# Alberta's experiment.......



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

So for Sinc to have "convenience here's the cost 10 years out.



> *Alberta is paying dearly for liquor privatization*
> 
> CCPA and Parkland Institute find bad vastly outweighs the good:
> • consumption rises • retail prices up • wholesale prices up
> ...


I started a new thread to keep Macnutt from hijacking another thread with his NeoCon mantras. 
Ontarians by a wide margin want nothing to do with privatizing the LCBO.

I would bet problems like FAS are much higher as well.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

I'd hate to be cynical, but a Parkland Institute study on the effects of privatization has as much predictability as a study on the effects of condom use by the Vatican.

I look at this whole issue another way.

Alcohol has damaging properties. So do prescription drugs. Did we nationalize the retail drug industry? No? Then how did we rein-in the effects of the profit motive and "monopolistic competition?"

Nationalization is often a "swatting flies with a sledgehammer" approach. A great many of the concerns raised by the Parkland study can be mitigated by direct regulation of retailers.

I find buying alcohol in a state store to be incredibly puritanical. And think, when our drug laws are finally liberalized, will we buy our weed from "The Buds Store?"


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> So for Sinc to have "convenience here's the cost 10 years out.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You have to consider the source of the study, which in this case is a known Liberal lefty group. So, the conclusions of their study are likely biased. 

I would like to see a more balanced study from a neutral group such as the Fraser Institute.

To say alcohol consumption is up as a result of privatization is a bit of a stretch. There is probably a higher correlation to: a) income and; b) population age. Alberta is one of the youngest provinces and has some of the highest incomes. This explosive growth happened over the last ten years that privatization occurred.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I would like to see a more balanced study from a neutral group such as the Fraser Institute.


That was so funny I had to make a mad dash to the bathroom to avoid urinating all over my PowerBook.     

Please, use a  when you make a sarcastic comment, so that I know when you're kidding.


----------



## ErnstNL (Apr 12, 2003)

The Fraser Insitute?  Unbiased?  
Haha good one!


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Vandave said:


> You have to consider the source of the study, which in this case is a known Liberal lefty group. So, the conclusions of their study are likely biased.
> 
> I would like to see a more balanced study from a neutral group such as the Fraser Institute.


Vandave, you broke my irony meter! The Fraser Institute is the most blatantly biased 'think-tank' I can imagine. Asking for an unbiased economic study from the Fraser Institute is like asking for an unbiased study on the scientific basis of evolutionary theory from 'Answers In Genesis.'

If you think the Fraser Institute is 'neutral', it's no wonder you have a world view that is so wildly divergent from most others here. Perhaps you should add some alternative viewpoints to your data?

Cheers


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

bryanc said:


> Vandave, you broke my irony meter! The Fraser Institute is the most blatantly biased 'think-tank' I can imagine. Asking for an unbiased economic study from the Fraser Institute is like asking for an unbiased study on the scientific basis of evolutionary theory from 'Answers In Genesis.'
> 
> If you think the Fraser Institute is 'neutral', it's no wonder you have a world view that is so wildly divergent from most others here. Perhaps you should add some alternative viewpoints to your data?
> 
> Cheers


lpkmckenna got it right. I was being cynical. 

Of course the Fraser Institute is bias, but so is the referenced study. That's why I threw that comment in there. 

Yes, my world view is definately different than many people here, but similar to small minority as well.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

If you read one report from the Parkland institute, and another from the Fraser institute, and averaged them out somehow, you probably would end up with a balanced study.

As far as costs increasing, I can compare liquour costs in BC and AB, it seems that some products cost more in BC, others cost more in AB, but overall the prices seem a bit lower in AB. This is not conclusive by any means, just a personal observation. Also, the selection seems to be a bit better in AB, perhaps because different stores have more choice in what they sell.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Alcohol has damaging properties. So do prescription drugs. Did we nationalize the retail drug industry? No? Then how did we rein-in the effects of the profit motive and "monopolistic competition?"
> 
> Nationalization is often a "swatting flies with a sledgehammer" approach. A great many of the concerns raised by the Parkland study can be mitigated by direct regulation of retailers.
> 
> I find buying alcohol in a state store to be incredibly puritanical. And think, when our drug laws are finally liberalized, will we buy our weed from "The Buds Store?"


Prescription drugs are highly regulated and must be prepared by trained pharmacists and are highly controlled.
They also are NOT recreational purely optional choices of poison - they are prescribed by a doctor and prepared by a pharmacists. - it's a ludicrous comparison.

Buds store??- damn right it will be. It's government control of substances open to abuse and controlling price and availability ( especially to minors ) and quality ( did you know the LCBO tests for poisonous substances in products )

You don't see any move afoot to "nationalize" iPods, or computer sales etc.

Activities that tend to attract criminal elements or are subject to abuse ( gambling included) have been generally the subject of direct government control as a means of combatting crime and reducing associated health and family issues.

And I thoroughly approve :clap:.

You can't go out and catch all the fish you want either. It's called effective management.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

PenguinBoy said:


> If you read one report from the Parkland institute, and another from the Fraser institute, and averaged them out somehow, you probably would end up with a balanced study.
> 
> As far as costs increasing, I can compare liquour costs in BC and AB, it seems that some products cost more in BC, others cost more in AB, but overall the prices seem a bit lower in AB. This is not conclusive by any means, just a personal observation. Also, the selection seems to be a bit better in AB, perhaps because different stores have more choice in what they sell.


That seems to be the general opinion of most people. I have read studies saying the same thing. 

I hear that there can be big price differences with foreign wines and some of Alberta's prices are way cheaper than BC's.


----------



## draz (Jun 13, 2005)

after reading this right now, i realize i am drunk :-O


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Prescription drugs are highly regulated and must be prepared by trained pharmacists and are highly controlled.
> They also are NOT recreational purely optional choices of poison - they are prescribed by a doctor and prepared by a pharmacists. - it's a ludicrous comparison.


No, it's not. You actually made my point. I was advocating regulation rather than nationalization, and you confirmed how well it's worked out for pharmacies. And presciption drugs are abused. Ever heard of Rush Limbaugh? Addictions to pain-killers, anti-anxiety, and sleeping pills is very widespread. Ever heard of Rohypnol?


MacDoc said:


> Buds store??- damn right it will be. It's government control of substances open to abuse and controlling price and availability ( especially to minors ) and quality ( did you know the LCBO tests for poisonous substances in products )


Or I'll just grow my own on the window sil.


MacDoc said:


> Activities that tend to attract criminal elements or are subject to abuse ( gambling included) have been generally the subject of direct government control as a means of combatting crime and reducing associated health and family issues.


You've got the cart before the horse. Criminalization of drugs and alcohol creates the criminal element.


MacDoc said:


> You can't go out and catch all the fish you want either. It's called effective management.


The tragedy of the commons is an entirely different issue.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

So you advocate a "prescription" for booze or drugs??? :clap:
That's hilarious.
You're talking corner store owners - NOT pharmacies - peddling booze and drugs - they can't even control cigarettes adequately.

Of course - you can distill your own booze as well and no one will care. Start peddling it to friends or make a mistake and someone goes blind.....different story.

So you are advocating wide open unregulated gambling, booze and drugs with no criminal penalties at all.!!!!???  - you were born about 2 centuries too late.
There is no "partial" route in your scenario and IT AIN'T EVER GONNA HAPPEN so why even postulate it.

Prohibition creates creates the profit motive for the criminal element. Controlling distribution and quality and access provides a middle ground between free for all and prohibition.....and it works.

It's NOT an entirely different issue -* it's about reasonable level of government regulation* - whether it's protection OF resources or restriction of access to and dispensation of, potentially dangerous substances including prescription drugs.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> It's NOT an entirely different issue -* it's about reasonable level of government regulation* - whether it's protection OF resources or restriction of access to and dispensation of, potentially dangerous substances including prescription drugs.


Well stated, and just like we have it here in Alberta!


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> So you advocate a "prescription" for booze or drugs???


Did I say that?



MacDoc said:


> You're talking corner store owners - NOT pharmacies - peddling booze and drugs - they can't even control cigarettes adequately.


Ever been to Quebec?



MacDoc said:


> Of course - you can distill your own booze as well and no one will care. Start peddling it to friends or make a mistake and someone goes blind.....different story.


No one ever went blind from pot.



MacDoc said:


> So you are advocating wide open unregulated gambling, booze and drugs with no criminal penalties at all.!!!!???


Did I say that? I was recommending regulation instead of state stores. Do you ever read anything before criticizing it? And where did you learn that clever use of punctuation?



MacDoc said:


> There is no "partial" route in your scenario and IT AIN'T EVER GONNA HAPPEN so why even postulate it.


You and MacNutt need to get together and start a fortune-telling business. And you should avoid that black/white thinking issue you have.



MacDoc said:


> Prohibition creates creates the profit motive for the criminal element. Controlling distribution and quality and access provides a middle ground between free for all and prohibition.....and it works.


How this for reasonable? If I want to have a beer, I can:
1. Go to the local pub, a privately owned business, and have as much as I want;
2. Go to the state beer store, buy, and bring it home to drink.

Is there a reason that a private pub can sell but a private store cannot? Are the pubs more ethical, or have less liver-damaging agents in their ale? Can the 19 yr old waitresses prevent alcohol abuse better than the 50 yr old store owner?



MacDoc said:


> It's NOT an entirely different issue -* it's about reasonable level of government regulation* - whether it's protection OF resources or restriction of access to and dispensation of, potentially dangerous substances including prescription drugs.


It's about treating grown adults like children, keeping the cookies on top of the fridge so that only daddy can reach them for you. That's anything but reasonable; it's puritanical.

Clever use of bold type.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

We, here in BC, also have private liquor stores. We also have government owned liquor stores.

Lately, the government owned ones have been failing...and there are far less of them these days than there were before the private ones showed up (about three years ago).

Currently...private liquor stores are open all sorts of hours. The Government ones are not open as often. And the government ones are NEVER open on sundays or holidays.

The private liquor stores have cash register jockeys who are paid the going rate for that low end entry level job. The government liquor store cash register attendants always seem to drive fancy cars and the few that I know all own two or more houses. The also go on long vacations and take paid stress leave. Regularly. They dress real well too. 

Lately..the private liquor stores have begun to offer sales on certain items and some are even advertising prices that are lower than the government ones. When you add that to the fact that they are open all sorts of hours...and that they have a far lower overhead and NO strikes....

It's no wonder that the government liquor store people are starting to look a bit scared these days. 

Heck! Some of them might actually have to leave this choice gravy train and actually go to WORK for a living, one of these days very soon!!

Scary thought.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Ummmm...macdoc et al....

You might just want to consider this "experiment" by Alberta to be a done deal. Here in BC as well. There is absoloutely NO movement to go back to the "old ways" out here.  

Don't worry....you guys in the east will catch up to our lead. Eventually.  

On so MANY things!


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

The liquor stores in Ontario (LCBO/The Beer Store) are nothing short of gorgeous, the employees are well paid, and the prices are essentially at par with their Quebec counterparts (SAQ) who also do quite well offering decent selections, prices and well paid employees in spite of corner grocers/stores selling booze at all hours.

Everybody seems to be doing fine over here... except there appears to be a problem of drinking and driving accidents in Gatineau on any given night. Just last week there was a nasty one just down the street from where I live.... the driver hit a tree, causing his car to burst into flames. He managed to get out, but the passenger didn't fare quite as well. 

They didn't even get a chance to take the seatbelt off.

I think there's something to be said about controlling who sells liquor, and when. Accessibility to booze at all hours of the day (and night for that matter) is not a benefit.


----------



## pimephalis (Nov 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> You have to consider the source of the study, which in this case is a known Liberal lefty group. So, the conclusions of their study are likely biased.
> 
> I would like to see a more balanced study from a neutral group such as the Fraser Institute.


This is a joke, right?

[edit] Ow, ow, ow. This is what happens when you fly off the handle and post without having read the rest of the thread. Sorry.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> Don't worry....you guys in the east will catch up to our lead. Eventually. On so MANY things!


With your amazing fortune-telling skills, you should really spend your time investing in stocks.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

It didn't take long for the 'balanced' study I requested to come through. 

"The government of Alberta, which privatized its retail outlets a decage ago, profits more from provincial liquor sales than Ontario or Quebec, a new study has found."

Read em and weep MacDoc:

http://www.canada.com/national/nati...d=3ff93967-ccc1-4421-967b-a1511a54e360&page=2


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Vandave said:


> It didn't take long for the 'balanced' study I requested to come through.
> 
> "The government of Alberta, which privatized its retail outlets a decage ago, profits more from provincial liquor sales than Ontario or Quebec, a new study has found."
> 
> ...


Exactly Vandave. It is so much better you can't believe it.

BUT watch MacDoc dig up some more dirt to discredit the program, even if it is only for the convenience of many outlets, no lineups and bargain basement prices if you shop wisely.

Todays special at Real Canadian Superstore:

24 cans of Canadian beer = $25.99.

Not bad for a lousy system eh?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I read the study and it didn't seem to really delve into tax differences enough to distinguish prices (tax differences are the main source of revenue), which is a necessary analysis to determine competitive savings. 

That being said, Parkland is not a real source (completely biased and dishonest) but I'm still learning about the Montreal Economic Institute that did this study...from the few works I've read by them they seem reasonably credible but some of these institutes are hit-and-miss with little intellectual honesty requirements. 

My thoughts, 2 cents plus GST: If revenues are the issue, set the excise tax accordingly; public ownership doesn't change this. If it is assumed that less consumption is ALWAYS better then, aside from being a reprehensible form of social engineering, you need to control all liquor sales (bars and restaurants) and/or substantially raise excise taxes. 

Why governments even want to convince people that deregulation is bad in this case is almost funny...it doesn't change their bottom line, isn't a real factor behind social control, but I guess it centralizes some type of power. And that's a good thing under any circumstances, right? As is childproofing society because 'it's for the children'. What's the sarcasm emoticon?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Well stated, and just like we have it here in Alberta!


Oh man Sinc, you are funny !

I do like the idea of beer and wine available more locally.
Brewers Retailers (here in Ontario) could still exist and perhaps, just perhaps have nice, friendly staff.
They are a hell of a lot better than 20 yr. ago.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

SINC said:


> Exactly Vandave. It is so much better you can't believe it.
> 
> BUT watch MacDoc dig up some more dirt to discredit the program, even if it is only for the convenience of many outlets, no lineups and bargain basement prices if you shop wisely.
> 
> ...


That's a pretty good deal. When I was in Alberta I went to a liquor store that gave one free bottle of wine when you buy a case (12).


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Meh. I'm on the other wing from Albertans. If I had my choice, cigs would be sold from the government stores, too. And yes, weed. Fewer illegal substances, but complete government control over retail profits. It's mostly public money that pays for the costs resulting from over indulgence in any one of these substances, after all. As for the argument about simply setting the tax higher to control consumption, clearly someone is unfamiliar with how that worked, or, rather, didn't, for cigarettes. Smuggling is a LOT easier when any store owner can fence it for you.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Higher cigarette prices have been effective in preventing early smoking but, yes, the price has to be enforced and protected. Widespread cigarette smuggling that was the case in Quebec and Ontario, had a lot more behind it than local storeowners fencing the goods. On that topic, was there a lot of evidence that legitimate businesses were selling a large portion of the stolen cigarettes? I would like to see a study on that out of personal interest. 

As for public money paying for the costs resulting from over indulgence...that's what excise taxes are for, except when the government sets them so high as to overcharge in order to fund other expenses and doesn't actually spend enough money on the social costs of the indulgence that justified the tax in the first place.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> It didn't take long for the 'balanced' study I requested to come through.
> 
> "The government of Alberta, which privatized its retail outlets a decage ago, profits more from provincial liquor sales than Ontario or Quebec, a new study has found."
> 
> ...


Vandave and Sync...

Are you two kidding? "Balanced" study? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...

Your source is linked from the National Post (its linkage to the right of the politic spectrum is well known). The study comes from The Montreal Institute here is a link.

http://www.iedm.org/main/main_en.php

For everyone else, make up you mind if the source is unbiased. First Google "The Montreal Institute"... and look at what other "unbiased" institutes show up. Then go have a look at their website. Articles like...

Is Kyoto Necessary?
Jobs are more plentiful when unions are scarce
How food became the new tobacco
State-tobacco “cure” worse than the “disease”
The case for private care - Should the Supreme Court have dismissed Quebec's ban on private medical services?
Two Myths about the U.S. Health Care System

Should I go on?

Vandave and Sinc... you two should be ashamed of yourselves for try to pass that off as "unbiased" research.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Not that I support either side of this argument, but one thing the privatize side of the argument are forgetting is the social economic impact. Beer and Liquor workers in Ontario are unionized and in fact make a living wage with all of the benefits of such a unionized position.
The private sector will not pay the employees as much, likely will not supply benefit programs etc. While under privatization government profit "may" be larger, the overall impact on the social side is most likely not calculable.
So, what this looks like to me is the employees (little guy) footing the bill for private sector profits. The overall costs of liquor (taxes excluded) is relatively the same between Alberta and Ontario.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Profit is not the lodestone - management of a controlled intoxicant is.

You think the cornerstore is checking customers - Ontario is.
This from the LCBO website.


> Social Responsibility
> Preventing sales to minors and to customers who appear to be intoxicated are key social responsibility


Then there is the "other costs" to Alberta


> Impaired Driving - Between 1995 and 2000, provincial data indicated 40.1% of all fatal traffic collisions in Alberta involved a drinking driver. Over this 6 year span we have not experienced a significant drop in alcohol related collisions. *In Alberta we have some of the highest per capita statistics in the country for alcohol related collisions.*





> The proportion of heavy drinkers in Alberta (22.5%) is higher than the rest of Canada (20.1%).


How many "millions" does this translate into. 



> Alcohol and Society
> 
> Alcohol use has a broad impact in society, undermining individual health, family and personal relationships, economic productivity, and community safety. Motor vehicle accidents are the leading cause of alcohol-related mortality, and alcohol consumption is a major contributing factor in injuries and fatalities due to falls, drowning and fires; work-related accidents, absenteeism and illness; and crimes of violence including spousal abuse and physical assault. The total cost of alcohol abuse in Alberta was estimated at $749 million in 1992.


I'll quite happily stick with our system thanks.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_j: Whether the MEI is unbiased/credible is in how the studies are done, not whether or not someone likes the topics and/or conclusions, the newspaper that covers the story, and google-related inferences.  

The topics you listed from their website are all valid topics for examination and, if done well, can contribute important perspectives. Simply looking at them and dismissing the MEI would require further knowledge, such as that garnered from reading previous MEI reports and knowing that their research is lacking. 

So I would like to know how the work lacks crediblity. Like I said, the MEI reports I read were reasonable (open to nitpicking and, more importantly, extensions and filling in important gaps, but overall on solid ground), but at about 3 reports I'm not settled either way.

Fraser and Parkland on the other hand...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

It's main problem, the report is focusing on "profit" as a primary goal when in my mind and clearly in the minds of most in Ontario and Quebec "management" of alcohol is critical.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

iPetie said:


> Beer and Liquor workers in Ontario are unionized and in fact make a living wage with all of the benefits of such a unionized position.


Is this before or after the union fees?


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> Profit is not the lodestone - management of a controlled intoxicant is.
> 
> You think the cornerstore is checking customers - Ontario is.
> 
> ...


Sorry MacDoc, but the delivery of the intoxicant has nothing to do with usage. Unfortunately, drawing a parallel between heavy drinkers and privatization is foolish at best.

The numbers you quote are more representative social acceptability of drinking in Alberta. Not where they buy it.

Having lived in both places, the control factor you speak of was much more stringent in Alberta than it has ever been in Ontario. The legal and licensing ramifications on a small business make this a necessity.

For me, it is an economic issue only.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Mugatu said:


> Is this before or after the union fees?


Both!
Let me just say that I'm not a union person. The arguments just don't make sense for privatization at this point.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> I'll quite happily stick with our system thanks.


Lots of selective stats in that post, here goes my contribution to selective stats.

In 2002 the rate of alcohol dependence in Canada was 2.6%. All the Western provinces were above the average, with Alberta the lowest of the Western provinces. 

Taking numbers caused by very complex factors and attributing blame to a chosen cause is one way to go, but it lacks credibility.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave, Sinc, the biased study is so funny - the numbers that they quote are so skewed. 
For example, while talking about outlets, the "study" does not take into consideration all supermarkets, depanneurs (corner stores) and direct imports that sell beer and wine in Quebec. Yes, I know that the choice is wine is limited supermarkets but the overall point of sales would easily dwarf Alberta's. 

Here's a link to a local local store selling beer: www.depdelarive.com
That's right, the choice of 370 beers - not bad for a government run monopoly.. 

Markup for Beer in Quebec is 200-300% (http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/inimr-ri.nsf/fr/gr-74037f.html) 

24 cans of Canadian beer, IGA = $21.43


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> It's main problem, the report is focusing on "profit" as a primary goal when in my mind and clearly in the minds of most in Ontario and Quebec "management" of alcohol is critical.


 The report lacks credibility because it didn't look at the aspect you wanted explored?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Vandave, Sinc, the biased study is so funny - the numbers that they quote are so skewed.
> For example, while talking about outlets, the "study" does not take into consideration all supermarkets, depanneurs (corner stores) and direct imports that sell beer and wine in Quebec. Yes, I know that the choice is wine is limited supermarkets but the overall point of sales would easily dwarf Alberta's.
> 
> Here's a link to a local local store selling beer: www.depdelarive.com
> ...


 That's sort of making more of a case for more retail deregulation and, possibly, generally opening up more alcohol retail, like in Quebec. The assumption that this will bring about the downfall of society treats people like children and ignores that there are many parts of the world (even on this continent) that already do this and somehow manage to muddle along with their societies.

Edit: Clarify that from 'The assumption...' onwards was more of a general rant than a response to the quoted post.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej, it's still state controlled - that's the important point. 
In Quebec, there are active campaigns to inform of the ills of alcohol (be it drink driving or other). This education is achieved via government funds, I highly doubt that the private industry would be generous.


----------



## mr.steevo (Jul 22, 2005)

Hi,

Alberta talks about privatization of liquor stores as if there are no limits on what a consumer can get. What I see is when I ask a store to bring in a beer or wine that I saw in BC or Ontario the first thing they do is grab the A.L.C.B. list (Alberta Liquor Control Board). If the product is not on the list then the store can't get it. It bothers me that people are saying that there is no government control in Alberta regarding alcohol when the ALCB is still in control. All that privatization has done (in my opinion) is put a beer and wine store on every corner (ugly) and offered decent sales (I just bought a bottle of $3.99 wine). I don't know if this practice has resulted in increased levels of alcoholism, but it sure is easy to get a beer around here.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Beej, it's still state controlled - that's the important point.
> In Quebec, there are active campaigns to inform of the ills of alcohol (be it drink driving or other). This education is achieved via government funds, I highly doubt that the private industry would be generous.


 Nothing stops state involvement with deregulation. From adverstising, to permitting and requirements for in-store ads, there are many options, all of which can be accomplished with deregulation and taxes (and already is done that way, even without deregulation). Deregulating retail and wholesale doesn't mean the state walks away...they haven't even done that for soft drinks.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

mr.steevo said:


> Hi,
> What I see is when I ask a store to bring in a beer or wine that I saw in BC or Ontario the first thing they do is grab the A.L.C.B. list (Alberta Liquor Control Board). If the product is not on the list then the store can't get it.


So are you saying that BC or Ontario have better choice/selections?



mr.steevo said:


> It bothers me that people are saying that there is no government control in Alberta regarding alcohol when the ALCB is still in control. All that privatization has done (in my opinion) is put a beer and wine store on every corner (ugly) and offered decent sales (I just bought a bottle of $3.99 wine).


Does not sound like the ideal environment for consumers....





mr.steevo said:


> but it sure is easy to get a beer around here.


So what advantages would Quebec get by going private? As we already have easy access to beer...


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

iPetie said:


> Both!
> Let me just say that I'm not a union person. The arguments just don't make sense for privatization at this point.


Interesting. I have friends that work in unions that take approximately 10% off the top. Sounds more like a protection racket to me.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Nothing stops state involvement with deregulation. From adverstising, to permitting and requirements for in-store ads, there are many options, all of which can be accomplished with deregulation and taxes (and already is done that way, even without deregulation). Deregulating retail and wholesale doesn't mean the state walks away...they haven't even done that for soft drinks.


So you expect the states to pay for the negative aspects of alcohol consumption? While private industry gets the benefits of selling the stuff?  
In the end with your methods makes it sound like the taxpayer will have to pay for the private industries benefit...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Mugatu said:


> Interesting. I have friends that work in unions that take approximately 10% off the top. Sounds more like a protection racket to me.


You can get a minimum wager to stock the shelves or you can get someone who is better paid to do it. The difference is that with the state employee he may just know the difference wine that's fit for flushing down the toilet and how to enhance your enjoyment of a meal.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

After re-reading this thread and the reports within, I can't seem to find one way that is actually better than the other. They both seem to have their pros and cons. One side likes more control but slightly more cost. The other side likes lower costs and less control. Is one better than the other? Who knows. Good luck finding any sort of factual data to point one way or the other. The costs of privatization or nationalization are so deeply buried and obfuscated by each representative group/government that there is no way to tell who is actually getting the better 'deal'.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> So you expect the states to pay for the negative aspects of alcohol consumption? While private industry gets the benefits of selling the stuff?
> In the end with your methods makes it sound like the taxpayer will have to pay for the private industries benefit...


 The person who buys the alcohol pays for the costs through extra taxes (beyond PST and GST). If you want, you could also add inflated permitting fees and other 'business taxes' to make the business pay, but that gets passed on to the consumers anyway. Regulating the retail and wholesale just hides this so that all taxpayers cover some of the cost (outside of extra taxes), regardless of how much they drink.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> The person who buys the alcohol pays for the costs through extra taxes (beyond PST and GST). If you want, you could also add inflated permitting fees and other 'business taxes' to make the business pay, but that gets passed on to the consumers anyway. Regulating the retail and wholesale just hides this so that all taxpayers cover some of the cost (outside of extra taxes), regardless of how much they drink.


So why go the indirect way with added bureaucracy and the chance for more mess ups ?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Y'know if it ain't broke comes to mind here....

In Ontario is particular energy infrastructure and energy-saving retrofitting, plus fixing Toronto t'would seem much higher priority to deal with. 

Ontario and Quebec are taking different routes than Alberta. Fine...let's move on.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> So why go the indirect way with added bureaucracy and the chance for more mess ups ?


 The regulated way is the indirect way with the chance for more mess-ups. I don't recommend that way. You still require excise taxes (Ontario has them) and advertising (not sure how much Ontario does) and oversight of the government operations but you get all the bureaucratic baggage...retail is not something well suited to governments, things have the potential to change too quickly and innefficiency is constantly appearing, funded by all taxpayers.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> da_j: Whether the MEI is unbiased/credible is in how the studies are done, not whether or not someone likes the topics and/or conclusions, the newspaper that covers the story, and google-related inferences.
> 
> The topics you listed from their website are all valid topics for examination and, if done well, can contribute important perspectives. Simply looking at them and dismissing the MEI would require further knowledge, such as that garnered from reading previous MEI reports and knowing that their research is lacking.
> 
> ...


I would go so far as to say that the MEI lacks credibility because it offers and "Editorial" point of view. While many may argue that Economics is just another social science (with all the baggage) that comes with it, the fact that the provide and "editorial" opinion of their research places it in a very suspect light.

"Op Ed" has no place in serious social research.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> I would go so far as to say that the MEI lacks credibility because it offers and "Editorial" point of view. While many may argue that Economics is just another social science (with all the baggage) that comes with it, the fact that the provide and "editorial" opinion of their research places it in a very suspect light.
> 
> "Op Ed" has no place in serious social research.


 Not quite sure what is meant by 'editorial' and 'op ed'. A good analysis can lead to strong conclusions such as 'this program is a bad idea', which can be entirely credible, depending on the analysis. If it's the way they got the research out through the Post, that's pretty standard now across the think tanks and doesn't really say anything about the quality of research. But, again, could you clarify what you mean? Are you talking about positive versus normative?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> The regulated way is the indirect way with the chance for more mess-ups. I don't recommend that way. You still require excise taxes (Ontario has them) and advertising (not sure how much Ontario does) and oversight of the government operations but you get all the bureaucratic baggage...retail is not something well suited to governments, things have the potential to change too quickly and innefficiency is constantly appearing, funded by all taxpayers.


I disagree... how has the LCBO been a hinderance on society during the course of its existence? How has the Ontario government failed as a retailer? I see a market that is well served, regulated, and profitable. In addition I see competence when it comes to building and maintaining a brand in the LCBO and "The Beer Store".

The move towards privatization has nothing to do with efficiency. If that were the case we would not be having as many issues ourselves with energy costs in Canada (I need only point to the Enron example in California to show that in fact deregulation can lead to long term chronic pain in society).


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> I disagree... how has the LCBO been a hinderance on society during the course of its existence? How has the Ontario government failed as a retailer? I see a market that is well served, regulated, and profitable. In addition I see competence when it comes to building and maintaining a brand in the LCBO and "The Beer Store".
> 
> The move towards privatization has nothing to do with efficiency. If that were the case we would not be having as many issues ourselves with energy costs in Canada (I need only point to the Enron example in California to show that in fact deregulation can lead to long term chronic pain in society).


There's a lot in there to comment on, but I'll try.

LCBO being a hinderance is really about there being a better way to achieve the social goals. Their profits are largely (maybe completely) from their monopoly status not ownership. But I don't know if there's much further to go down this path in this thread. 

While it's fun to bring up Enron as the 'anti dereg' ultimate argument, that ignores far more examples of successful deregulation, ignores Ontario's multi-billion energy debt that, in effect, made energy conservers pay for energy wasters through income taxes, and ignores the huge amount of revenues hydro-provinces are throwing away to appease heavy industry and wasteful consumers, and...well I could go on forever about energy policy -- it's my job.


----------



## mr.steevo (Jul 22, 2005)

Hi AS,

I am not saying that BC and Ont have better choice, only pointing out that Alberta's system is not the free market that some are saying it is. There are products that are not available here and are in other parts of Canada.
As for advantages to Quebec? I can't see any. I went into a liquor store on St. Catherines and it was clean, had good selection, and the prices on wine was a few buck cheaper than the same stuff in Calgary! I don't see either system being better. Just different.
What bothers me is the amount of liquor stores in Edmonton and Calgary. It's a bit much.

s.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> While it's fun to bring up Enron as the 'anti dereg' ultimate argument, that ignores far more examples of successful deregulation, ignores Ontario's multi-billion energy debt that, in effect, made energy conservers pay for energy wasters through income taxes, and ignores the huge amount of revenues hydro-provinces are throwing away to appease heavy industry and wasteful consumers, and...well I could go on forever about energy policy -- it's my job.


Oh no, please go on. It may be your job, but it is our (collective) energy nightmare. I'd love to hear rational argument that can explain to me how an artificially created market around energy re-marketing is better than a crown corporation approach.

I'd love to hear more about how capital investment made with our tax dollars subsidizes energy which is sold to the US and then resold back to us. 

Please, I am all ears... explain to me where we are better off with privatization of "PUBLIC" utilities. And you know what... why not throw in some examples of where it actually works?


----------



## mr.steevo (Jul 22, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> You can get a minimum wager to stock the shelves or you can get someone who is better paid to do it. The difference is that with the state employee he may just know the difference wine that's fit for flushing down the toilet and how to enhance your enjoyment of a meal.


State employee does not mean educated. Finding people who know their wine AND work at a wine store is tough. Over here the best place to buy wine is from the store that is owned by a wine lover who runs the store. Devine Wines on 104 st downtown is quite possibly the best place to buy wine north of Calgary. The three owners work their regular jobs and then come to the wine store to have tastings, share wine at the bar, and talk about their offerings. I can't see a government employee making the same effort. Still, over here there are plenty of clerks that don't know that white wine can come from red grapes. Like I said in my last post, neither system is better IMO, they are just different.

s.

s.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Oh no, please go on. It may be your job, but it is our (collective) energy nightmare. I'd love to hear rational argument that can explain to me how an artificially created market around energy re-marketing is better than a crown corporation approach.
> 
> I'd love to hear more about how capital investment made with our tax dollars subsidizes energy which is sold to the US and then resold back to us.
> 
> Please, I am all ears... explain to me where we are better off with privatization of "PUBLIC" utilities. And you know what... why not throw in some examples of where it actually works?


From the tone, you don't seem to want to listen, but that's a problem with interpreting written conservations. Plus, I'm going too far off topic. 

If you want, start a new thread with more detail on your questions and I'm sure I'll chime in. You'll need more detail on what you mean by 'artificially created market', may not need to ask #2 (the thread with my first post in some gasoline-type discussion has a lot of postings exploring this by a number of ehMacers), #3 is circular, so will require more clarification on what you're getting at. As for examples, if you look past the rhetoric, most of the examples are good, and the bad one(s) that I know of had severe government mismanagement making things worse. Again, if 'Enron' is used to prove that deregulation is bad, I submit 'Ontario' to prove why full government control is bad. Neither argument is complete or adequate.

Cheers, and let's get back to beer-talk.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

mr.steevo said:


> As for advantages to Quebec? I can't see any. I went into a liquor store on St. Catherines and it was clean, had good selection, and the prices on wine was a few buck cheaper than the same stuff in Calgary! I don't see either system being better. Just different.
> What bothers me is the amount of liquor stores in Edmonton and Calgary. It's a bit much.


I did some online price shopping between SAQ and a few Alberta online retailers.
Wine is generally less expensive in Quebec - in some cases really less expensive. When it came to hard liquor, that varied except when it came to single malt - Alberta was less expensive by 5-10$. 
I drink more wine than scotch - so in the end it would likely even out.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

mr.steevo said:


> State employee does not mean educated. Finding people who know their wine AND work at a wine store is tough.


SAQ has training for all people who are "conseillers" - training is good. And, there are wine courses given at the SAQ to consumers.



mr.steevo said:


> Over here the best place to buy wine is from the store that is owned by a wine lover who runs the store. Devine Wines on 104 st downtown is quite possibly the best place to buy wine north of Calgary. The three owners work their regular jobs and then come to the wine store to have tastings,[/QUOTERegular jobs at the store? If they have to work 2 jobs to make the store work, then privatisation does not seem all that good.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> ...retail is not something well suited to governments, things have the potential to change too quickly and innefficiency is constantly appearing, funded by all taxpayers.


I'm all for finding ways to be more efficient. 
Private industry works well in some cases, in others it's really a boondoggle and against market principles. 
Why do some businesses need government assistance? That's more inefficient and cost taxpayers more in the end. Enron is a good example where all pay for corporate greed but we have plenty of home grown examples also. 

Finding the balance between private and public industry is not easy. Why mess with the systems that work?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Profit is not the lodestone - management of a controlled intoxicant is.
> 
> You think the cornerstore is checking customers - Ontario is.
> This from the LCBO website.
> ...


Correlation is not causation. 

Drunk driving is highly correlated with age. Alberta is the youngest province in Canada. You can't just compare numbers from province to province. You need to correct for other factors first (such as age).

Intuitively, do you really think that private sales versus public sales would have an impact? That premise does not make logical sense.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Distribution of something like liquor has so many elements at play that I think it's very hard to pigeon hole it against other "retail" modes of operation.
Once more Ontario and Quebec populace in general seem quite content with most elements from variety to price to store staff knowledge.

Power supply on t'other hand. Quebec seems well positioned and Ontario sucks.
In Ontario much must be laid at the foot of gov 'management" or lack there of and all parties had a hand in the mess.

Without setting out the strategic goals and the preservation of control (or not ) of each sector under consideration it's a bit difficult to assess.

Is Walmart......good.....or bad. Depends on the point of view and who is doing the judging.

If the goal in Ontario and Quebec is to offer a decent variety of booze in a reasonably wide spread and consistent type of outlet while lining the gov pockets with voluntary taxes......and keeping people supporting it and provide some measure of restriction on minors and problem drinkers.......well ....damn well done sirs and madams..


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Intuitively, do you really think that private sales versus public sales would have an impact?


Given what I know of the stresses of small retailers - absolutely.
Selling stamps is one thing ( and you should see the abuses that go on there ) - booze is a complete 'nother animal.

Ask a bartender or owner the consequences of selling booze "unwisely".

You don;t need to "intuit" underage drinking is facilitated by corner stores



> Fact Sheet on the Impact of Privatization
> of State Stores on Pennsylvania Youth
> Over the last couple of years, the Pennsylvania legislature has discussed turning the state liquor stores over to private interests. It is a valid question. However, the issue should also be carefully considered in light of the cost: higher alcohol drinking rates, alcohol related auto crashes and deaths, underage drinking and related problems. Fortunately, vigorous research has been conducted in other states on the impact of privatization on underage drinking. What do we know about the privatization of alcohol sales? We can start with documented facts:
> Underage drinking is a serious problem: The American Public Health Association estimates that 2/3 of high school seniors consumes alcohol, with 1/3 of those being binge drinkers. Nationally, underage youths annually consume over 31 million gallons of wine coolers and 1 billion cans of beer.
> ...


If Alberta is the "youngest" then it should be even MORE concerned with that aspect.
That it has a statistical "heavy drinker" tilt then more again.

But that begs the question - do Albertan's want gov to "moderate" their "habits".

If not...why have drinking age laws at all ????


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

With private sector delivery, you have a choice of the level of service you want. If you go to a place where the employees know wine really well, you will want to shop there. If you just want to grab a 6 pack of Molson, you probably don't care much about the service.

With the government, you only have one option for service levels.  In some cases, governments provide better service than the private sector and in some cases worse, but you don't get a choice and that's what I don't like.

Plus, the disparity between union wages and private sector wages is way too large. It's not fair that taxpayers have to incur these costs. It's especially not fair to the guy who has a similar job and isn't part of the union racket. He has to subsidize the guy getting paid too much.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Who produced the 'fact sheet' on Pennsylvania?


----------



## mr.steevo (Jul 22, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> SAQ has training for all people who are "conseillers" - training is good. And, there are wine courses given at the SAQ to consumers.



Wow, I didn't realize that. This is good to hear.

As for the guys who "work two jobs", I need to clarify. They don't need to work two jobs, they do their day job ( boring stuff) and have the wine store as a hobby. These fellows certainly do not need two jobs to make a living as they have personal collections of wine that is worth more than most houses. They do this because they love wine. Kind of like we like to post and help people with their Macs. We don't do it because we have to.

Got any good wine suggestions? I know my $3.99 comment probably turned you off, but I really had to know what a wine at that price tasted like. I try to stay in the $15-25 range.

s.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Who produced the 'fact sheet' on Pennsylvania?


Not too hard to find when credibility is not an issue.



> Fact Sheet On Sources
> 
> New studies show that any opinion can be backed up with information from the internet.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> Not too hard to find when credibility is not an issue.


It's kind of like Bush's reason for invading Afghanistan and Iraq... God told him to do it. What better source can you cite than god himself? Why do people keep giving Bush all this grief about Iraq?


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Plus, the disparity between union wages and private sector wages is way too large. It's not fair that taxpayers have to incur these costs. It's especially not fair to the guy who has a similar job and isn't part of the union racket. He has to subsidize the guy getting paid too much.


I'll grant that Unions can be, and often are, overly greedy. But have you ever stopped to think what it would be like if you tried to live on minimum wage, or even $10 an hour? If you own a Mac, I can pretty much guarantee you don't work in the wage bracket. Are union wages high? Sure. But private wages are obscenly, disgustingly low. As long as I keep ending up on the losing side of elections, I don't expect minimum wage to be made a livable wage any time soon, but at least the people being paid with my tax dollars are being paid at a moral level.
And you do realise that unionised employees all pay the same taxes as the rest of us, right? They subsidise their own salaries. If anyone has a right to complain, shouldn't it be them?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You guys kill me...you MIGHT make a case on variety, you MIGHT make a case on price to consumer instead you choose to contend "problem and underage drinking control."

Not a good place to make a stand........ 

Do you REALLY claim that a private liquor outlet or system will do as good or better a job at not selling to underage or problem drinkers???........c'mon use your common sense.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> I'll grant that Unions can be, and often are, overly greedy. But have you ever stopped to think what it would be like if you tried to live on minimum wage, or even $10 an hour? If you own a Mac, I can pretty much guarantee you don't work in the wage bracket. Are union wages high? Sure. But private wages are obscenly, disgustingly low. As long as I keep ending up on the losing side of elections, I don't expect minimum wage to be made a livable wage any time soon, but at least the people being paid with my tax dollars are being paid at a moral level.


Minimum wage legislation only hurts people making money on the lower end of the scale. As with most markets, labour is controlled by supply and demand. If you increase the price of labour, the market demands less of it. So, you end causing job losses. This was discussed extensively in a previous thread. If you want to discuss this, I suggest you go there. Or if you want to read about it and come up with your own opinion, I suggest you go to google ("supply and demand" + "minimum wage laws"). Most economists agree with the view I presented above, but not all.

I agree $10 an hour isn't enough to live on. The solution is paying everybody $20 an hour. The solution is tax relief and tax benefits for lower income people. Again, I suggest this discussion go to the previous thread.



RevMatt said:


> And you do realise that unionised employees all pay the same taxes as the rest of us, right? They subsidise their own salaries. If anyone has a right to complain, shouldn't it be them?


No, your logic is flawed. They are tax neutral with respect to their salaries assuming they are delivering the market rate for labour, which they are not. The government is paying many of these people higher than market rates and therefore has to collect higher taxes from everybody else in the economy.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> You guys kill me...you MIGHT make a case on variety, you MIGHT make a case on price to consumer instead you choose to contend "problem and underage drinking control."
> 
> Not a good place to make a stand........
> 
> Do you REALLY claim that a private liquor outlet or system will do as good or better a job at not selling to underage or problem drinkers???........c'mon use your common sense.


Yes, I really believe a private liquor system does a better job.

Just so you know, it is against the law in Alberta for anyone selling liquor NOT to ID anyone they think might be under 25 and inspectors regularly send out 18 to 25 year olds to test the system. If a vendor fails to ID that person and sells them alcohol, they are slapped with a $1,000 fine and have their license to sell suspended for 14 days. Any subsequent breach results in the loss of license.

Same goes for every bar and restaurant server.

The same ID system is in place to monitor the sale of cigarettes in this province. Everywhere you go, you see signs saying,"Excuse us but we ID anyone we think is under 25", and in some cases under 35, as sort of an apology to customers.

I submit that is much tougher than any civil servant union type in a government owned store who has nothing at stake for failing to ID someone.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> I agree $10 an hour isn't enough to live on. The solution is paying everybody $20 an hour. The solution is tax relief and tax benefits for lower income people.


Tax Relief and Tax Benefits? That sounds like GW and Reganomics... and the problem with school of thought is that Tax Breaks and Benefits only work for those who make enough to pay taxes. 

Someone working part time @$10/hour say 30 hours a week for 50 weeks only makes $15 000 when you calculate the basic personal exemption of $13 500 you are only taxed on $1500. Which at the lowest tax bracket would amount to about $300 or so.

So tell me again how tax relief and tax benefits really affect lower incomes?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Minimum wage legislation only hurts people making money on the lower end of the scale. As with most markets, labour is controlled by supply and demand. If you increase the price of labour, the market demands less of it. So, you end causing job losses. This was discussed extensively in a previous thread. If you want to discuss this, I suggest you go there. Or if you want to read about it and come up with your own opinion, I suggest you go to google ("supply and demand" + "minimum wage laws"). Most economists agree with the view I presented above, but not all.


Not this again - I'm still waiting for your studies that do not come from a right-wing group.....






Vandave said:


> I agree $10 an hour isn't enough to live on. The solution is paying everybody $20 an hour. The solution is tax relief and tax benefits for lower income people. Again, I suggest this discussion go to the previous thread.


To you know how much SAQ employees are paid? It's below 20$/hour -
IGA employees that stock the shelves - a little above minimum wage...





Vandave said:


> No, your logic is flawed. They are tax neutral with respect to their salaries assuming they are delivering the market rate for labour, which they are not. The government is paying many of these people higher than market rates and therefore has to collect higher taxes from everybody else in the economy.


No, they are often below decent salaries - if I consider some SAQ employees sommeliers - then they are below market value. 
Your logic is grossly flawed - as a corporation SAQ is MAKING A HEALTHY PROFIT - and contributing the the government coffers... 
The goverment does not collect higher taxes from everyone - the corporation is giving the taxes and profits to the state


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Yes, I really believe a private liquor system does a better job.
> 
> Just so you know, it is against the law in Alberta for anyone selling liquor NOT to ID anyone they think might be under 25 and inspectors regularly send out 18 to 25 year olds to test the system. If a vendor fails to ID that person and sells them alcohol, they are slapped with a $1,000 fine and have their license to sell suspended for 14 days. Any subsequent breach results in the loss of license.



There is NO way you could possibly ever police that many establishments selling liquor. You have to prove it show us the numbers that say underage drinking in Alberta is less than other places in Canada.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Yes, I really believe a private liquor system does a better job.
> 
> Just so you know, it is against the law in Alberta for anyone selling liquor NOT to ID anyone they think might be under 25 and inspectors regularly send out 18 to 25 year olds to test the system. If a vendor fails to ID that person and sells them alcohol, they are slapped with a $1,000 fine and have their license to sell suspended for 14 days. Any subsequent breach results in the loss of license.


LOL - 
When profits are the only motive for a business, I can assure you that the law takes second place....


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> LOL -
> When profits are the only motive for a business, I can assure you that the law takes second place....


That's a rather broad brush you are using AS. I fairly certain that eventhough profit is a high priority for MacDoc, he still follows the law.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

Another quick point, did anyone here actually wait until 18/19 to drink? No? I thought so.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Mugatu said:


> Another quick point, did anyone here actually wait until 18/19 to drink? No? I thought so.


I have friends who waited for the legal age to drink -
I find now that it's costing me the same as when I was younger - I just changed quantity for quality...  

PS - your avatar seems to be mutating...


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

Mugatu said:


> Another quick point, did anyone here actually wait until 18/19 to drink? No? I thought so.


Oi. I did.

Either way this is classic case of a nationalized company being better or worse then making it privatized. You win in some parts, lose in others. Profit isn't bad, gouging is bad, as the only way a company of any sort is to sustain itself is to have money coming in (cost of product + extra to pay employees, rent, etc.)


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> There is NO way you could possibly ever police that many establishments selling liquor. You have to prove it show us the numbers that say underage drinking in Alberta is less than other places in Canada.


 The drinking stats are heavily influenced by other factors (law enforcement, social differences, prices, etc...). For example, I mentioned that alcohol abuse rates are higher in all Western provinces. 

If your goal is social, the regulated stores are not the way to accomplish it. You need education programs, strong law enforcement, etc...you need many things, as well as a good awareness of how cultures and urbanization change what programs will work best. 

If your goal is $, they are not the way to accomplish it...this one is pretty simple. 

If your goal is wage injustice, they are not the way to accomplish it, unless your goal is just wage injustice in the liquor retailing business.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Tax Relief and Tax Benefits? That sounds like GW and Reganomics... and the problem with school of thought is that Tax Breaks and Benefits only work for those who make enough to pay taxes.
> 
> Someone working part time @$10/hour say 30 hours a week for 50 weeks only makes $15 000 when you calculate the basic personal exemption of $13 500 you are only taxed on $1500. Which at the lowest tax bracket would amount to about $300 or so.
> 
> So tell me again how tax relief and tax benefits really affect lower incomes?


By tax benefits I also meant subsidies (say on heating, electricity, etc...).

You're correct that tax rates are already quite low for low income people so further tax cuts don't help too much, but even $300 is good.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Not this again - I'm still waiting for your studies that do not come from a right-wing group.....


You got pwned so badly in the other thread and you don't know it.

If you honestly did a bit of research on this and did a google search you will find that the majority of economists (not biased) agree that minimum wage legislation reduces jobs. But instead you only search/quote for studies that support your point of view. I could find a study that says the earth is flat, but it doesn't make it right. 

Spend 1/2 hour researching it and you'll be forced to agree. Anyways, if you want to continue on this sidetrack I suggest the other thread is the place to do it.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> I could find a study that says the earth is flat, but it doesn't make it right.


http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/FlatWhyFlat.htm



> Obviously, the world is static, the fixed center of the Universe. The sun, planets and stars all revolve around it (although not necessarily in circular paths), in a plane level with the flat Earth.


This is a complex argument with many perspectives, and we'll have to agree to disagree about the earth's flatness because it is too complex to resolve with opposing evidence forwarded by biased advocates of their individual causes.


----------



## mr.steevo (Jul 22, 2005)

Hi,

This is stupid. If the world is flat then why are there hills?
Not very flat now, is it?
s.




I need some wine suggestions here.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mr.steevo said:


> Hi,
> 
> This is stupid. If the world is flat then why are there hills?
> Not very flat now, is it?
> ...


Katabwa. By the gallon. It'll keep those stupid flat ideas alive!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

mr.steevo said:


> Hi,
> 
> This is stupid. If the world is flat then why are there hills?
> Not very flat now, is it?
> ...


A slightly chilled Canadian merlot is always nice and goes with almost any food.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> You got pwned so badly in the other thread and you don't know it.
> 
> If you honestly did a bit of research on this and did a google search you will find that the majority of economists (not biased) agree that minimum wage legislation reduces jobs. But instead you only search/quote for studies that support your point of view. I could find a study that says the earth is flat, but it doesn't make it right.
> 
> Spend 1/2 hour researching it and you'll be forced to agree. Anyways, if you want to continue on this sidetrack I suggest the other thread is the place to do it.


Please Vandave - now you are making me laugh..... 
Forced to agree with what? You could not even back up your claims...
You are the one side-tracking with illusions of you minimum wage claims gathered from economics 101 remedial...

I pity the engineering profession if this is the kind of arguments you can come up with... not very versatile there...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

mr.steevo said:


> I need some wine suggestions here.


The joy is discovering wines you like - there are no wrong choices.

Between 15-20$ you will find wine that I qualify as "drink now" - meaning decent "vin de table".
Next is discovering the type of wine you like - Europeans are usually more subtle, American and Australians more "in your face" (overly oaked or fruity).
From Australia:
Koonunga Hill - Penfolds - Shiraz/Cabernet, 2002
Bin 888 - Wyndham Estate - Carbenet/Merlot, 2002

From Italy:
Allegrini Valpolicella- classico Italy 2004 (get the 2003 if you can)
Castiglioni Frescobaldi Chianti Italy 2004
Fontanafredda Barbera-D'Alba Italy 2003

From the US:
Ca'del Solo Big House Red Californie 2003 (either you'll like or hate)
Cabernet Sauvignon Beaulieu Vineyard Coastal Californie 2001
Cabernet Sauvignon Private Selection Mondavi North Coast 2001


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

I have yet to find a wine I enjoy as much as Iniskillin Pinot Noir. That probably marks my status on the social ladder, but I can live with that


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Please Vandave - now you are making me laugh.....
> Forced to agree with what? You could not even back up your claims...
> You are the one side-tracking with illusions of you minimum wage claims gathered from economics 101 remedial...
> 
> I pity the engineering profession if this is the kind of arguments you can come up with... not very versatile there...


 I agree with Vandave's general assessment of the economic assessment of minimum wages (pretty well known, always some variety of opinion). So are my 'illusions' gathered from economics 101 remedial? Hint: if your instant reaction is to say yes, read some of my posts in the forum Vandave referred to. Maybe a good label would counter what I say...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> So are my 'illusions' gathered from economics 101 remedial?


Not even in the same class. 
BTW, never said thanks for the "Shell" document - good read.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> BTW, never said thanks for the "Shell" document - good read.


You're welcome, glad you liked it.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> Alberta is paying dearly for liquor privatization


A few notes of interest:

This article is copyrighted, but there is no link or attribution.

This article is from 2003.

This article is from the National Union of Public and General Employees website (http://www.nupge.ca/news_2003/n04jn03c.htm).


----------



## mr.steevo (Jul 22, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> The joy is discovering wines you like - there are no wrong choices.
> 
> Between 15-20$ you will find wine that I qualify as "drink now" - meaning decent "vin de table".
> Next is discovering the type of wine you like - Europeans are usually more subtle, American and Australians more "in your face" (overly oaked or fruity).
> ...



Hi,

Now the test will be to see if I can find those wines in Alberta. The Australia's are everywhere, and I am pretty sure I have seen two of the three Italian's around here. We will see.

I enjoy a Merlot from Hester Creek, a BC company. Last time I asked it wasn't in the ALCB book so no luck finding it in "free Alberta market". Vineland in Ont. makes great icewines and the 2002 Cab is, in my mouth, amazingly complex for under $20. It may be too much for your tastes, AS, if you prefer the Europeans. Oh yeah, difficult to find here as well. I also take pleasure from McCrostie Chardonnay's but have not been able to find it here either. Portugal makes fantastic wines but for some reason they are difficult to find in any of the regions of Canada I have visited. 

Anyway, thanks for the suggestions. The Ca'del Solo Big House Red sounds interesting!

And for fun I will try to post the prices for all your wines and you can compare with Quebec prices. I am not convinced that Alberta has the advantage.

s.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I haven't actually read ALL of this thread just yet....

Only the first and Last few pages.

It starts out as a rant from some of the more reticent and unrepentant leftish types here...and ends up as a discussion of "what wines are best"? 

Bottom line? Back to simple reality here?

-Private liquor sales and distribution seems to work MUCH better than the government controlled version. And it actually results in lower prices and higher revenue for all involved. Including the provincial government.

(Pretty much EVERY jusrisdiction in pretty much EVERY part of the rest of the world has already figured this out. And moved ON! Long ago.)

-No grossly overpaid coddled union types running the cash registers while buying several extra houses and renting them out to those who are not fortunate enough to have scored a fat cat government union job...actual market realities dictating both wages and prices...and NO STRIKES!

And most all jurisdictions have also reported fewer alcohol-related crimes...because it is now available 24-7-365. Instead of at just a few government controlled facilities at bankers hours.

Translation (for those who may be slow on the uptake here):

Cheaper prices at the till while the provincial government rakes in even MORE money than before! With FAR less bureaucracy. And less problems, too!

Win-win, all around.

Unless you happen to be one of those overpaid unionised cash register drones who owns several houses and has to pay the bills for a smallish personal empire based on a government union job that amounts to getting paid a small fortune for just stacking shelves and punching keys on a computerised cash register.

If so...then you are out of luck. Sorry about that.

Welcome to the real world.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> And it actually results in lower prices and higher revenue for all involved.
> 
> And most all jurisdictions have also reported fewer alcohol-related crimes...because it is now available 24-7-365. Instead of at just a few government controlled facilities at bankers hours.


Interesting points. Did you have some study links for us to read? 

While I support privatization of alcohol retail and wholesale, I would still like to see some good studies on the: lower prices and lower alcohol related crimes. I know there's a lot of inconclusive 'correlation is proof' type rhetoric flying around the web, but do you know of real studies examining the multiple factors of this issue?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> Welcome to the real world.


There seems to be a blur between someone's real world and reality. Spewing half-baked rhetoric without reading any of the discussion just shows that you prefer to repeat your very neo-con agenda without thinking. 
Well done MacNutt, a true sign of the right wing who prefer mind numb robots over thinking humans!


----------



## mr.steevo (Jul 22, 2005)

Hi,

"overpaid coddled union types running the cash registers while buying several extra houses and renting them out to those who are not fortunate enough to have scored a fat cat government union job"

Wow.

Anyway, the Penfolds is $16.49, Bin 888 is $17.49. I couldn't find the Italian wines you listed. The Big House Red is $20.49 but is out of stock at my local store. The other US wines couldn't be found at that store. I am interested how the prices compare to Montreal prices.

s.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

mr.steevo said:


> Hi,
> 
> "overpaid coddled union types running the cash registers while buying several extra houses and renting them out to those who are not fortunate enough to have scored a fat cat government union job"
> 
> Wow.


That was a nice quote. 

I didn't request reasoning and/or justification for the 'several extra houses' statement becaues I figured it was mostly venting based on the concept of inflated wages in, for example, the LCBO in Ontario. It doesn't seem worth debating the difference between inflating someone's wage by $1-$6 per hour, and the quoted statement. 

I think we all accept that each individual has their own balance between rhetoric, fact, feelings and truth which creates very entertaining, and sometimes frustrating, conversations.

As someone completely ignorant of wines, what are one or two quick <$40 per bottle reds that will be enjoyed with red meat (barbeque/roast beef etc...) by a wide variety of people? I'm sure this advice will come in handy on the occasion that Stella isn't enough. Of course, if Stella Artois isn't enough, do I really want those people as company?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I find it amusing that "over paid coddled" applies to workers but never to the winemakers.....hmm grape juice and glass = $40 a bottle..and then HOW MUCH for a glass of Stella Artois hops and water!!!!! 

But "pay a living wage" to an employee.......oh big kerfluffle..

Just WHERE should the complaint about "coddled" lie one wonders????? 

If you're so concerned about getting your $$$ worth - make your own damn booze


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> As someone completely ignorant of wines, what are one or two quick <$40 per bottle reds that will be enjoyed with red meat (barbeque/roast beef etc...) by a wide variety of people? I'm sure this advice will come in handy on the occasion that Stella isn't enough. Of course, if Stella Artois isn't enough, do I really want those people as company?


Wolfblass reds are all very good. I find most people enjoy their wines. You're looking at around $15 to $25 per bottle.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> I find it amusing that "over paid coddled" applies to workers but never to the winemakers.....hmm grape juice and glass = $40 a bottle..and then HOW MUCH for a glass of Stella Artois hops and water!!!!!
> 
> But "pay a living wage" to an employee.......oh big kerfluffle..
> 
> ...


 I don't understand, please explain again for us (me) confused folk.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Vandave said:


> Wolfblass reds are all very good. I find most people enjoy their wines. You're looking at around $15 to $25 per bottle.


I still find very well priced Merlots (cdn and french) for about $10 / bottle
just put them in the fridge to take the edge off their "youthful exhuberance"

they stand up well to meat and are light enough to drink throughout a meal / evening

I usually buy 1.5 litre bottle for about $18
never had any complaints

I like finding good value


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

mr.steevo said:


> Anyway, the Penfolds is $16.49, Bin 888 is $17.49. I couldn't find the Italian wines you listed. The Big House Red is $20.49 but is out of stock at my local store. The other US wines couldn't be found at that store. I am interested how the prices compare to Montreal prices.


Big House Red = 18.50$
Bin 888 = 18.00$


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Beej don't you find it just a touch ironic that those complaining about liquor store staff wages don't think twice about $40 bottles of wine???


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Wolfblass reds are all very good. I find most people enjoy their wines. You're looking at around $15 to $25 per bottle.


For people just switching to wine and wanting to try something more they are great - these wines are overly sweet and fruity - perfect for those you like coke with their meals.

Vandave this is not an insult - there has to be a transition wine from say "Baby Duck" to something more refined and Wolf Blass are great for that.

macdoc, there is a wine makers joke that goes like this:
How do you make a small fortune wine making?
Start with a large fortune....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

macdoc, you have never heard me complain about the pay of employees - 

and yes I routinely buy 40$+ bottles of wine - if it's a debate if quality is proportional to price, the answer is no (although if can be related) - next time your in Montreal I have a nice bottle of Artist Series we can try....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Beej don't you find it just a touch ironic that those complaining about liquor store staff wages don't think twice about $40 bottles of wine???


Not at all, you're comparing apples to er...grapes.

Barley and grapes are different, alcohol contents are different, prestige values are different (a really good beer will get you $1 per bottle extra, for wine the sky's the limit) and, well, you get the idea. 

The real comparison is retail clerks with varying knowledge of what they are selling, not some comparison of the base materials that go into the drinks (that would ignore enormous distinctions). 

If you want further explanation of why this is, no problem, just ask, but I think it's fairly clear why $40 bottles of wine and liquor store staff wages are not as closely connected as some may want. How much should futureshop salespeople get? Car salespeople? Groceries? It's really about the skills needed to sell, and you need very few skills to sell alcohol except in specialized restaurants and stores that cater to specific consumer groups.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> For people just switching to wine and wanting to try something more they are great - these wines are overly sweet and fruity - perfect for those you like coke with their meals.
> 
> Vandave this is not an insult - there has to be a transition wine from say "Baby Duck" to something more refined and Wolf Blass are great for that.
> 
> ...


Wine SNOB!!!! LOL, just kid'n.

Yes, Wolfblass is sweet and fruity. I'm not an expert on wine but I know what I like when I taste it and Wolfblass is one of my faves. Most people that have tried Wolfblass are satisified and come back for more.

Are you in the wine business?

And no, I don't like Coke with meals. Yuck.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Wine SNOB!!!! LOL, just kid'n.
> 
> Yes, Wolfblass is sweet and fruity. I'm not an expert on wine but I know what I like when I taste it and Wolfblass is one of my faves. Most people that have tried Wolfblass are satisified and come back for more.
> 
> ...


I prefer wino....  

[off topic]
The point that I was trying to make is that wines such as the Wolf Blass line are great for those wanting to drink something more than plonk at a reasonable price. Their quality control is great and the wines are consistent from year to year. Only by tasting many types and brands of wines will you discover the "one" for you. Discovering the joys of wine and food is something that is easier with Wolf Blass than Baby Duck. 

On a regular basis I dine with friends and we sit down with many bottles of wine ranging from 8$ to 250$ per bottle. Over the years, I have seen palettes develop mostly because of getting to try all these wines and a curiosity. There is no "snobbism" involved as the real joy is sharing the wine and good times. Montreal has many BYOW restaurants so it's also a joy to discover pairings - still have not found the perfect poutine wine but we are working on it.


My personal taste for wine is fruity also (rich and extracted is the snob words). I'm a fan of certain California Cabs (Opus One, Caymus Special Selection, Beringer Special Private reserve) and Australians but appreciate the more subtle Europeans (Italians lately).


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

AS indeed you take the appropriate approach....Beej on the other hand seems still to miss the irony given the source(s) of the "pleasures" under consideration.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> On a regular basis I dine with friends and we sit down with many bottles of wine ranging from 8$ to 250$ per bottle. Over the years, I have seen palettes develop mostly because of getting to try all these wines and a curiosity. There is no "snobbism" involved as the real joy is sharing the wine and good times.


The use of the 250$ ($ sign behind the numerals) and the "s" instead of "z" in some spellings might lead me to believe you may be from the UK?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> AS indeed you take the appropriate approach....Beej on the other hand seems still to miss the irony given the source(s) of the "pleasures" under consideration.


 Edumacate me, dear leader.


----------

