Amazon has no choice but to display tariffs on prices now

Here’s some dumb stuff that just happened:

Okay — a couple things. First, there was no “act” by Amazon, just a single-sourced story that everyone wanted to believe. So Leavitt (and, if you believe her, Trump) reacted with nuclear fury to the mere idea that a major American retailer might add price transparency to its website, because that transparency would make it ever more obvious that their tariff plans are basically nonsense. That fury resulted in immediate acquiescence.

Second, and most importantly, Jeff Bezos now has no choice but to insist that Amazon display tariffs on its website now. None. Zero. If he doesn’t insist on it, he will prove himself to be among history’s least principled cowards.

I say this bluntly because Bezos has spent the past year utterly tearing apart the Washington Post, causing one of our nation’s most important news outlets to bleed subscribers, reporters, editors, cartoonists, standing, and morale, in service of his “two pillars:” personal liberties and free markets. You don’t have to take it from me — here is Jeff, writing to announce his personally-designed revamp of the Post opinion section:

“We are going to be writing every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets. We’ll cover other topics too of course, but viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others […] I am of America and for America, and proud to be so. Our country did not get here by being typical. And a big part of America’s success has been freedom in the economic realm and everywhere else. Freedom is ethical — it minimizes coercion — and practical — it drives creativity, invention, and prosperity.”

Well buddy, chaotic ChatGPT-designed tariff schemes that threaten to crush small businesses across the country are not “free markets,” the basic definition of which requires the market to set prices, not unhinged madmen who believe they run the world. At the minimum, I’d expect to see the Post in full attack mode here, since threatening your baby for merely displaying price information is so far from “free markets” it’s breathtaking.

What of retribution, you might ask? Shouldn’t Jeff act in the best interests of his shareholders and bow to our would-be king, as Amazon is already doing? Let’s ask Jeff — here’s what he wrote to readers in regards to how his wealth affects the editorial decisions of the Post, with my emphasis added.

“You can see my wealth and business interests as a bulwark against intimidation, or you can see them as a web of conflicting interests. Only my own principles can tip the balance from one to the other. I assure you that my views here are, in fact, principled, and I believe my track record as owner of The Post since 2013 backs this up. You are of course free to make your own determination, but I challenge you to find one instance in those 11 years where I have prevailed upon anyone at The Post in favor of my own interests. It hasn’t happened.”

What we have here is one of America’s richest men, insisting that his wealth and principles will protect his newspaper from intimidation while it pursues an advocacy campaign for free markets, all while the White House calling the mere idea that Amazon might display pricing information a “hostile and political act” causes his company to cave. It seems like that same wealth and power might serve to protect Amazon, no? And definitely seems like a man so committed to free markets that he’s willing to burn down his newspaper has no choice but to look the bully in the eye and really put his money where his mouth is.

It’s either that, or falling flat on his face pretending to open a door again.