I am hard pressed to think of a single instance when the government has sold ANYTHING that said sale turned into a "good deal" for the government.Look how cheap the 407 is with privatization.
Speaking of which, selling the LCBO would be the same boondoggle that was the sale of the 407. I don't think anybody at all looks at that sale in hindsight and says it was a good deal for Ontario/Ontarians.
Agree with this. Unfortunately, the Ontario government needs money so if anything they will sell/privatize the LCBO, and prohibit liquor sales by regular merchants.Don't privatize - dismantle it. Let regular merchants sell beer, wine and liquor. No reason we can't get it from the grocery stores.
The Hydro One sale will be different, according to Wynne's privatization guru.I am hard pressed to think of a single instance when the government has sold ANYTHING that said sale turned into a "good deal" for the government.
I'm thinking of the 407, CN Rail, Air Canada, Petro Canada, you name it. They always get pennies on what the thing is actually worth.
If you privatize the LCBO without removing the monopoly - I would agree. Remove the monopoly and you will find dedicated wine stores will arise (in populated areas) which will provide special selections. I lived in NYC and there were some great stores. I provide this article just to illustrate that if there is a market - there will be a store: http://blogs.villagevoice.com/forkintheroad/2013/03/best_wine_stores_new_york.phpIn the case of wine, I can't imagine if they privatized the LCBO stores would have the same selection available. I would think most places would be likely to stock the best selling products instead of bringing in a new selection every 2 weeks.
Exactly. I'd much rather liquor profits go to the government rather than some random corporation. Now the Beer Store monopoly needs to change, especially since those corporations are private and foreign owned....
2. It makes a large profit that goes to the province of Ontario to pay for government services. You know - like health care, education, infrastructure, environment, etc. I see this as an excellent use of the money. Eliminate the LCBO and you will lose (I've heard) about 1.5 billion in revenue to the government every year. I don't think that that is a good idea.
...
I'm sure that a private business is unable to find ways to reduce their taxes.Of course, the rich corporation would pay a hefty income tax to the government on that profit. Nothing escape taxes in this country.
And part of that regulation is on who the dangerous product can be sold to. Not all regulations are bad....
The LCBO should be removed (not sold as a monopoly) because it is regulating the sale of a commodity the same as butter, soda, apples, grapes .....
I think you hit the nail on the head - the real issue is the monopoly. I wouldn't actually mind the LCBO continuing to operate and making profit for the Ontario government if the monopoly was removed and others were allowed to compete. The LCBO would still do well due to selection and an established infrastructure and clientele. The upstarts could find niche markets to specialize in.... the government would retain an income stream, would continue to make tax income on the other alcohol distributers, and the most popular beers and wines would be subject to competition, therefore bringing the cost to the consumer down.Agree with this. Unfortunately, the Ontario government needs money so if anything they will sell/privatize the LCBO, and prohibit liquor sales by regular merchants
I agree and disagree. I think that its important to ensure that the correct programmes are in place to ensure that alcohol is not sold to minors. But we have the same situation with cigarettes, and you can get them everywhere. I don't think a monopoly does anything to help or hinder that age restriction.And part of that regulation is on who the dangerous product can be sold to. Not all regulations are bad.
And how hard is it for youth to get cigarettes? Those restrictions have significant failures as the corporate profits or personal profit often overrule the laws. To add, ensuring those regulations are enforced costs us money. At least with the LCBO we get the profit, not just the expenses.I agree and disagree. I think that its important to ensure that the correct programmes are in place to ensure that alcohol is not sold to minors. But we have the same situation with cigarettes, and you can get them everywhere. I don't think a monopoly does anything to help or hinder that age restriction.
And how hard is it for youth to get cigarettes?
A couple of errors in your post.Exactly. I'd much rather liquor profits go to the government rather than some random corporation. Now the Beer Store monopoly needs to change, especially since those corporations are private and foreign owned.
Always have, always will.
Walmart and Costco wouldn't stock the same selection - they operate by stocking high quantities of the most popular goods. So the LCBO would still have that competitive advantage. On top of that, all of the product sold at Costco and Walmart would still generate tax income for the government (and profits for the shareholders of these publicly traded companies)If the monopoly were removed the consumer would be able to pick up the same selection of alcohol from Walmart and Costco at a fraction of the LCBO prices.
Unfortunately, they don't use this Monopsony buying power to negotiate lower prices but in fact require wholesalers to sell to them at higher prices.The LCBO is the largest wholesale purchaser of alcohol in the world. The selection of wine in Zehrs is pitiful compared to even the smallest LCBO stores.
What do you think the selling price should be?
Strictly speaking you're right. But it's clear that not all profits are created equal. One cannot compare profit earned in a free competitive market to profit that's made in an industry completely monopolized where competition is outlawed.Do you have a definition of profit that does not mean revenues are higher than costs?
Some people think that profits for shareholders is dirty capitalism.(and profits for the shareholders of these publicly traded companies)
Government entities have no incentive to negotiate lower prices (i.e. not their money and monopoly "cost plus" pricing). Remember that pencil sharper at the TDSB that cost $40 (or was it $400?) to install.negotiate lower prices but in fact require wholesalers to sell to them at higher prices.
Seriously? I would say, given the things TERBites enjoy..... we have all been blessed by capitalism....Some people think that profits for shareholders is dirty capitalism.
Exactly.Exactly. I'd much rather liquor profits go to the government rather than some random corporation. Now the Beer Store monopoly needs to change, especially since those corporations are private and foreign owned.
