Monopoly critics decry ‘Amazon amendment’

The (S)Hill ^ | 11/9/17 | Ali Breland

[SoFloFreeper]

Lawmakers put the finishing touches this week on military funding legislation that contains a provision that stands to significantly benefit Amazon.

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.

[SoFloFreeper]

I am prone to agree with the critics. I understand Amazon is responsible for thousands of resource providers and manufacturers getting their stuff into the marketplace.

But this seems to give Amazon a monopoly on the DISTRIBUTION of stuff. Gov't should encourage competition, and this seems to discourage.

Thoughts?

[Lurker]

Campaign contributions matter.

L

[Don W]

The key phrase in the article is *COULD USE*. It does not say *MUST USE*.

While the potential for abuse is there, it still is a step towards allowing for the purchase of goods at far lower overall cost to the departments using this new tool.

A personal example: I found a very nice chair for my office, at a reasonable cost. I contacted purchasing to ask them to order one for me, and they sent me to a different, “approved” supplier. The chair I ended up ordering didn’t have all the features of my original choice, and was nearly twice as expensive.

I can see the reasons for your reluctance, but by the same token, do we not ALL complain about the horrific waste by the purchasing departments of various government entities?

Amazon is a service that competes with everyone, be they brick and mortar or online. Perhaps someday they might even make a profit.

[a fool in paradise]

Amazon cultists are like the Borg. Those that love it are brand loyal and myopic to any other options. You will be assimilated.

[outofsalt]

We need to abolish the government and just have Amazon run things.

[LIConFem]

Do you really want Jeff Bezos anywhere near the gov’t? Might just as well make George Soros president and dissolve congress and the judiciary.

[PAR35]

Useful for keeping track of what politicians are owned by Amazon.

[DoodleBob]

First of all, who could possibly be a critic of Monopoly?

Second, the government you empower to break up a firm owned by a guy not liked by our side, is the same government you empower that will break up a "good" firm that we like.

Third, Founders never enumerated a congressional power to break up companies in the Constitution. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act is based on the Commerce Clause - surely the most abused element of the Constitution.

Sometimes our morals and ethics lead to results we don't like subjectively, like an "all-powerful" Amazon. People said the same thing about Netscape, the phone company, Microsoft, etc. Trust me, in 20 years Amazon will be around but not as mighty as today because of market forces....better that than empowering the government to break it up.

[outofsalt]

I did not put in a /sarc tag thinking it was unnecessary.
I’m not sure which is the greater danger to society, government or Amazon.

[L,TOWM]

Elections don’t though.

Sometimes I wonder if they ever did,

[L,TOWM]

Cut out the middlemen! I like the cut of your jib!

[kingu]

But how would the electronic marketplaces give preference to minority and women owned businesses? Surely the current methods which require individual applications for each department and/or location is far more efficient... /s

A proficient couple who utilizes tools from the SBA can obtain quite a few certifications to be used for purchasing. It's even a system sold by a few companies which walks couples through how to get certification then fulfill the orders using drop ships from national chains like Amazon, Staples and Walmart.

[bgill]

Purchasing through Amazon would be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay cheaper than through over inflated government contracts.

[i_robot73]

>
The key phrase in the article is *COULD USE*. It does not say *MUST USE*.
>

I fail to recall *ANY* instance of govt restraining itself, given a choice\option.

‘May’ *always* morphs into ‘shall’ and the same would happen here.

To give govt ANY ‘benefit-of-the-doubt’ is just naive.

[i_robot73]

Govt and monopolies?! Say it isn’t so! Excuse me while I put on my shocked face.

[discostu]

Government always has approved suppliers, no reason not to centralize them under 1 website. And there’s no reason it has to be Amazon.

[moovova]

“Those that love it are brand loyal and myopic to any other options.”

Are you saying those that love Amazon don’t shop around? Don’t look for cheaper/better purchase options at other websites/stores?

Really?

[a fool in paradise]

They’ve got their prime and they put the ordering mechanism in their living room.

[SoFloFreeper]

I will have to think about your post. Thanks.