Monopoly Critics Decry 'Amazon Amendment' (thehill.com)

schwit1 shares a report from The Hill: The amendment, Section 801 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), would help Amazon establish a tight grip on the lucrative, $53 billion government acquisitions market, experts say. The provision, dubbed the "Amazon amendment" by experts, according to an article in The Intercept, would allow for the creation of an online portal that government employees could use to purchase everyday items such as office supplies or furniture. This government-only version of Amazon, which could potentially include a few other websites, would give participating companies direct access to the $53 billion market for government acquisitions of commercial products. "It hands an enormous amount of power over to Amazon," said Stacy Mitchell of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, a research group that advocates for local businesses. Mitchell said that the provision could allow Amazon to gain a monopoly or duopoly on the profitable world of commercial government purchases, leaving smaller businesses behind and further consolidating the behemoth tech firm's power.

schwit1 adds: "Well, this is a two-edged sword, isn't it? Government spends too much and takes too long to buy its simple office needs, but streamlining that process and cutting costs puts more money in the pocket of Jeff Bezos."

Comments

Shit Article

[sexconker]

This government-only version of Amazon, which could potentially include a few other websites, would give participating companies direct access to the $53 billion market for government acquisitions of commercial products.

So this isn't about Amazon, it's about approved vendors having an easy-to-use site/portal for government purchasing.
That's a good thing. We have this where I work. We get decent discounts because of it, and no one vendor is dominating.

Yes, Amazon would have an advantage here because they'll be able to devote resources to setting up shop quickly and making everything work well.
But so what? That's no different than the rest of online shopping. Further, Amazon is often not the cheapest, and with an easy-to-use portal/site, it'll be easy for government purchasers to find the cheapest price on shit (if they even care).

Re: Shit Article

[Anonymous Coward]

You have some good points but you are hand waving away the bad aspects of this.

I suspect it will work like everything else in America. Company X has the resources to "contribute" to a politicians campaigns in return for "recommending" their portal. . Just like big pharma did to our doctors. It will be hookers, blow, and maybe some blackjack. A bunch of companies jockeying for position. Let the market figure it out.

I think first to market doesn't play that big of a role. As long as it's truly open, people can learn from the mistakes of companies before them and create a better portal and so on. Hopefully whoever offers the best solution will rise to the top. And again, hopefully it will be multiple companies competing, not just one king of the hill.

All in all, one company should not be the sole proprietor of a portal for purchasing products, government or not.

Re:Shit Article

[lgw]

To me, the primary reassuring thing about all of this is that the normal Amazon store freely lists competitors products alongside Amazon-sold products on the main page. If Amazon is just running the shopping portal, but any competitor (who meets the government procurement requirements etc) can list alongside them on that same portal, then more power to them.

A monopoly on items sold is troubling. A monopoly on the portal software? Meh.

Re:Shit Article

[bluefoxlucid]

People are too focused on rich people and big business. You hear a lot about the rich paying their fair share, but not much about the poor getting anything. This was a key point in my dispute about the GOP tax plan in one of my recent press releases: the GOP plan doesn't put much of anything into the hands of the poorest.

This is another natural consequence: folks say, "Oh, maybe the Government can be more fiscally-responsible--WAIT NO, NO, KEEP SPENDING $200Bn MORE THAN YOU NEED TO BECAUSE FUCK JEFF BEZOS HE'S RICH ENOUGH NOW!!!!" That, at least, is the point of the headline, the "two-edged sword" comment, and the outcry. Really, how does Jeff Bezos being even more super-rich hurt anything?

We need to focus on excessive government spending so we can pay for things like, oh I don't know, a $200Bn public healthcare option to get 100% of Americans covered 100% of the time. The rich people are fine--they're rich, which means they don't go without food, homes, or healthcare. Let's talk about the 41 million people who don't eat every day: we obviously aren't serving their needs properly.

No problem

[JOstrow]

This is fine. No reason to artificially block efficiency.

Just stop giving Amazon tax breaks then.

and that's the problem

[raymorris]

It makes sense to go through a GSA competitive-bidding process when the government is buying 150,000 of something, or when they are buying hundreds of pickup trucks for some fleet.

When an employee's USB hub croaks, it makes a lot more sense, and is a lot cheaper, to order one from Walmart.com or Amazon than to go through any red tape. I used to work for the government and for some purchases the red tape cost a lot more than the item, and made things a lot slower. The delay was costly when an employee, who is being paid, can't work as effectively for several days.

This is an attempt to be more sensible, to have the option to just order a damn HDMI cable from Amazon, Walmart, etc rather than requisition one at a much higher cost. You want to have the right level of oversight for different kinds of purchases.