Bought a reasonable bottle of brandy at my local Safeway to celebrate.

Why do people think privatizing something is good? If something is run by the government the costs are cost of labor and cost of product. If you let private industry take over the costs are those plus the cost of profit. Privatization is inherently inefficient and really shouldn't be encouraged.

7of7: Why do people think privatizing something is good? If something is run by the government the costs are cost of labor and cost of product. If you let private industry take over the costs are those plus the cost of profit. Privatization is inherently inefficient and really shouldn't be encouraged.

Actually, quite a few folks here, including myself, feel the same way. I voted against it. But, Costco spent more than enough money to ensure that it happened, and so we're stuck with the situation.

What's worse, of course, is that the state's still screwed - they're busily chasing folks who bid, and then didn't pay for, 18 state liquor store locations at auction.

Nah, it'll take a bit of time until folks realize that they've been screwed here, but until then it's time to stock up.

7of7: Why do people think privatizing something is good? If something is run by the government the costs are cost of labor and cost of product. If you let private industry take over the costs are those plus the cost of profit. Privatization is inherently inefficient and really shouldn't be encouraged.

Well, that's one way to run it, but WA was using it as a profit center for the state. I lived there during the vote, and one of the main arguments for keeping it was the revenue.

Wangiss: but WA was using it as a profit center for the state.

This. The state had quite a bit of markup on it, not to mention they also dealt with the bars and lounges at the same cost. I don't believe they allowed outside distributors before. I could be wrong on that.

7of7: Why do people think privatizing something is good? If something is run by the government the costs are cost of labor and cost of product. If you let private industry take over the costs are those plus the cost of profit. Privatization is inherently inefficient and really shouldn't be encouraged.

Right, because having the state as the sole vendor for some booze doesn't mean that the state can charge whatever they want and milk it as a revenue stream. Privatization won't bring competition and lower prices as a result, oh no!

Privatization isn't the answer to everything, but giving the state a monopoly on certain types of booze was farking stupid in the first place. I cannot think of a single legitimate reason to keep it that way other than using it as a revenue stream. If the government is going to be the sole vendor of a commodity then there had better be a damned good reason for that.

Good luck. WA may find that having is not as good as wanting. Or find a way to manage it for the betterment of all. Other states do not have state run stores. Maybe WA officials can do some fact finding and get an idea of how to manage the new situation.

We interrupt this mature deliberation on the proper management of alcohol sales to bring you:


/Honestly, is this fella leaking or FAPPING? It should be a photshop contest.

7of7: Why do people think privatizing something is good? If something is run by the government the costs are cost of labor and cost of product. If you let private industry take over the costs are those plus the cost of profit. Privatization is inherently inefficient and really shouldn't be encouraged.

ROFL
do you NOT understand how competition works?
do you NOT understand that nationwide chains have more buying power than a small state?
do you REALLY think that government is actually efficient ?

/yes government is required for a large number of things, but selling commodities? fark no

FTA: "They (the taxes) haven't changed since state control. They are still a 20.5 percent sales tax plus a (flat) $3.7708 per liter," Smith wrote in an email Friday.
things have gotten out of control

this shiat should be priced just like gas, with the taxes already included on the shelf price.

FormlessOne: What's worse, of course, is that the state's still screwed - they're busily chasing folks who bid, and then didn't pay for, 18 state liquor store locations at auction.

why? why are they involved in this at all?
plus, everyone I know who buys liquor from costco is always happy with great prices.
so WHY is costco selling booze a problem again??

RadioAaron: Wangiss: but WA was using it as a profit center for the state.

This. The state had quite a bit of markup on it, not to mention they also dealt with the bars and lounges at the same cost. I don't believe they allowed outside distributors before. I could be wrong on that.

SHUDDER
dont get me wrong, but I live in a state with distributors. shudder.
why do we need a middle man? why cant a bar buy direct/mail order/what not?
the insanity of states' rights liquor laws is hilarious. Trying to make sense of 50 different experiments???

Having lived in California for most of my life the idea of a state liquor store as the sole source of alcoholic drinks always struck me as odd and a silly holdover from Prohibition. Monopolies are generally a bad thing, right?

by state - with maps

Um, . . . welcome to the 20th century?

You've already legislated what you can and cannot do with alcohol. Who cares what time, where, and on what day it is sold?

Under the Illinois Beer Industry Fair Dealing Act (815 Illinois Compiled Statutes 720/1-10), Bell's Brewery had to distribute its product in Illinois through Chicago Beverage Systems or not at all.

the idea that the only way to sell its beer in illinois was to use one private distributor?
talk about kleptocracy

I'm ok with gov't dealing with utilities and such provided they keep things affordable for the average folk. I'm not ok with them controlling items people can ingest. To be clear I'm totally ok with rules against counterfeit drugs and contaminated meat. Just keep the gov't hands off my wine =/.

7of7: f you let private industry take over the costs are those plus the cost of profit. Privatization is inherently inefficient and really shouldn't be encouraged.

I remember when I lived for a couple years in Washington state being rather stunned at how high the prices were and that there weren't any sales ever.

namatad: the idea that the only way to sell its beer in illinois was to use one private distributor?

The influence of the late Bill Wertz. It was funny, within a couple months of his death the number of beers available in Chicago increased by a ton.

ladyfortuna: I'm ok with gov't dealing with utilities and such provided they keep things affordable for the average folk. I'm not ok with them controlling items people can ingest. To be clear I'm totally ok with rules against counterfeit drugs and contaminated meat. Just keep the gov't hands off my wine =/.

I'm OK with the government controlling what we tell them to control. This really is not the case anymore. The disconnect between the people and its elected officials is astounding.

/you still need me to help you move?
//I'm moving next weekend and I could really use you to return the offer

namatad: RadioAaron: Wangiss: but WA was using it as a profit center for the state.

This. The state had quite a bit of markup on it, not to mention they also dealt with the bars and lounges at the same cost. I don't believe they allowed outside distributors before. I could be wrong on that.

SHUDDER
dont get me wrong, but I live in a state with distributors. shudder.
why do we need a middle man? why cant a bar buy direct/mail order/what not?
the insanity of states' rights liquor laws is hilarious. Trying to make sense of 50 different experiments???

wtf how many states do you live in?

imprimere: ladyfortuna: I'm ok with gov't dealing with utilities and such provided they keep things affordable for the average folk. I'm not ok with them controlling items people can ingest. To be clear I'm totally ok with rules against counterfeit drugs and contaminated meat. Just keep the gov't hands off my wine =/.

I'm OK with the government controlling what we tell them to control. This really is not the case anymore. The disconnect between the people and its elected officials is astounding.

/you still need me to help you move?
//I'm moving next weekend and I could really use you to return the offer

W.T.F.

One good thing about Illinois is that the state doesn't regulate liquor licenses, that's up to each municipality to deal with. So if a particular one wants to hand out liquor licenses for a few hundred a pop to anyone who wants one? They can do that. Also the state has no set hours for liquor sales. If a municipality wants to allow 24 hour sales and/or 24 hour bars, they can do that.

I'm scotching my ass off tonight...



/yeah baby

And let balls-out enterprising boys lament!

For I was such. At 17 I looked to be a man in his 20's. And yet now that I am entering 40 *shudder*, most women think I am in my late 20's or mid-30's

So awesome for me and the profit I got walking out with basketfuls of liquor claiming to have "lost my ID" and reselling to my buddies at a decent markup courtesy of the minimum-wage cashiers at the State Run Liquor Stores.

In fact it wasn't until I got "popped" by a badge waving Vice Agent while selling a sheet of acid around a group of 20 other teens that I decided to grow up a bi and deal through intermediaries -- awesome heads up guys. Never once got busted.

So sad for those who now have to deal with educated student-grade cashiers that aren't total retards and who actually treats the War on Drugs as a legitimate action against the populace.

WhyteRaven74: One good thing about Illinois is that the state doesn't regulate liquor licenses, that's up to each municipality to deal with. So if a particular one wants to hand out liquor licenses for a few hundred a pop to anyone who wants one? They can do that. Also the state has no set hours for liquor sales. If a municipality wants to allow 24 hour sales and/or 24 hour bars, they can do that.

Hooray for progressive minarchy!

JonBuck: Having lived in California for most of my life the idea of a state liquor store as the sole source of alcoholic drinks always struck me as odd and a silly holdover from Prohibition. Monopolies are generally a bad thing, right?

Well, you can buy beer and wine at the normal locations in Oregon. Hard alcohol is only at state stores. It is really no big deal, unless you are drinking a lot of hard liquor, I suppose. I don't really see any ground swell of support to privatize hard liquor sales here, or to have self serve gasoline.

Wangiss: 7of7: Why do people think privatizing something is good? If something is run by the government the costs are cost of labor and cost of product. If you let private industry take over the costs are those plus the cost of profit. Privatization is inherently inefficient and really shouldn't be encouraged.

Well, that's one way to run it, but WA was using it as a profit center for the state. I lived there during the vote, and one of the main arguments for keeping it was the revenue.

Check that again fellows. Even the anti campaign eventually admitted there would no no net revenue shortfall.

http://reason.org/news/show/washington -liquor-privatization

This initiative is revenue positive for the state. They end up with more net income after new liquor license fees and taxes are accounted for. Don't get mad at me, its all spelled out in the link. The state ends up with more money after this initiative, not less.

namatad: FormlessOne: What's worse, of course, is that the state's still screwed - they're busily chasing folks who bid, and then didn't pay for, 18 state liquor store locations at auction.

why? why are they involved in this at all?
plus, everyone I know who buys liquor from costco is always happy with great prices.
so WHY is costco selling booze a problem again??

The problem is, I think, that they're still not sure it's actually going to be cheaper since they added new taxes and the distribution is still pretty limited.

I personally think state run liquor stores are stupid. I wish they'd privatize sales here in Oregon (use the California model). The system we have now hasn't changed since the end of prohibition.

JonBuck: Having lived in California for most of my life the idea of a state liquor store as the sole source of alcoholic drinks always struck me as odd and a silly holdover from Prohibition. Monopolies are generally a bad thing, right?

I'm also from California and I spent 2 years in Boston for grad school. It was weird the first time I went into a gas station minimart and realized that the beer section was missing, even though I rarely drink beer.

Privatization is the way to go if you do it right. Sounds to me like Washington did it wrong. They had a monopoly, and they handed it to a private business. Since there is no competition, the people won't see anything improvement and there's a good chance of things being even worse.

Competition means a better selection and lower prices. Go to a liquor store here in California. Don't like the selection? Not a problem, there are plenty of other places around and you shouldn't have any problem finding someone to sell you that hard to find wine or whiskey you like.

/Correct me if I am wrong about how Washington handled privatization

ladyfortuna: imprimere: ladyfortuna: I'm ok with gov't dealing with utilities and such provided they keep things affordable for the average folk. I'm not ok with them controlling items people can ingest. To be clear I'm totally ok with rules against counterfeit drugs and contaminated meat. Just keep the gov't hands off my wine =/.

I'm OK with the government controlling what we tell them to control. This really is not the case anymore. The disconnect between the people and its elected officials is astounding.

/you still need me to help you move?
//I'm moving next weekend and I could really use you to return the offer

W.T.F.

Oh my... you really are too easy.

JohnBigBootay: Wangiss: 7of7: Why do people think privatizing something is good? If something is run by the government the costs are cost of labor and cost of product. If you let private industry take over the costs are those plus the cost of profit. Privatization is inherently inefficient and really shouldn't be encouraged.

Well, that's one way to run it, but WA was using it as a profit center for the state. I lived there during the vote, and one of the main arguments for keeping it was the revenue.

Check that again fellows. Even the anti campaign eventually admitted there would no no net revenue shortfall.

http://reason.org/news/show/washington -liquor-privatization

This initiative is revenue positive for the state. They end up with more net income after new liquor license fees and taxes are accounted for. Don't get mad at me, its all spelled out in the link. The state ends up with more money after this initiative, not less.

That doesn't counter what anyone said. They were using it as a revenue source. The bill for the transition had to be rev-neutral to pass in WA, so they padded it with new taxes and fees. That doesn't mean liquor had zero markup before the bill.

ladyfortuna: imprimere: ladyfortuna: I'm ok with gov't dealing with utilities and such provided they keep things affordable for the average folk. I'm not ok with them controlling items people can ingest. To be clear I'm totally ok with rules against counterfeit drugs and contaminated meat. Just keep the gov't hands off my wine =/.

I'm OK with the government controlling what we tell them to control. This really is not the case anymore. The disconnect between the people and its elected officials is astounding.

/you still need me to help you move?
//I'm moving next weekend and I could really use you to return the offer

W.T.F.

Whoops... I think I really did mix you up after all. I will cease and desist.

imprimere: ladyfortuna: imprimere:
/you still need me to help you move?
//I'm moving next weekend and I could really use you to return the offer

W.T.F.

Oh my... you really are too easy.

No, I really don't give a shiat. Stop bothering me.

OgreMagi: Competition means a better selection and lower prices.

Plus great variety. Around here we have these stores called Binny's that sell, well, pretty much everything. If you want a $4 bottle of wine, they have plenty. Want an $800 bottle of cognac? They have a few options. Want a Japanese beer not named Sapporo? They have that.

Wangiss: 7of7: Why do people think privatizing something is good? If something is run by the government the costs are cost of labor and cost of product. If you let private industry take over the costs are those plus the cost of profit. Privatization is inherently inefficient and really shouldn't be encouraged.

Well, that's one way to run it, but WA was using it as a profit center for the state. I lived there during the vote, and one of the main arguments for keeping it was the revenue.

So, the government has already established the maximum price the market will bear, that also maximizes turnover. What gives you the idea prices in privately owned shops will be lower? Also, I'm reading about an auction that was held for licenses. So the government already has their take; the shops now have to make it back, plus tack on their own profits.Well, at least the state-run stores can be shut down, so the government can save some money on salaries, right? Not really, because those store employees will now have to be replaced by inspectors, to make sure the private shops abide by public policy.

That's not to say nothing should be privatized; but each case should be judged on its merits, and thought through carefully, not decided on broad rhetoric. Personally, I feel that profits being siphoned off into the pockets of private industry (and bribed politicians) is probably worth it if it means you can buy alcohol 24 hours a day at Walmart or other fine establishments.

(Such a scenario is of course unlikely with roads, railways, energy production and electricity grids, etc.)

Now if only they would lighten up in Pennsylvania too.

/doesn't live in PA
//regular visitor, though

"What gives you the idea prices in privately owned shops will be lower?"

Probably the fact that prices in privately owned shops are lower.

Surprise, surprise: It's more expensive and the selection sucks.

Maybe it'll get better, but I couldn't find a good bottle of Rye Whiskey at my local grocery store and the price of a bottle of Jack Daniel's was about $2 more than the old state-run liquor stores. Not to mention that the prices on the shelves are misleading. "Oh, 19.99 for Jack! That's better than before." Then you get to the register and they add on $6 in liquor taxes.

WhyteRaven74: OgreMagi: Competition means a better selection and lower prices.

Plus great variety. Around here we have these stores called Binny's that sell, well, pretty much everything. If you want a $4 bottle of wine, they have plenty. Want an $800 bottle of cognac? They have a few options. Want a Japanese beer not named Sapporo? They have that.

In WA we already had all of that in the state stores. Now the grocery stores only carry the mostly popular spirits, leading to less variety. In the state-run stores there was a wide, if standardized, selection, now there's what they think they can sell the most of. Again, maybe it'll get better as time passes, I heard from several stores today that they're still expanding their stock, but just the space set aside in most stores for liquor is far smaller than the state-run stores was. I haven't yet hit up any of the old stores which have been leased out to private owners, maybe they still have the same old selection, but I'm pretty disappointed with the grocery store/big box store selection so far.

Wangiss:
That doesn't counter what anyone said. They were using it as a revenue source. The bill for the transition had to be rev-neutral to pass in WA, so they padded it with new taxes and fees. That doesn't mean liquor had zero markup before the bill.

TFA:"They (the taxes) haven't changed since state control. They are still a 20.5 percent sales tax plus a (flat) $3.7708 per liter," Smith wrote in an email Friday

7of7: If something is run by the government the costs are cost of labor and cost of product. If you let private industry take over the costs are those plus the cost of profit.

From TFA:
On Friday, a quick review of prices found that 1.75 liters of Black Velvet whiskey was priced at $15.09 at Safeway; $13.59 at Fred Meyer; $19.47 at Walmart and $18.99 at Walgreens, all before tax. The same product and size formerly was priced at $26.45 in state-run liquor stores.

Given that, and your explanation of the economics of the situation, these private business must have labor costs that are $7-$13 lower per bottle than the state. Apparently I was missing the "free handjob with every six bottles" sign at the state-owned liquor store.

A Non Amos: We interrupt this mature deliberation on the proper management of alcohol sales to bring you:
[columbian.media.clients.ellingtoncms .com image 640x425]

/Honestly, is this fella leaking or FAPPING? It should be a photshop contest.

He appears to be a lefty, with a little cupping action from the right hand. Can ya blame him?

RadioAaron: Wangiss: but WA was using it as a profit center for the state.

This. The state had quite a bit of markup on it, not to mention they also dealt with the bars and lounges at the same cost. I don't believe they allowed outside distributors before. I could be wrong on that.

The state had some markup, but that markup's still the same. The taxes haven't changed at all, there's just more bureaucracy involved because now the taxes have to be collected from private stores.

7of7: Why do people think privatizing something is good? If something is run by the government the costs are cost of labor and cost of product. If you let private industry take over the costs are those plus the cost of profit. Privatization is inherently inefficient and really shouldn't be encouraged.

Correct

Though try explaining that to a economically-challenged GOPer....who cannot understand that it will cost the government MORE to privatize, because, unlike the government, a private company must make a profit to survive...something the government does not have to do

WhyteRaven74: OgreMagi: Competition means a better selection and lower prices.

Plus great variety. Around here we have these stores called Binny's that sell, well, pretty much everything. If you want a $4 bottle of wine, they have plenty. Want an $800 bottle of cognac? They have a few options. Want a Japanese beer not named Sapporo? They have that.

Last week I needed to get a good bottle of whiskey as a gift. The store (BevMo) had the usual $20 stuff and a very nice selection of increasingly more expensive choices. I picked up a higher end 18 year old Glenlivet. If I was insane, I could have picked up a $700 bottle of a whiskey that must feel like a beej when you drink it (why else would anyone pay that much?).

The first initiative to years ago was a much better proposal than the current law.

profplump: 7of7: If something is run by the government the costs are cost of labor and cost of product. If you let private industry take over the costs are those plus the cost of profit.

From TFA:
On Friday, a quick review of prices found that 1.75 liters of Black Velvet whiskey was priced at $15.09 at Safeway; $13.59 at Fred Meyer; $19.47 at Walmart and $18.99 at Walgreens, all before tax. The same product and size formerly was priced at $26.45 in state-run liquor stores.

Given that, and your explanation of the economics of the situation, these private business must have labor costs that are $7-$13 lower per bottle than the state. Apparently I was missing the "free handjob with every six bottles" sign at the state-owned liquor store.

I think those prices are shelf prices, and therefore misleading. As I said in an earlier post, they charge the state taxes at the register. That $13.59 will probably become about $20. The $18.99 roughly $25. Still cheaper, I guess, but not by as much as the shelf price makes one think.

AverageAmericanGuy: The first initiative to years ago was a much better proposal than the current law.

Two years ago

UCFRoadWarrior: 7of7: Why do people think privatizing something is good? If something is run by the government the costs are cost of labor and cost of product. If you let private industry take over the costs are those plus the cost of profit. Privatization is inherently inefficient and really shouldn't be encouraged.

Correct

Though try explaining that to a economically-challenged GOPer....who cannot understand that it will cost the government MORE to privatize, because, unlike the government, a private company must make a profit to survive...something the government does not have to do

The government should not be in the business of selling anything. The only exception would be government related documents that are sold at cost.