Bye bye BCLDB, or not?

[Smurf]

It is but we're not supposed to bring that up. Possibly a monopoly is okay if it is private industry.

[logicalview]

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?

Quite sadly, yes they do.

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?

Based on the same thinking, these same economically challenged people probably believe that the government should be in all kinds of retail businesses. How about tobacco stores or brothels? They probably think that the government should be in the supermarket business selling food to the citizenry.

Or how about the car insurance business?

Or how about the ferry business?

Trains?

Hydro?

Healthcare?

How about the Stadium business?

[Smurf]

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?

That is why I said “Realizing that this is privatization of the whole liquor system and a change in the tax system”. Because I realize as should anyone after reading that statement that it involved more that the distribution system.

What part of the distribution costs to the distillers are higher do you not get. You said you did not believe the cost was more. Your private industry says it is. You said you believed liquor prices were less because distribution costs less. This proves that liquor costs less at least partially because government revenue is less, nothing to do with distribution.

“Why should they favor the consumer?”
You're right there, when does big business ever favour the consumer. That is why we should keep it public so the profits go to the consumer/taxpayer.

My concern is the best deal for all the people of BC. Actually I don't mind if the cost is a little high if the difference goes into the public coffer to benefit the taxpayer/consumer. I believe alcohol and tobacco are a good place to collect our taxes. Even when I drank I never minded it because I never felt it was a necessity. I had a choice if I wanted to pay the price or not. These products cause problems that are a huge cost to society, why shouldn't they pay for at least some of those costs?

I disagree that taking money out of the pockets of BC workers to send it out of the country is a bogus issue. It is an issue that affects every person in BC. I do not care about the shareholders. I care about the taxpayers of BC. 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.

“First, profits amount to a small proportion of revenues, so we aren't talking about a huge number.”
Again I disagree. It might not seem like a lot to you but apparently these profits are enough for a large international company like DHL to be interested enough to spend a lot of time and money to lobby a government for your so called small profits. I'm sure they aren't in it for the fun of it. 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.

“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?”
Where have I said or even eluded to anything like that. Quit putting words in my mouth. You seem like a smart person but please get rid of all your close minded theories and ideas. They are one of the root causes of the problems we have today. Political left or right is ridiculous. They both have good and bad but either one alone are a disaster. Unions are bad. Some are, so are some business's but some of both have good ideas that need to be used more widely. They are each necessary to keep the other in line because we both know that like left and right politics one alone is not good. 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. Open your mind, forget the one size fits all theories, your socialist hoards at the door. This is a case where we already own it and are making good profits for the government and people of BC. I am not suggesting a takeover of anything, you are. You are suggesting a monopoly take over of our company by an out of country company. You are suggesting cutting the salaries of BC workers to increase the profits of said company and sending those profits out of country with no value to BC. And you think I am talking nonsense. Give your head a shake.

If you read my posts I am not even totally against the sale. I do not like the way this government does business behind closed doors and refuses to give us any real information like a business plan. Right now we have a company that is operating well for the people of BC. It is providing good well paying jobs for a number of BC families. It is providing our government with a good income which is a benefit to every person in BC. I want them to give me and the people of BC some good solid reasons why we should trade that for a for profit business. I'm sure that like you the business will want to see those good paying jobs cut to barely live able jobs where the families can't even buy a home. They will take the profits and run with them. These things are all bad for the people of BC. I need a lot of good reasons to give my approval to give up something that is benefiting all for something with most of the benefits going to a few. Sure the business might not be running the best it could but at least it is running for the benefit of the people of BC.


EDIT TO ADD:

“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).”

Again not always true. When we had our last business (service station/convenience store) we always paid our employees more than minimum wage. Even students on their first job moved quickly above minimum wage. We also gave Christmas bonus's. According to your theory that would be taking unnecessary money out of my pocket. According to me it was one of the best things we did. It got us happy, dedicated, honest employees. It got us happy, dedicated customers because our employees were always happy and gave them good service. I also feel in this case although some changes might be in order the wages are not that far out of line for todays economy. Many benefits do come back to the people of BC by having people who pay their own way and contribute to their economy. I would just as soon pay them a good wage as have to back them up throughout their lives using other much more expensive avenues. We end up paying one way or the other.

[logicalview]

Always love it when the union executive member masquerades as a "concerned" member of the public. The teachers loved this tactic during their greed session.

Sheri Pybus is an executive member of BCGEU 507 and a liquor store employee.

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

[Homeownertoo]

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.

[GordonH]

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.

It is but we're not supposed to bring that up. Possibly a monopoly is okay if it is private industry.

Thank-you, but still does not answer my question.

[Logitack]

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

[Smurf]

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.

There you go again with your black and white crap. Not everyone is either a socialist or free marketer or whatever other name you want to use. Not everyone subscribes to one political policy, left or right. Some of us, many of us I hope are open minded and willing to look at every side of a situation not just one blind belief.

Also sorry to disappoint you again. I have owned and run registered, licenced business's in the free market and done very well. I have been in maintenance (mainly electrical), private insurance agent, real estate rentals, miniuature golf course and convenience store amoungst other things. Insurance agent and convenience store/service station being the only full time ones. I started them all from scratch except the convenience store/service station. I built them all up and I sold them for a good profit.

I agree we will probably never agree because unlike you I am open minded and like to look at every situation on it's merits and not just on some belief that I have formed somewhere along the way. I totally believe in free enterprise but do not believe it is the end all to every situation. I am socialist to the extent that I believe everyone deserves a fair chance in life and when possible a living wage. I believe that it is cheaper by far to pay a fair wage than to help through social services, free medical and numerous others. I also realize that not every job can be paid a high salary, I've owned the business. But I do not believe in just cutting salaries to make more profit. That is greed. Hope you can see where I'm coming from.

[steven lloyd]

Aside from being yet another collusive deal to favour one of their friends, the sale of the BCLDB fits nicely with the Liberal's “scorched earth policy”. Only the most naive would think it has anything to do with “free enterprise”.

[bh]

Privatization will lead to higher prices. When I visited Kelowna last summer I was shocked at how much cheaper virtually everything in the liquor store was than in Alberta. Don't do it!

[Smurf]

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.

[NAB]

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.

My take is that no predominantly right wing government or Premier in BC since WAC Bennett subscribes to that theory any more Smurf.

Nab

[Smurf]

I agree. However I keep hoping we can bring it back. Kind of like the managers at J.P,Morgan. Take away any bonus's and even their last 2 years salary.

[Homeownertoo]

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.

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.

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."

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."

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."

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.

[Smurf]

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.

You gave every indication you support the sale and that you would agree if they cut employee wages. You did say there should be a sound business proposal.

"If Exel this time made a solid business case for liberating government assets while operating on a more efficient basis (even if that is due to lower salaries/benefts), the government would be derelict in its mission not to listen."

but so have I

"Done. Right or wrong I don't think it should proceed any further until we have enough information to make an honest decision. However I doubt that will ever happen with this government."

Your right I ran with it. I disagreed with your idea of cutting wages to make profit for a private company in these circumstances being a good thing and I still do. I don't agree with the profits we as a province now make being sent out of country. In my case they will have to prove to me it is a good deal. I do believe from your writing you already believe it is a good deal just because it puts it in private hands. If you read your posts I believe more than once you insinuated I was wrong and you were right. Basically that I don't know what I am talking about. We're back to the statement we will probably always disagree and I agree. But just because it is your idea or mine does not make it right or wrong. I believe you are following your beliefs exactly the same as I am following mine and we are probably similarily close minded in our own ways. I do not believe it is that black and white on either side. One size does not fit all. I believe there are times when publicly owned business does work and this one is.