5 ms·

For one, large government software projects are almost always disastrous, even in developed countries. Secondly, that isn’t what sellers want. Many sellers use

by jpxw 5y ago

For one, large government software projects are almost always disastrous, even in developed countries. Secondly, that isn’t what sellers want. Many sellers use Amazon to fulfill their orders. Amazon is far more than just a “market stall”.

rualca 5y ago
> Secondly, that isn’t what sellers want. Many sellers use Amazon to fulfill their orders. Amazon is far more than just a “market stall”. This. Amazon is basically a huge logistics network. Their business is not selling you products, whether from their own generic brands, from high-end Veblen goods companies like Apple or from cheap chinese dropship artists. Their business is to process payment, and get that package delivered to your front door. To Amazon, their products is just a way to generate output through their logistics network.
- spaceribs 5y ago
  Based on the article, the verticality of their business seems to indicate they are not merely in logistics...
ceejayoz 5y ago
> For one, large government software projects are almost always disastrous, even in developed countries. The same tends to be true for large corporate software projects. As a fairly recent example: https://www.theregister.com/2019/04/23/hertz_accenture_lawsuit/ https://www.theregister.com/2019/04/23/hertz_accenture_lawsu...
- logicchains 5y ago
  >The same tends to be true for large corporate software projects. Yes, but it's not true for Amazon, the topic of conversation.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    Isn't the topic of conversation that Amazon's successful software projects have had potentially disastrous side-effects?
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  Right, but there's a self-correction here, which is that Accenture gets fired if they do a bad job. The govt has a monopoly and so there's little self-correction - too many layers of indirection between the everyday voter and Amazon's outcome.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    Governments get fired fairly regularly.
    - fighterpilot 5y ago
      Through multiple layers of indirection and obfuscation. A democratic vote every 4 years is noisy when it pertains to one specific outcome (say, Amazon's performance right now) since that vote also contains information for numerous unrelated things. Private ownership means a very tight feedback loop between performance and governance. It's basically why collective ownership of complicated things has never worked. Except for perhaps the army, which costs an absolute fortune.
      - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
        >"It's basically why collective ownership of complicated things has never worked" Except also the roads, railroads, airports, ports, oil pipelines, nuclear weapons and reactors, GPS and weather satellites, chunks of the energy grid, NASA, a national postal service, social security numbers, and so on
        fighterpilot 5y ago
        > NASA Which proves my point. Look at the innovation that SpaceX has created with VTOL rockets. If it was left purely up to nationalized bodies this would have never happened (or maybe, it would have taken 50-100 years). The incentives and desire for economic efficiency just simply aren't there. Government wants flashy one-off wins that generate publicity and votes, if it wastes a few billion and doesn't scale there isn't any consternation. The entire mindset top to bottom is completely inconsistent with VTOL rockets. > roads, railroads, airports, ports, GPS, The argument for these being nationalized is that these are goods that are prone to natural monopoly and some of those are largely non-excludable in the case of roads. None of those arguments apply to Amazon. eBay is a substitute for marketplace, Azure is a substitute for AWS, etc. These are also much simpler than Amazon. Could a government have created AWS? Could a government create an iPhone? It's a rhetorical question because all know that the answer is no. Even if they could in terms of capability, they won't because the incentives aren't right. And if they tried, they'd do it incredibly inefficiently and be outcompeted in am embarrassing fashion by a private alternative (e.g. eBay), with the difference being subsidized by the taxpayer. > nuclear weapons In the case of nukes, the argument is that the government has a monopoly on force (which is also why the army should be nationalized). And I already conceded that the army was well-run, although at a ridiculous level of cost (which is another byproduct of nationalization). > weather satellites Built by a private company.
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
"even in developed countries." I find that UK and USA governments are worse at IT than Russia and Czech Republic. Maybe it's age of the lawmakers, or over-reliance on old sustem, I dont know

by jpxw 5y ago

rualca 5y ago

> Secondly, that isn’t what sellers want. Many sellers use Amazon to fulfill their orders. Amazon is far more than just a “market stall”. This. Amazon is basically a huge logistics network. Their business is not selling you products, whether from their own generic brands, from high-end Veblen goods companies like Apple or from cheap chinese dropship artists. Their business is to process payment, and get that package delivered to your front door. To Amazon, their products is just a way to generate output through their logistics network.

spaceribs 5y ago
Based on the article, the verticality of their business seems to indicate they are not merely in logistics...

ceejayoz 5y ago

> For one, large government software projects are almost always disastrous, even in developed countries. The same tends to be true for large corporate software projects. As a fairly recent example: https://www.theregister.com/2019/04/23/hertz_accenture_lawsuit/ https://www.theregister.com/2019/04/23/hertz_accenture_lawsu...

logicchains 5y ago
>The same tends to be true for large corporate software projects. Yes, but it's not true for Amazon, the topic of conversation.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  Isn't the topic of conversation that Amazon's successful software projects have had potentially disastrous side-effects?
fighterpilot 5y ago
Right, but there's a self-correction here, which is that Accenture gets fired if they do a bad job. The govt has a monopoly and so there's little self-correction - too many layers of indirection between the everyday voter and Amazon's outcome.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  Governments get fired fairly regularly.
  - fighterpilot 5y ago
    Through multiple layers of indirection and obfuscation. A democratic vote every 4 years is noisy when it pertains to one specific outcome (say, Amazon's performance right now) since that vote also contains information for numerous unrelated things. Private ownership means a very tight feedback loop between performance and governance. It's basically why collective ownership of complicated things has never worked. Except for perhaps the army, which costs an absolute fortune.
    - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
      >"It's basically why collective ownership of complicated things has never worked" Except also the roads, railroads, airports, ports, oil pipelines, nuclear weapons and reactors, GPS and weather satellites, chunks of the energy grid, NASA, a national postal service, social security numbers, and so on
      - fighterpilot 5y ago
        > NASA Which proves my point. Look at the innovation that SpaceX has created with VTOL rockets. If it was left purely up to nationalized bodies this would have never happened (or maybe, it would have taken 50-100 years). The incentives and desire for economic efficiency just simply aren't there. Government wants flashy one-off wins that generate publicity and votes, if it wastes a few billion and doesn't scale there isn't any consternation. The entire mindset top to bottom is completely inconsistent with VTOL rockets. > roads, railroads, airports, ports, GPS, The argument for these being nationalized is that these are goods that are prone to natural monopoly and some of those are largely non-excludable in the case of roads. None of those arguments apply to Amazon. eBay is a substitute for marketplace, Azure is a substitute for AWS, etc. These are also much simpler than Amazon. Could a government have created AWS? Could a government create an iPhone? It's a rhetorical question because all know that the answer is no. Even if they could in terms of capability, they won't because the incentives aren't right. And if they tried, they'd do it incredibly inefficiently and be outcompeted in am embarrassing fashion by a private alternative (e.g. eBay), with the difference being subsidized by the taxpayer. > nuclear weapons In the case of nukes, the argument is that the government has a monopoly on force (which is also why the army should be nationalized). And I already conceded that the army was well-run, although at a ridiculous level of cost (which is another byproduct of nationalization). > weather satellites Built by a private company.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

"even in developed countries." I find that UK and USA governments are worse at IT than Russia and Czech Republic. Maybe it's age of the lawmakers, or over-reliance on old sustem, I dont know