President Trump Slams Amazon For 'Causing Tremendous Loss To the United States' (cnet.com)

President Trump escalated his attack on Amazon on Thursday, saying that the e-commerce giant does not pay enough taxes, and strongly suggested that he may try to rein in the e-commerce business. From a report: The president took aim at Amazon's tax contributions, its use of the US Postal Service and practices that put "many thousands of retailers out of business!" The accusations aren't new. The tweet was likely prompted by an Axios story on Wednesday that claimed Trump was weighing "going after" Amazon over alleged antitrust activities or violations of competition laws. The Axios story appeared to contribute to a selloff of Amazon stock Wednesday, with Amazon shares dropping 4.4 percent, even though Trump's disdain for Amazon and its CEO, Jeff Bezos, was already well-known. Bezos owns The Washington Post, whose coverage has been less than glowing about the new president, which may be a factor in Trump's attacks. Trump's tweet, in full: I have stated my concerns with Amazon long before the Election. Unlike others, they pay little or no taxes to state & local governments, use our Postal System as their Delivery Boy (causing tremendous loss to the U.S.), and are putting many thousands of retailers out of business!

Comments

Lawsuit in 3... 2... 1...

[Locke2005]

Deliberately falsely badmouthing a company in order to drive it's stock price down is legally called "tortious interference", and is VERY actionable. I'm also pretty sure Jeff Bezos can afford some pretty could lawyers. Trump will be tied up in court until well after his death.

Re:Lawsuit in 3... 2... 1...

[jpaine619]

All Trump has to do is be speaking in his official duties to be immune from any type of slander/libel lawsuit. Those laws were passed ... a hundred years ago? maybe two hundred?

All _elected_ members of the Federal Government, when speaking in an official capacity and going about their elected duties are specifically excluded from being sued/prosecuted for anything they say. I believe the same protections are enjoyed by elected state officials as well, but I'm not positive on it.

I suspect that Trump is easily going to be in the clear on this one. He's the executive and he's speaking about federal policy as well as his take on the economy.

He may not be a good President, but he's still the lawfully elected executive and he enjoys certain and necessary protections to carry out those duties without the hassle of frivolous lawsuits.

The onus would be on Bezos to prove to a judge that Trump was ONLY saying what he said to drive down the stock price. All Trump would have to do is show the slightest evidence that he was speaking as the President about the economy or even that he was considering turning the Justice Department loose on Amazon (acting as the legal head of the executive branch and by extension the head of the Justice Department)

Re:Lawsuit in 3... 2... 1...

[zieroh]

Agreed that Amazon is becoming a monopoly, and it may need oversight from the FTC. But using outright lies about the company is not the way to do it.

There are many negative (and truthful) things he could say about Amazon. It is a mark of his incompetence that he is unable to do so.

Grandpa's off the reservation again

[Tablizer]

Saying a conglomerate doesn't pay enough taxes is Republican Sacrilege. GOP needs to get the message to Fox so they can tell him to STFU on TV, like they did on gun control when he wandered off script.

Re:Trump is referring to post office subsidizing A

[SvnLyrBrto]

Even if you and your dear leader were right, it's irrelevant. There's only one question that needs to be asked: "How does the USPS set their rates, bulk-shipping or otherwise?".

If the rates are pre-set (by statute, fixed USPS policy, to be competitive with UPS/FedEx, etc.), then the onus is on those who set those rates to assure that the USPS is profitable. And if Amazon is simply purchasing a service at the price that it is offered to anyone. Nothing to see here. It's not Amazon's responsibility to see that anyone else is profitable.

If the USPS cut a deal with Amazon for lower rates, then it's still on the USPS for signing an agreement on which they wouldn't make money. They have accountants, MBAs, and the like, just like everyone else. And they went into any negotiations knowing their fixed and variable costs, and the price at which they could offer their service profitably. If they signed a deal to sell their service at a price that would lose them money, the again, that's not on Amazon. They need to suck it up, wait for the deal to expire, and raise their rates when the contract comes up for renewal. And as before, it's not Amazon's responsibility to see that anyone else is profitable.

Re:I think you need to learn to read

[crunchygranola]

As many, many people point out here - and has been pointed out to you specifically in the past (I have a long memory on this) - the government does not subsidize the USPS at all. Zero dollars in subsidy. No charity.

You aren't misinformed, as you have been corrected on this befire. You are intentionally lying. Why is that?

The USPS was cut loose from government funding during the Nixon administration exactly for to meet those "run it like a business" conservative demands. The only problem is that Congress gets to pass rules about how the USPS runs - what days it delivers on, how often, how much it can charge, and especially the monumentally stupid pension pre-funding mandate, for postal workers yet unborn, that no private business - or government entity - anywhere else in the world does.

Re:USPS does NOT lose money on Amazon

[thegarbz]

Bullshit. The post office is shrinking (email).

The postal service shrunk, it's not shrinking, and in fact last year it grew in total mail volume and mail revenue. You don't have to take my word for it, go read their annual reports. Email happened a long time ago. How do you think you're getting all those things you order online?

But I'll say it again: Post office employees, congresscritters and staff should get social security, a 401k match and NOTHING ELSE.

I like how you singled out a few small select groups there.

Lawsuit?

[Locke2005]

IANAL, but isn't deliberately publicly attacking and lying about a company in a deliberate attempt to drive down the stock price actionable in court as "tortious interference"? I.e., can't Trump be sued for as much as he has driven the market cap down, which is far more money than he has?