Re: Bye bye BCLDB, or not?
Posted: Jul 14th, 2012, 8:49 am
It is but we're not supposed to bring that up. Possibly a monopoly is okay if it is private industry.
Homeownertoo wrote:The only substantive issue you raise is salaries and profits. As for salaries, it is, once again, an illusory benefit to pay anyone over the market rate, since you are just taking money out of other people's pockets and supporting an inefficient operation. There is no economic gain (see Econ 101). As for taking profits out of country/province, that again is another bogus issue. First, profits amount to a small proportion of revenues, so we aren't talking about a huge number. Second, the company will almost certainly operate more efficiently, and that will be the source of profits its shareholders (wherever they reside) will get. Third, under your reasoning, the government should take over all economic activity because it will be good for British Columbians. Do you really believe such nonsense?
Homeownertoo wrote:Third, under your reasoning, the government should take over all economic activity because it will be good for British Columbians. Do you really believe such nonsense?
Homeownertoo wrote:
Somehow I doubt that shipping are the sole costs involved, not to mention the issue of why they are higher in BC than Alberta. And I'm not surprised a distiller's organization or a brewer would prefer to work with a monopoly. Why should they favour the consumer? They are in business to make a profit and if they can collude with government to keep prices high, why wouldn't they. My concern is twofold: the best price for the consumer and, two, reducing the size of government and its role in the economy (for various reasons which I don't need to go into here). Keeping brewers, pubs and distillers happy with a monopoly situation is not my priority.
The only substantive issue you raise is salaries and profits. As for salaries, it is, once again, an illusory benefit to pay anyone over the market rate, since you are just taking money out of other people's pockets and supporting an inefficient operation. There is no economic gain (see Econ 101). As for taking profits out of country/province, that again is another bogus issue. First, profits amount to a small proportion of revenues, so we aren't talking about a huge number. Second, the company will almost certainly operate more efficiently, and that will be the source of profits its shareholders (wherever they reside) will get. Third, under your reasoning, the government should take over all economic activity because it will be good for British Columbians. Do you really believe such nonsense?
Casatent - Letters to the editor wrote:Supporting government liquor sales
To the editor:
When I buy a bottle from my local government liquor store, I am contributing to the employment of workers receiving a wage they can actually live off of, rather than be a likely candidate for low income housing and trips to the food bank.
I know it’s cheaper in the other places, but I choose to live in BC, and besides, its alcohol, not milk (though groceries have sure gotten expensive these last few years).
I choose to support liquor profit staying in my province, and employees who make a decent wage and can contribute to the local economy in my community.
The government is constantly whining that they have no money for anything, so why would they privatize liquor; it’s one of the only profitable branches of government.
As far as the hours and days of operation, come on, its 2012! Not 1950! Let’s get with the times!
Almost every other retail business is open on Sundays. Some government liquor stores are already open on Sundays.
Some people say there would be more alcohol related problems with extended hours and Sunday openings, but there are already over 600 private stores open on Sundays and till 11 most nights.
With just over 200 government stores, it’s just another example of the government throwing away another opportunity to make revenue they are constantly complaining they don’t have enough of.
Instead of people complaining that government workers make too high of a wage, they should start complaining about how little others make.
Can anyone have a decent standard of living, afford nutritious groceries, provide opportunities for their children, or even just independently support themselves without the food bank, low income housing, or welfare, when earning only minimum wage?
Sheri Pybus
GordonH wrote:Question here: If only 1 company is doing this in Alberta and now they plan to take over in BC how is that not a monopoly as well.
Smurf wrote:It is but we're not supposed to bring that up. Possibly a monopoly is okay if it is private industry.
Christy Clark and some of her cabinet members could face criminal charges if they sell away the BC Liquor Distribution Branch in the few months remaining in the government’s term.
The proposed sale, the machinations leading up to it and the characters involved directly and indirectly behind it, stink so much the media can be forgiven for overlooking a VERY important sword of Damocles hanging over the premier and any cabinet members involved.
Members of government … elected or appointed … are required by law to exercise FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILTY in handling public assets and spending: failure to do so is a CRIME.
And in my view … and I’d bet many lawyers and even the RCMP investigators would agree … selling off a government service, especially a MONOPOLY, to any company in the fading months of a government’s mandate would deserve very close scrutiny.
Add to that the fact that, only months ago, the government said it had no plans and could see no reason to sell off the asset.
Add to that that the government “changed its mind” only weeks after being approached by a company with links to prominent businessmen with links to past Liberal governments and strategists.
Add to that the government has failed completely to put forward ANY defensible explanation why this government asset and monopoly should be sold off or ANY defensible proof that the move, in the long run, won’t cost BC consumers MILLIONS OF DOLLARS more each year.
Add to that the evidence that, according to many, many polls this government is on its last legs and will be defeated and tossed from office in only nine months from now. Polls on their own are not NORMALLY a reason for government to stop governing … but combined with the factors above, I believe Clark and cabinet members selling away assets would indeed be susceptible to criminal investigation and charges.
The selloff of ANY major government asset at this time MUST be left to the next government or put to the people in a referendum in the coming provincial election.
Among the information that has surfaced since the discussion began is that BC tax revenues from liquor sales top $860 MILLION a year; distribution costs are only $32 million … probably kept low because the government makes so much on sales.
Does anyone with a sound mind believe privatization of the distribution system in the long run won’t add to the cost of booze for consumers as a profit-driven MONOPOLY “company” that would not receive a penny of liquor taxes, exercises its total control on the province-wide liquor distribution system?
The sell-off of such a huge MONOPOLY under these circumstances is a GIVEAWAY plain and simple: a gift to the private sector and possibly even to friends or friends of friends.
I hope the media will explore the FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY governances that go along with holding public office.
Even the signing of a contract that can be canceled after the election, upon payment of a large penalty, could be a criminal act under FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY.
It would be public service to the people … and to the unelected, unmandated premier and her cabinet members …to know in advance that the give-away of this monopoly within months of an election, could land them in jail.
And in disgrace.
Harv Oberfeld
Homeownertoo wrote:
I'm a free marketer, you, Smurf, are a socialist. I doubt we'll ever agree. But I take comfort knowing I'm on the right side of history. We all know where socialism leads. The only mystery is why some people are tempted by that totalitarian impulse, dressed up though it is in the illusions of good intentions.
Smurf wrote:If this keeps going the way it is maybe we can get it added to the list of possible up coming court cases. Governments have to learn they xan't just push through anything they want. They are responsible to the voters.
Smurf wrote:If this keeps going the way it is maybe we can get it added to the list of possible up coming court cases. Governments have to learn they xan't just push through anything they want. They are responsible to the voters.
Homeownertoo wrote:
Weird. How do you square the circle of "maybe we can get it added to the list of possible up coming court cases" and "They are responsible to the voters"? I see little basis for court cases unless this involves actual corruption, of which none has yet been credibly alleged. And being responsible to the voters means voting, not litigation.
I was just thinking on paper that maybe this will end up being looked at like the BC Rail deal and I believe other dealings that the Auditor General has had to take to court to get any information. It's not like litigation hasn't happened before and has real possibilities of going further if someone keeps on top of it. I believe a number of the same names are involved so the two could end up tied together.
Anyway, I don't assess your political leanings by your alleged activities of which I know nothing, I do it based on your words, such as these:
"... when does big business ever favour the consumer. That is why we should keep it public so the profits go to the consumer/taxpayer."
I was just commenting on your own statement:
I'm not surprised a distiller's organization or a brewer would prefer to work with a monopoly. Why should they favor the consumer? They are in business to make a profit and if they can collude with government to keep prices high, why wouldn't they.
I believe the distllers and brewers you mention are business are they not. Read what you said.
and
"Right now we are making money off this business and paying the employees a good living wage. If Exel takes over the employees, BC families loose those good live able taxpaying wages and we loose the profits. All that money goes to an out of country company. How can that be good for any person in BC except maybe a couple who have company shares."
How can it be good for that money to suddenly leave the province as profit for an international company when it's previously circulated around our province or economy in one way or another. Including income taxes, pensions, mortgage payments, food and all the other things a family spends their money on.
and
"If the profits are large enough to attract them then I'm sure we should be interested in keeping them here for the citizens of BC instead of giving them to outside interests."
Something must be attracting Exel/DHL and I am sure it is profits. Why does it not make sense to keep those profits which are currently ours here, for the taxpayers of BC.
It's hard to reconcile such pro-socialism statements with this one that I do agree with:
"That business can do everything better than government. That one is very close to true but government is a necessary evil and there are a few things out there they should be in charge of."
At any rate, despite your misreading of me, I never said I supported a monopolization of liquor distribution in BC by gov't or business. All I suggested was an open-minded approach to one company's proposal for privatizing it, on the entirely sound basis that the private sector almost always operates more efficiently than government and that our goal should be to reduce the scope of government involvement in the economy rather than enlarge it or sustain it where it is not necessary, and that there is nothing about liquor distribution that suggests a natural monopoly. You have somehow ran with this and went off on a tirade, making all sorts of unsupported assumptions and conclusions. And you berate me for allegedly being close-minded. Take a good look at yourself.