4 ms·

The dangers of overcentralization of shopping. The country in which I presently live went into lockdown a couple of weeks ago, but I have still been able to ord

The dangers of overcentralization of shopping. The country in which I presently live went into lockdown a couple of weeks ago, but I have still been able to order all kinds of stuff and have it delivered to my home: some furniture, some books, vinyl records, a new vacuum cleaner. That is because none of the disparate online shops here to which one turns are overburdened. Amazon’s decision to be the one-stop-shop for everyone and sell food as well, now makes it unable to provide the rest of its inventory.

the-pigeon 7y ago
Amazon is an extremely distributed company. Just because it's one company doesn't mean it's centralized.
vilhelm_s 7y ago
Well, on the other hand, it seems like because Amazon is so centralized, they had a lot of capacity which they can now re-purpose. Previously they were shipping both non-essential stuff (books, vinyl records, etc) and essential (food, medicines), and now all those resources can go into essential things. If the vinyl record shops had a completely separate fulfillment system, there would be no easy way to repurpose it to ship essential items, so we would be in a worse position.
- Ajedi32 7y ago
  In an unencumbered free market system where shipping systems were not dominated by any one particular shopping vendor (not Amazon, not vinyl record companies, nobody), what would naturally happen would be a sharp increase in shipping costs in accordance with demand (incentivizing shipping companies to increase supply), followed quickly by a corresponding decrease in demand for shipping items the market deems non-essential (e.g. I'm less inclined to order vinyl records online if shipping costs go up, but if I can't get hand sanitizer anywhere _but_ online I'll probably still order it).
  - vorpalhex 7y ago
    So we should charge people more for hand sanitizer, thereby meaning the poor get less of it?
    - will4274 7y ago
      My office, which sent everybody home, also got hand sanitizer for every conference room. The same conference rooms that nobody is using. It's a colossal waste. And I work for a FAANG. It would have been good if they had had to pay an inflated price for hand sanitizer and has therefore reconsidered and not contributed to the shortage.
    - Ajedi32 7y ago
      Increased cost disincentivizes hoarding and incentivizes everyone to conserve, meaning there's more to go around. If there are people who literally can't afford to buy hand sanitizer then that's a problem which needs to be dealt with separately, through non-market means. Artificially keeping cost low for everyone without increasing supply isn't the solution; all that does is create a situation where hand santisier is sold out everywhere and no one can get any. It also reduces the incentive for companies that manufacture hand sanitizer to increase their supply, and reduces the amount of capital they have available to increase production in the first place.
      - CathedralBorrow 7y ago
        "Literally can't afford" is a very murky line though. What if they can afford it but only if they forgo some other necessity? Does that solve the problem perhaps?
  - monadic2 7y ago
    > In an unencumbered free market system This is not a real thing. Stop bringing it up as if it’s a meaningful concept.
    - will4274 7y ago
- bob33212 7y ago
  They can also do this without worrying about profit in the short term. The essentials may have lower margins but higher benefit to society. Amazon can take that financial hit over the next couple months and not go bankrupt
  - jsight 7y ago
    Or they may have higher margins. Hand sanitizer isn't exactly expensive.
capableweb 7y ago
Yeah, the same is happening with internet infrastructure and basically any other service. Because of the centralized nature of these things, everyone is now overloading the few at the top. Maybe this will equalize when people start using alternatives because the big ones can't keep up?
jlj 7y ago
"The dangers of overcentralization of shopping" Another perspective: An advantage of supply chain efficiency to get life sustaining goods to people during a global health crisis.
justicezyx 7y ago
That's because all your normal shippings are way worse than Amazon's experience. Otherwise, the situation is physically impossible.

the-pigeon 7y ago

Amazon is an extremely distributed company. Just because it's one company doesn't mean it's centralized.

vilhelm_s 7y ago

Well, on the other hand, it seems like because Amazon is so centralized, they had a lot of capacity which they can now re-purpose. Previously they were shipping both non-essential stuff (books, vinyl records, etc) and essential (food, medicines), and now all those resources can go into essential things. If the vinyl record shops had a completely separate fulfillment system, there would be no easy way to repurpose it to ship essential items, so we would be in a worse position.

Ajedi32 7y ago
In an unencumbered free market system where shipping systems were not dominated by any one particular shopping vendor (not Amazon, not vinyl record companies, nobody), what would naturally happen would be a sharp increase in shipping costs in accordance with demand (incentivizing shipping companies to increase supply), followed quickly by a corresponding decrease in demand for shipping items the market deems non-essential (e.g. I'm less inclined to order vinyl records online if shipping costs go up, but if I can't get hand sanitizer anywhere _but_ online I'll probably still order it).
- vorpalhex 7y ago
  So we should charge people more for hand sanitizer, thereby meaning the poor get less of it?
  - will4274 7y ago
    My office, which sent everybody home, also got hand sanitizer for every conference room. The same conference rooms that nobody is using. It's a colossal waste. And I work for a FAANG. It would have been good if they had had to pay an inflated price for hand sanitizer and has therefore reconsidered and not contributed to the shortage.
  - Ajedi32 7y ago
    Increased cost disincentivizes hoarding and incentivizes everyone to conserve, meaning there's more to go around. If there are people who literally can't afford to buy hand sanitizer then that's a problem which needs to be dealt with separately, through non-market means. Artificially keeping cost low for everyone without increasing supply isn't the solution; all that does is create a situation where hand santisier is sold out everywhere and no one can get any. It also reduces the incentive for companies that manufacture hand sanitizer to increase their supply, and reduces the amount of capital they have available to increase production in the first place.
    - CathedralBorrow 7y ago
      "Literally can't afford" is a very murky line though. What if they can afford it but only if they forgo some other necessity? Does that solve the problem perhaps?
- monadic2 7y ago
  > In an unencumbered free market system This is not a real thing. Stop bringing it up as if it’s a meaningful concept.
  - will4274 7y ago
bob33212 7y ago
They can also do this without worrying about profit in the short term. The essentials may have lower margins but higher benefit to society. Amazon can take that financial hit over the next couple months and not go bankrupt
- jsight 7y ago
  Or they may have higher margins. Hand sanitizer isn't exactly expensive.

capableweb 7y ago

Yeah, the same is happening with internet infrastructure and basically any other service. Because of the centralized nature of these things, everyone is now overloading the few at the top. Maybe this will equalize when people start using alternatives because the big ones can't keep up?

jlj 7y ago

"The dangers of overcentralization of shopping" Another perspective: An advantage of supply chain efficiency to get life sustaining goods to people during a global health crisis.

justicezyx 7y ago

That's because all your normal shippings are way worse than Amazon's experience. Otherwise, the situation is physically impossible.