|10 months ago
From the Amazon shopping side, you can build quite a profile on someone based on their past order history. Want to find protesters? There’s been a number of folks who don’t usually order office supplies suddenly ordering the thick Sharpie markers in a certain area...
Hopefully AWS steers clear of this, I suppose. That’d have even worse implications.
BoredPositron|10 months ago
unknown|10 months ago
[deleted]
aaron695|10 months ago
[deleted]
koolba|10 months ago
Ah yes. When a company does something at the ask of a Democratic administration it’s an act of valor or bravery. When they do it at the ask of a Republican one, it’s fear or fealty.
In reality it’s neither. It’s always just business.
a2128|10 months ago
I found this unreasonable and confusing until one day I read a conservative argument that this is actually a good thing, because it stops the government from increasing sales tax too much. It constantly reminds residents of how much extra they're paying for sales tax and encourages voting for politicians who will reduce sales tax if it's too high. Okay, it's a reasonable argument, I wasn't super against it anymore.
It's fairly shocking to now see this happen, not even as a result of any law but just one of the biggest companies deciding to obey in advance.
weberer|10 months ago
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/EU_VAT_T...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Sales_ta...
1oooqooq|10 months ago
watwut|10 months ago
It is fully possible to show full price along with tariffs and taxes, if you want to show them. It does not necessitates misleading prices. This is just conservatives being pro-manipulation and against informed customers.
When I was ordering package to a country that had tariffs, an online store shown me item price, shipping, tariffs and total price. Nothing new or shocking about showing a full price along with its breakdown.
sofixa|10 months ago
It's not really reasonable. Like, at all.
You can know how much sales tax/VAT is without having to do math every time you pay a bill. For one thing, receipts can and AFAIK always include VAT separately in the EU, with a line for each VAT amount if different (e.g. in France food and alcohol are under different VAT rates, so on the receipt it says you paid X in VAT, of which Y was under 20% for alcohol, Z under 5.5% for food).
You retain the same "power" while being more informed and you're spared quick mental math every time you pay.
Filligree|10 months ago
ourmandave|10 months ago
It used to be limited to the state run channel Fox News. Even they would screw up once and a while.
Depending on the severity, they'd either be dragged on X or receive an unhappy on-air call from the Palace in Mar-a-largo.
ecocentrik|10 months ago
throw0101a|10 months ago
If tariffs are a good thing why not allow them to be 'advertised' that much more? Don't you want credit for the good idea you came up with?
ecocentrik|10 months ago
If a change in tax policy is the short term goal, is manufacturing a long term goal? Wouldn't a robust manufacturing sector mean decreased tariff revenue? The picture isn't clear because Trump is being very opaque with his policies.
mdeslaur|10 months ago
jqpabc123|10 months ago
Time to wake up and smell the coffee --- tariffs are really a tax on *YOU* --- not China.
No country has ever taxed it's citizens into greatness.
paulryanrogers|10 months ago
Why do people repeat this? The greatest era of middle-class growth and success was when the rich paid much more in taxes. Perhaps a better phrase is "No government maintained a middle-class by letting the rich soak up all the gains".
unknown|10 months ago
[deleted]
nickjj|10 months ago
If something cost $50 yesterday and now suddenly it's $75 or $100 with no explanation wouldn't that make more people think it's inflation which in turn has its own set of negative impacts?
No one is just going to blindly forget a massive price hike on a wide range of things.
All this does is allow businesses to raise their prices arbitrarily and blame tarrifs on the side if anyone complains. Basically the same thing that happened with inflation after covid. I guess this explains why they are not showing it. If that's not the truth, that's ok. That's what happens when you're not transparent. People will make assumptions based on their beliefs.
acdha|10 months ago
I think you’re right about the cover this provides for businesses, too, which makes it interesting from a political standpoint. The president clearly recognizes that the tariffs are a political liability if voters are allowed to see the unblended costs but if the costs are hidden, that gives carte blanche to every business to raise prices now knowing that consumers will assume it’s tariff-related like all of the other price increases they’re seeing.
yalogin|10 months ago
jjallen|10 months ago
They could also show the pre-tariff and post-tariff prices; that would be the most helpful thing. Or a price chart, which would be interesting ex-tariff.
mortar|10 months ago
linusg789|10 months ago
flyinglizard|10 months ago
KoolKat23|10 months ago
typedef_struct|10 months ago
senectus1|10 months ago
either WH says nothing and the values are shown.
WH says something in outrage (like they did) and amazon backs down.. but its such big news that the awareness has been heightened. Now even the most rabid MAGAhead knows that this is going to cost them at the hip pocket, and knows that the WH knew, and used their power to shut amazon up.
JB won this round.
unknown|10 months ago
[deleted]
ChrisArchitect|10 months ago
irthomasthomas|10 months ago
beej71|10 months ago
cjoelrun|10 months ago
2OEH8eoCRo0|10 months ago
Qwertious|10 months ago
koolba|10 months ago
They’re free to do whatever they want, but it’s hardly some conspiracy theory. It’s just business. That includes deciding to or deciding not to show tariff impact on prices.
niam|10 months ago
Though I agree with the prevailing notion that the simplest explanation would seem to be a mere concession to the Trump admin.
bastard_op|10 months ago
0xcb0|10 months ago
How else can we show the people that the Trump team is stealing their money, not china!
pizzuh|10 months ago
unknown|10 months ago
[deleted]
thrance|10 months ago
[deleted]
loudmax|10 months ago
[deleted]
apercu|10 months ago