← Back to context

Comment by ChrisRR

7 hours ago

Developing a replacement system is still going to cost a hell of a lot. It's not like if you dropped palatir then we'd suddenly have a free drop-in replacement and everyone can have their fiver back

9 comments

ChrisRR

Reply
flr03  6 hours ago

You pay money to Palantir that money essentially escapes the economy, you develop a sovereign solution yes you pay millions even more but that goes into corporations and people actually living in the country, paying taxes and spending their coins here.

  • skippyboxedhero  2 hours ago

    It doesn't escape the economy. This is the kind of bizarre left-wing isolationism/nationalism that seems to be rife amongst people who don't understand free markets.

    If you pay money to Palantir, they are providing a service in return. That service is investment in your own economy, you pay them and then you own the thing they produce. Money does not "escape", the same amount of money is there before and after. The reason the UK is doing bad is this kind of bizarre economic xenophobia combined with a complete hostility to any kind of innovation or change. The question is: why don't we have a company competing with Palantir? Should be very obvious.

    • cronin101  15 minutes ago

      I'm not sure you are arguing against the point that the above poster is making. They aren't saying "giving money to foreign companies is bad". It's "in order to have a healthy domestic service economy, we should be investing it it wherever possible" combined with "investment in on-shore development is largely recaptured in income tax" (thus it can be worthwhile for the public even when slightly more expensive).

      A free market is not a means to an end. Part of the reason that the USA was (until recently) doing so well was that the winner-takes-all mentality of the free-market benefits Silicon Valley, but that doesn't mean that other nation states have to submit to that philosophy.

rjsw  1 hour ago

My NHS region has rejected using Palantir as they claim that their own internal systems are better, those could be considered for the rest of the NHS.

razakel  6 hours ago

When they first rolled out Universal Credit, they decided to do it using Microsoft Dynamics NAV.

It didn't work very well, so GDS rebuilt it in-house.

Canada  5 hours ago

Have you considered just not building this kind of thing at all?

  • ChrisRR  3 hours ago

    The NHS does have a problem that it is built as a collection of individual trusts all using their own IT systems and after decades has an issue with transferring data between trusts.

    So that's why an interconnected system is required in order to share data between the trusts while maintaining compatibility with their existing processes