Time to privatize LCBO?

[nuprin001]

Yes, the government runs the LCBO as a business, as it would be in the free market. Any cash made after expenses and wages is still profit.
I thought you said you understood how the market works?

But isn't that the point? It isn't in a free market. You don't run a monopoly the way you run a business in a free market.

The LCBO has a monopoly. Monopolies are bad for the consumer.

 

[huckfinn]

I think I should weigh in on this one:

NO, NOT TIME TO PRIVATIZE THE LCBO. :hand:

I'm now going to stop shouting.

Al Cohol

Why not privatize....easy to state a position, but means nothing without a reason.

 

[huckfinn]

And part of that regulation is on who the dangerous product can be sold to. Not all regulations are bad.

Those regulations can be managed in private organizations too....

 

[huckfinn]

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.

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.

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)

Actually stocking high quantities of the popular goods, is smart business. LCBO is probably carrying and catering to all the goods, which adds expense in shipping, merchandising, taking up shelf space for product that doesn't move. If this were your business, would you do that?

 

[huckfinn]

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.

The cost to enforce is actually higher at LCBO, as the average wage, benefits, and retirement packages are far higher with LCBO than in a private organization.

 

[geeky]

Actually stocking high quantities of the popular goods, is smart business. LCBO is probably carrying and catering to all the goods, which adds expense in shipping, merchandising, taking up shelf space for product that doesn't move. If this were your business, would you do that?

Nope... but that's exactly my point. The high volume retailers will end up creating a competitive market for the popular products, generating tax income for the government, just by removing the monopoly. The LCBO could survive by being the place you go when you want a wider selection. If they can't survive on that model, then the market has spoken.

To be clear, i am for removing the monopoly.... i am pretty agnostic on privatizing vs not privatizing the existing LCBO entity.

EDIT: terrible spelling

 

[FAST]

Exactly.

The beer store is a monopoly, private enterprise monopoly.
It doesn't give us selection, good prices or good hours and we get no profit from the Beer store.

Maybe we need to get the LCBO to take those over as well and to give the microbreweries a fighting chance.

More commie propaganda lies from the resident basement dwelling comrad.

I count 6 incorrect statements in just this post alone,...!!!

FAST

 

[huckfinn]

Because, in my opinion, they are doing an excellent job.

If you want specific product, there are a number of stores throughout the GTA that have EVERYTHING the LCBO carries.

Otherwise, each store has a slightly different offering.

Whining about high prices: The taxes in this province are UBER high on liquor. Go to the east coast and buy some cognac (I have). The price difference will shock you.

Whining about the hours: They're now open on Sundays (remember when the were not?). So, they close by 6p.m. Plan your work and work your plan.

Whining about selection: Each store is different, depending on which products sell in that community. If something doesn't sell, they get rid of it. If there's something you want, speak to the store manager about carrying it.

Whining about monopoly: There would be various sales (like there are at the LCBO) on various product at different store, but, I don't think there will to much of a difference in the prices. True, the prices went up in Alberta. (Have any of you been at the Loblaws Supercenter Liquor stores in Alberta? I have! But, I digress...)

Now, back to my wine-ing....

Al Cohol

I agree they are doing an excellent job....but with no real competition, how can you really tell?

Part of the "high price" is real estate, and most of it will be wages. I have difficulty paying someone that much in wages and benefits for a retail position.

Hours, yes, you can plan....agreed.

They do somewhat cater to the local demand.

Monopoly, back to my point about 'doing a good job', and my point that the prices are inflated due to wages, prime real estate, and to add one, I am sure part of it is driven by the government determining how much money they need to collect.

I am opposed to monopolies where it doesn't make sense. When LCBO was formed, probably a good idea, which is no longer applicable.

 

[SkyRider]

I am opposed to monopolies where it doesn't make sense.

Agree. I am opposed to monopolies in general and state monopolies in particular. For example, I don't understand why we can't have a parallel private health care system instead of forcing us to go to the U.S. to obtain higher quality health care. At least with education, it is not illegal to send your kids to a private school if you don't like the public school system because of the poor quality teachers who are always on strike and the violence.