
Amazon's express delivery service rattles Paris authorities - mantesso
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/jun/20/amazon-prime-now-express-delivery-service-france-paris?CMP=twt_gu
======
pauletienney
As a Parisien, I can give you my humble opinion. I totally like Amazon move, I
am sure it can be convenient and save me ton of time BUT I will never trade
this time for the liveliness of my neighborhood.

I love having a walk from my flat, go to the butcher and my vegetable seller.
I like it because I can see the products, because it creates a sense of
community in the neighborhood, because I know the butcher and he knows me.

Performance, convenience and business is a part of my life but it will never
be my whole life.

Btw, I would be very interested by different cultural point of view on this
whole story.

~~~
insertnickname
If that's what you prefer, that's perfectly fine. If other people prefer to
shop with Amazon, that's also perfectly fine. Let the market decide rather
than government bureaucrats.

~~~
toyg
"Government bureaucrats" are democratically elected, so everyone actually gets
a say in their decisions; whereas "the market" is just "people with money". So
when you say "let the market decide" you're actually saying "let people with
money decide". That might not be the optimal approach in all things.

~~~
ci5er
No. A democracy says that 51% of the people get to decide for everyone. One
size fits all.

A free market says that anyone can buy any product/service any way that they
(as an individual) like, as long as that product/service is available at a
price they can afford.

To me[fn], #1 sounds like "mob rule" and #2 sounds like "freedom to choose".

[fn] I am certain that many will disagree with this formulation.

~~~
x5n1
Yes freedom to choose what the sellers choose to sell which is determined by
what is most profitable. Those things can include many things that are not in
any way optimal from the perspective of the consumer. For instance fatty
addictive foods. Sure you get to decide, but go to a grocery store. Most of
the things there are garbage. Why? Well they are profitable to sell. They are
addictive. They are cheap to produce so you can get a high margin. They are
loaded with salt, sugar, carbs. They are made of corn. That's a parable for
the whole economy.

People only produce profitable things, and that profit has to be significant,
i.e. 3x for many food items. So you get a few corporation with billion dollar
budgets that dominate the market with variations of the same thing, 100s of
kinds of potato chips or whatever. And shut out variety, health and so on. You
have choice to buy, but the seller has the choice to sell you whatever and
destroy smaller competitors through competition and limit variety. Those
shelves cost a lot of money and only the most profitable things stay on them,
that's by design.

You can not compete with these guys because they have an economy of scale and
you will no matter how hard you try achieve the same level of efficiencies to
have any significant impact on the market. And even if you do, they will copy
you or buy you out and then slowly turn whatever you were trying to do in the
profit objective, corrupting it.

~~~
ci5er
Well, sure. I wouldn't expect people to produce products for my benefit at a
loss. It wouldn't be possible for them to do so if I wanted them to anyway.

Going back to the original topic, IF I am doing a project in an area without
too many fresh food choices because my neighbors like crappy food (and for
right now, I am), isn't having a big corporation like Amazon being able to
ship me fresh food that isn't available to me locally, a good thing? More
choices?

Now, maybe your point is really that Amazon's ability to ship me fresh fruits
and vegetables is unreasonably harsh on the local green grocer. Which it might
be. But I don't understand how Amazon (a retailer, not a food manufacturer)
will corrupt the food at some point in the future?

~~~
pauletienney
Customer want low price > Big retailers (like Amazon) apply pressure on
manufacturer to get low prices > Manufacturers make cheap food

~~~
ci5er
Sure. Who would pay $1000 for an iPhone when it could be had for $100? But
nobody is forcing people to eat Big Macs instead of fresh salad. And if people
want to buy Big Macs, who are we to democratically decide that this option
should be off the table for them?

~~~
pauletienney
"But nobody is forcing people to eat Big Macs "

Not forcing but strongly encouraging via price + marketing + lack of education
+ lobbying

"who are we to democratically decide that this option should be off the table
for them?"

We are the national community. People eating too much BigMac cost too much to
the community. That's why we (should) tax junk food.

------
delecti
I'm always amused by the different default positions that different legal
systems take. In America the default position would be (outside of certain
highly regulated industries like drugs/medical) "let them do what they want
unless a problem arises". But it seems the French approach is reversed, and
they take it as a foregone conclusion to impose regulation up front.

I'm sure someone more in favor of the French approach could describe it in
more favorable terms, but to my American sensibilities it seems almost
totalitarian.

~~~
CaptainZapp
Here's an example from a different field. Regulation of checmicals.

In Europe the regulatory framework is called REACH (Registration, Evaluation
and Authorization of Chemicals), while the US uses a regulatory framework
called TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act).

There is a major difference:

(from
[http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-825](http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-825))
:

    
    
      REACH requires companies to develop information on chemicals' effects on human health and the environment, while TSCA does not require companies to develop such information absent EPA rule-making requiring them to do so. While TSCA does not require companies to develop information on chemicals before they enter commerce (new chemicals), companies are required to provide EPA any information that may already exist on a chemical's impact on human health or the environment. Companies do not have to develop information on the health or environmental impacts of chemicals already in commerce (existing chemicals) unless EPA formally promulgates a rule requiring them to do so.
    

So, simplified: In Eurpe a company must provide proof that a chemical compound
is not harmful, while in the US a compound is considered legal as long its
harm can't be proven.

While the US approach is certainly better for commerce I very much prefer the
European approach. I consider the general health of the population much more
important than the money that can be made by private companies.

And I think the example pretty nicely demonstrates the difference in attitude
between the continents.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _I consider the general health of the population much more important than
> the money that can be made by private companies._

There's a feedback loop in the cost of innovation. Better medicines,
fertilisers, preservatives, insulators, _et cetera_ have increased both the
health of the populace and wealth of their creators. _Ceteris paribus_ , in a
world with more innovative potential than downside, the less cautious society
will outcompete the more cautious one.

~~~
Brakenshire
I think that's a bit simplified. In pharmaceuticals, the regulation is
absolutely vital for the innovation loop, because it sets an objective
standard for demonstrating progress. If you cut out all pharmaceutical
regulation, you would get limited, biased trials 'proving' that a treatment
worked, and then an even more massive marketing department behind it. There's
a multibillion dollar industry in skincare, but are skin treatments any better
now than they were 50 years ago? Nobody really knows, because large scale,
long-term trials are expensive, and there is no regulatory requirement to
rigorously demonstrate how well your product works.

Similarly, in chemicals regulation, an unregulated industry works towards the
cheapest, most effective solution for their problem, but ignores the
externalities. If the pesticide increases your yield, why would you care if it
lowers the insect life which pollenates the crops for the neighbouring farms?
The neighbouring farms aren't paying your bills. If your furniture treatment
is cheaper than the alternative, who cares if it causes marginal damage to the
health of the people using it over 20 years? In any case, it will be very
difficult for anyone to tie any damage back to your product, so the reputation
risk is limited. Again, the regulation is required to set a standard of
progress - you don't just want innovation in cost and efficacy for the
manufacturer, you want innovation relative to an objective standard which
takes into account other impacts.

I do agree, though, that reducing cost for testing is also very important, to
reduce the barrier to entry. Making testing too expensive also does damage.
The EU actually had a clinical trials directive which proved to be too
onerous, made the trials too expensive, and some measures had to be repealed.
So it is a balancing act, but to me it's clear that both sides are important.

------
adrianN
> Paris city hall has also said it will look out for unwanted side-effects of
> the operation, including increased traffic and pollution.

Maybe the service reduces traffic and pollution? If people stay at home and
order groceries instead of taking their cars to the supermarket you probably
reduce traffic. One delivery truck on an optimized route should drive fewer km
than individual cars.

~~~
santialbo
It is quite rare in big european cities that people take their cars (if they
have any) to the supermarket.

~~~
adrianN
I live in Berlin and I know several people who go to the supermarket by car.
Most supermarkets also have nonempty parking lots which indicates that at
least some people use their car for shopping.

------
mnx
This sounds to me like they are saying "Their business model is more
efficient, and therefore it will be hard to compete with it, so let's ban it
instead".

~~~
toyg
Well, it's a respectable point of view. Efficiency is not the be-all-end-all
of life, or we'd have gas chambers instead of hospices.

~~~
mnx
Seriously? You have a fair point, but did you really not have a more subtle
way to phrase it?

~~~
toyg
My mother works in a hospital and is constantly going on about the
disproportionate amount of time and resources dedicated to older patients.
European media is obsessed by the cost of pensions on public finances, and is
equally obsessed with clamoring for all sorts of experimental cures (which
disproportionately benefit the elderly) to be paid by the public purse. Old
people are inefficient, and a weight on competitiveness. I bet Chinese
pensions are pretty meager, right? That is, if they get one at all.

Follow those arguments with coherence, and you can quickly and painlessly
reach the conclusion that older people "had a good life but it's time to go
now". Why don't we do that? Because we hold other values apart from economic
efficiency and other systemic measures. This is just a very quick and direct
way of stating it.

~~~
mnx
Yeah, but going from "This seems like an anti-competitive intervention without
much justification" to "If we are all about efficiency, let's kill old people"
is an example of slippery slope fallacy, if I've ever seen one. It's
unreasonable to assume I see economic efficiency as the only value. So it
would be a better argument to point to what important benefits (not in an
economical or easily measured sense) are gained from forbidding people to
choose how they want to obtain groceries. Instead I feel like you are trying
to attack me, and paint me as a ruthless homo-economicus, who eats babies,
because they are nutritious.

~~~
toyg
_> It's unreasonable to assume I see economic efficiency as the only value_

Then it's unreasonable for you to assume any intervention to stop Amazon is
unwarranted. You've already read the motivations, so there is no point in me
re-stating them; but you prefer efficiency above Parisians' quality of life
and economic stability. So I say fine, let's prefer efficiency above
everything.

I've not attacked anybody, I've just shown you the limits of a system of
thought based on economic efficiency. It's not my fault if they look bad.

~~~
mnx
>Then it's unreasonable for you to assume any intervention to stop Amazon is
unwarranted

I do not assume that. Maybe they can figure out a reasonable intervention. But
the reasons in the article just don't sound honest or strong to me.

>but you prefer efficiency above Parisians' quality of life and economic
stability.

I don't. I think that giving Parisians the option to buy their groceries in
more ways, should increase their QOL. And I don't see how it could
significantly threaten economic stability. I would love to hear a real
argument to the contrary. But it's also fine for me not be convinced, and for
you to be.

>I've not attacked anybody, I've just shown you the limits of a system of
thought based on economic efficiency.

Yeah, which no one in their right mind proposes, I certainly did not, and is
therefore irrelevant, and an utter strawman. And, as I said before, a classic
slippery slope fallacy.

------
Tepix
France is in trouble. They badly need reforms to be able to compete but they
are unwilling to let go of their hard earned amenities.

Related link: [http://www.marketwatch.com/story/french-workers-are-
protesti...](http://www.marketwatch.com/story/french-workers-are-protesting-
against-reforms-even-a-socialist-says-are-necessary-2016-06-10)

~~~
adventured
They're definitely in deep economic trouble. The French economy hasn't
expanded in real terms in about two decades, not since 1995 or so. That can
only go on for so long until the mounting problems begin to drown you.

And then there's this:

"France’s unemployment rate rose 1.1 percent in the month of February, pushing
jobless numbers to a record 3.591 million people, the Labour Ministry said
Thursday."

[http://www.france24.com/en/20160324-french-unemployment-
hits...](http://www.france24.com/en/20160324-french-unemployment-hits-new-
record)

------
semprepat34
[http://ourdayart.com/family-
portraits,82,en.html](http://ourdayart.com/family-portraits,82,en.html)

Would you prefer a family portrait painting? We have done family portraits,
which are great gifts for anniversaries. Include wedding painting and see how
the family has grown since that fantastic day. To go along with these we have
flower oil paintings, a house portrait or many other types of family painting.
Please view all of our galleries where we have other beautiful oil paintings,
landscape painting and large oil paintings. Although we don't display it
because it was done for a private customer, we have so far done a painting
that was approximately 3 feet by 6 feet.

------
yawaramin
The central Parisians seem quite content to suppress economic activity and job
creation while the suburbs churn with joblessness, poverty and discontent.

------
kafkaesq
All I can say is -- if Amazon wants to plaster their slogans everywhere
imaginable (above doorways at their facility; and literally on the backs of
their workers - going by the photo midway down the article), they can at least
have the decency to do so in the native language.

------
nolepointer
I'm not really familiar with the service, but from where does Amazon get the
groceries they deliver? Could they not enter into an agreement with Parisian
stores to deliver their products?

------
tomglynch
How did Paris handle Uber?

~~~
lostcolony
From the article - 'The activities of another multinational offering quick and
convenient services – the car hire app Uber – has also raised the hackles of
authorities in Paris in recent months. The company has faced fines, legal
challenges and its drivers physical violence since it began operating in the
city in 2012.'

~~~
pyrale
Uber's legal activities are still running. They're having a fair success from
what I know.

Uber's illegal activities have been challenged in court and closed. The reason
for the particular way it happened is mostly that the company tried to bully
its way through regulation by ignoring it like it did in some US cities. The
police then decided to search of french Uber executives' homes, and they came
to their minds quite fast afterwards.

