Bye bye BCLDB, or not?

[steven lloyd]

While we're connecting the dots let's not forget to draw a line from the dots representing the unions to the dots totally opposed to privatizing anything anywhere anytime.

But not to be confused with people not saying quite that and just jumping to erroneous assumptions as the excuse-making for this government continues to get weaker and weaker.

[Homeownertoo]

I don't know enough about the issue to know whether or not a liquor distribution monopoly is in the Public's best interest. But I do know that privately owned monopolies are never in the Public's best interest. If the Government believes that liquor distribution should remain a monopoly, then they should retain Public ownership.

But I'd be interested in hearing people's views about the pros and cons of liquor distribution remaining a monopoly or being opened to competition. Because right now, I don't see any good reason why it couldn't or shouldn't be competitive, but I am open to being swayed if someone makes a good enough case for the monopoly idea.

Actually, you are very mistaken. Private monopolies (assuming there is a good public reason for a monopoly in the first place) are far better than public monopolies for the simple reason that private ones are more easily regulated. Public monopolies are famously exempt from serious regulation, or any regulation at all, for the simple reason that regulation then becomes intensely political and subject to manipulation to suit political preferences that are usually entirely divorced from the public good. There is a long and glorious history of this in the field of regulatory economics.

Even political theory tells us that the concentration of power in one node, as in the case of public monopolies where the monopoly and the regulator are simply two sides of the same coin, is the worst of all possible worlds. Private monopoly is actually a contradiction in terms since any private monopoly is potentially subject to public intervention. The only true monopoly is a public monopoly.

[Homeownertoo]

Right now about 55% of the liquor distribution in this province is public and the other 45% is private. After the two government warehouses are sold the distribution will be 100% private. I'd like to see the details before I pass judgment one way or the other but in general government operations tend to be bloated and inefficient so this transition has the potential to be positive. I agree with Merry, though, that private monopolies are not a good thing and arguably they're worse than public monopolies.

Arguably not. See above posting.

[Homeownertoo]

Profit: Where do you want it to go? Private company for private benefit or Gov’t coffers with more potential for public benefit?

This statement is a serious misunderstanding of basic economics. Quite apart from the dubious assertion that fatter government coffers mean greater public benefit -- a totally unfounded assumption that is largely discredited by experience -- is the parallel assumption that the use of private property is entirely deleterious to the public good, an assumption that is, again, totally confounded by centuries of experience.

Strange how such bizarre leftist fallacies are so easily passed off as uncontested truths.

[Urbane]

Actually, you are very mistaken. Private monopolies (assuming there is a good public reason for a monopoly in the first place) are far better than public monopolies for the simple reason that private ones are more easily regulated. Public monopolies are famously exempt from serious regulation, or any regulation at all, for the simple reason that regulation then becomes intensely political and subject to manipulation to suit political preferences that are usually entirely divorced from the public good. There is a long and glorious history of this in the field of regulatory economics.

Even political theory tells us that the concentration of power in one node, as in the case of public monopolies where the monopoly and the regulator are simply two sides of the same coin, is the worst of all possible worlds. Private monopoly is actually a contradiction in terms since any private monopoly is potentially subject to public intervention. The only true monopoly is a public monopoly.

That makes sense to me and I've adjusted my assessment accordingly.

[Popeye69]

From what I seen on CBC news BC makes something like 850 million in liquor profit, thats after wages etc etc are paid. So once we sell this asset where will the 850 mil a year come from?? Was HST supposed to offset this loss?? I think selling is a mistake.

[Captain Awesome]

From what I seen on CBC news BC makes something like 850 million in liquor profit, thats after wages etc etc are paid. So once we sell this asset where will the 850 mil a year come from?? Was HST supposed to offset this loss?? I think selling is a mistake.

Jumping to conclusion and making assumption is also a mistake. It amazes me that general public makes decisions (well, like they actually decide anything) based on "well, I've heard on the radio..." and "the guy at work told me..", then they flip everything upside down, think they got everything figured out, and complain about it endlessly here.

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

[Homeownertoo]

Exactly. And so far I have seen nothing to suggest that the retail part of the public entity is to be privatized.

How unfortunate.

[my5cents]

Well, before you get all smart ass on me, consider the cost that goes into it on govt side and RFP process in which said business would charge the govt to do the same thing and benefits it would bring, along with lesser involvement, competitive bidding, less exposure, and less liabilities.
I'm quire certain that a private company can come in and run the distribution for less money it is costing the govt right now to run it - with a bouquet of benefits this model presents - without comprising the actual money-making operation of retailing.

"lesser involvement" - What has "lesser involvement" got to do with anything. Are you saying that if the government sells off a profit making enterprise that supplies it's own government stores at a reliable price that having fewer government employees involved is a good thing ?? I don't get that at all. If I'm the government and I've got several hundred people make a good living wage and paying taxes, that's certainly preferable to several hundred making a low wage and paying minimal taxes.

"competitive bidding" - Are you talking about competitive bidding in relation to the Liberals selling a government asset ??? You are delusional.

"less liabilities" - Ah,,, CA, I was kidding. You see when I said : "It's a well known fact that there are many large business operations who are searching the world trying to buy up endeavors that don't make money" that was sarcasm. The reason Exel Logistics is really trying to buy the LDB Warehousing is because IT MAKES MONEY. If that's the case how would selling something that MAKES MONEY, lower "liabilities" ? It would lower INCOME.

"I'm quire certain that a private company can come in and run the distribution for less money it is costing the govt right now" - Ah,,, remember above the LDB Warehousing MAKES MONEY (profit) so it's not "costing the govt", it's part of the PROFIT from the entire LDB system. If you look at AB, the wholesale selling price of liquor went up after the AB Govt privatized the warehousing. You are probably quite right that a private company can run the distribution for less money, but that doesn't mean that any savings will be realized to their customers, it will be realized by the shareholders of Excel.

Look at private liquor stores. The stores are generally far less elaborate than LCB stores, the employees get paid minimum wage or close to it. They buy their product for basically the same price as the LCB stores and the retail price the private liquor stores sell for is the same or more than the LCB stores. So where does the savings on the store fixtures and the wages go ????? The pocket of the owner/shareholders.

It's a bad sign when you start believing the Liberals when they tell you they are selling something to their friends, because it's "good for British Columbia". One thing for sure you should know when they say that..... it will be good for their friends, and it WON'T be good for British Columbia.

[maple leaf]

The government still hasn't released any kind of business plan for doing this.Or anything that shows that it would be in the best interests of BC.The peanut gallery can come up with all kinds of scenarios,but why is the government doing it.They won't say,at least I haven't seen anything that shows the business plan for doing this.Has anyone?

[flamingfingers]

Nope.

[Captain Awesome]

The reason Exel Logistics is really trying to buy the LDB Warehousing is because IT MAKES MONEY.

Well, I see you're not able to comprehend simple logic. So, why bother talking to you.

[NAB]

The reason Exel Logistics is really trying to buy the LDB Warehousing is because IT MAKES MONEY

If Excel see's an opportunity to make money by doing it at less cost and more efficiently (and at reduced cost to BC LCB), so be it. But I am curious to see an explanation as to how it makes money for the LCB under the existing system? To me it is just a cost centre.

Nab

[RIO1959]

Privatize......NO
The Alberts govt. nets roughly $40 million a year off sales.
B.C. govt. nets over $600 million a year off sales.
Where will that money come from?
The way the B.C. govt has funds distributed is unknown to most of the public.
Every year it is put under the umbrella of a different ministry.
For example if they need roads built, it is put under highways, schools...education, and so on.
This way they never have to say where they are getting the funds.
Crispy Clark will bankrupt B.C.

[my5cents]

If Excel see's an opportunity to make money by doing it at less cost and more efficiently (and at reduced cost to BC LCB), so be it. But I am curious to see an explanation as to how it makes money for the LCB under the existing system? To me it is just a cost centre.
Nab

But is it, Nab ?

Even a government breaks down the profit and loss of divisions of an operation.

I've never been able to find what the LCB Warehousing operation makes or looses, compared to the retail operations.

Shouldn't those figures be available ? If not, why not.

It's all well and good to say "If Excel see's an opportunity to make money by doing it at less cost and more efficiently (and at reduced cost to BC LCB), so be it." But if we don't know if the LCB Warehousing looses or makes money, do we just sit back and let the Liberals "take care of us".

I would have thought the LCB Warehousing would be run like a lot of large operations where, XYZ Company Wholesale division, imports and distributes stock to XYZ Company Retail division (retail stores), and makes a profit. Each arm of the company makes their mark-up.