The Bar Towel

detritus wrote:

Belgian wrote:If we were not living in an Ontario-wide retail system it might be tricky to get a lot of good beers anywhere other than a large urban center.

At the risk of offending non-urbanites... so what? Quite frankly, I couldn't care less (well, not much less) if people outside of urban centres have the same access to a huge range of consumer goods as I do. I pay a big cost-of-living premium to live in my urban centre, why should the Province be concerned with redistribution of luxury consumer goods?

It would be one thing if bread and milk (as a trite example) weren't available province-wide, but come on... beer?

-Josh

In that sense, none of us should bitch about anything the LCBO does. I mean, it's just beer, right?

The point is, since there is no alternative, due to their monopoly, they should be obligated to supply those of us outside major urban centres with anything we want, assuming it is something they already carry. In my experience, they do, but you may have to request it. Personally, I don't have a problem waiting a couple of days, or a couple of weeks. As long as I have access, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

Andicus wrote:In that sense, none of us should bitch about anything the LCBO does. I mean, it just beer, right?

The point is, since there is no alternative, due to their monopoly, they should be obligated to supply those of us outside major urban centres with anything we want, assuming it is something they already carry.

I think I disagree with that. I'm not sure why I should be forced to subsidize distribution of products to rural and northern Ontario under the LCBO system, when that kind of distribution probably wouldn't happen under a market driven system anyhow.

I don't see why the LCBO shouldn't add a S&H charge to people who want stuff that it isn't economical to carry at their local outlet. This roughly replicates what would happen in an open system, where remote customers would probably have to internet/mail-order their out-of-the-ordinary beer selections.

-Josh

I don't know that you're subsidizing distribution costs, since the LCBO makes deliveries to stores, regardless. I would expect that the cost of shipping a few stray products to various stores is negligible, compared to the initial costs of shipping the product to the LCBO. And, let's not forget that providing it to others means more sales, assuming it is not an extremely limited supply.

detritus wrote:I don't see why the LCBO shouldn't add a S&H charge to people who want stuff that it isn't economical to carry at their local outlet. This roughly replicates what would happen in an open system, where remote customers would probably have to internet/mail-order their out-of-the-ordinary beer selections.

that argument might fly if the LCBO wasn't already going to those places to make deliveries of all the other stuff they sell (liquor, wine, and macro swill). i'm guessing that the volume of that stuff FAR exceeds the craft stuff and would make the cost of adding in some micros about nil.

that said, i'd happily pay an extra charge per bottle to have the full seasonal lines available at the LCBO around the corner from me, and that's just to avoid going across marhkam. if i were outside the GTA i'd probably pay even more. $0.10 per bottle would be insignificant to most folks, and i hardly think it'd cost the LCBO more than $2.40 per case to add that in with whatever else they're delivering.

detritus wrote: I don't see why the LCBO shouldn't add a S&H charge to people who want stuff that it isn't economical to carry at their local outlet. This roughly replicates what would happen in an open system, where remote customers would probably have to internet/mail-order their out-of-the-ordinary beer selections.

-Josh

So what you are saying is, since it wouldn't affect you living in the city, paying "big city premiums" to do so, the LCBO/beer store should take an already silly out of date system and make it worse for those of us not in the city?
In the NY state open market system, I bet I paid the same amount for a 6 pack of Sierra Nevada Pale at a gas station in upstate new york as someone else did at a big fancy store in Buffalo.

what I'm saying is, I don't see your point.

Andicus wrote:I don't know that you're subsidizing distribution costs, since the LCBO makes deliveries to stores, regardless. I would expect that the cost of shipping a few stray products to various stores is negligible, compared to the initial costs of shipping the product to the LCBO. And, let's not forget that providing it to others means more sales, assuming it is not an extremely limited supply.

Yeah, that's probably right. Although I'm not that happy about subsidizing the stuff they stock in the boonies, either. In a market system, there'd be differential pricing regionally.

grub wrote:that said, i'd happily pay an extra charge per bottle to have the full seasonal lines available at the LCBO around the corner from me, and that's just to avoid going across marhkam. if i were outside the GTA i'd probably pay even more. $0.10 per bottle would be insignificant to most folks, and i hardly think it'd cost the LCBO more than $2.40 per case to add that in with whatever else they're delivering.

Yeah, I'd pay a premium to have reliable access to good variety as well. That was kind of my point.

Queef wrote:So what you are saying is, since it wouldn't affect you living in the city, paying "big city premiums" to do so, the LCBO/beer store should take an already silly out of date system and make it worse for those of us not in the city?
In the NY state open market system, I bet I paid the same amount for a 6 pack of Sierra Nevada Pale at a gas station in upstate new york as someone else did at a big fancy store in Buffalo.

what I'm saying is, I don't see your point.

Uh, yeah. If they're not going to privatize, the LCBO should at least take their "already silly out of date system" and fix it so that urban customers aren't subsidizing rural ones.

Even in you argue that the LCBO, as a crown corporation, has a duty to make all of its products available province-wide, I don't think there's a good argument that there should also be a redistributive aspect in their pricing.

Now, it might be that shipping costs aren't enough to make regional pricing worthwhile (in a business sense), but my intuition is that they are, given that we're talking about trucking liquid and glass around a huge province.

(I didn't really have a point, I'mjust bored and making idle argument.)

-Josh

So essentially you feel that the ontario prices are what they are because of the distribution internally? And that the cities are paying a premium on beers, that they shouldn't because the LCBO has higher prices because of the province wide distribution?

Yet in privatized Alberta, the price for a craft beer six pack is pretty much the exact same price as it is here.

Queef wrote:

DragonOfBlood wrote:
Yes, province then, however I do believe other provinces have single tier alcohol distribution monopolies ran by the provincial governments, do they not? I thought for sure Manitoba did.

I think most provinces have odd importing/exporting rules, but not all have the government run distribution system. Not positive on manitoba (although I KNOW they have bar offsales), but Alberta is private, pretty sure Quebec is as well (although limited to mostly quebec based breweies, which is not necessarily a bad thing).

Every province except Alberta has a government run distribution and retail system. The difference is that some porvinces have alternatives to that system.

Quebec allows other stores to sell beer and wine - in the case of beer, those stores that are not SAQ stores can only sell beer that is either made in the province or represented by a brewery in the province. That's why Quebec breweries profilerate in convenience stores.

BC and Nova Scotia have privately operated stores that can select products entirely independently of the government liquor stores they compete with - and in Nova Scotia's case (as well as Alberta's), the gov't agency still acts as the only official importer/wholesaler in the province. Stores can find their own prodcuts, but they are at the mercy of the gvo't wholesaler/warehouse for when (or if) they get their product. Not completely sure how BC operates in that regard.

Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland also have an agency store sytem whereby convenience stores cna get a license to sell beer and wine (or everything in NB and NS, not sure on NL) but all of thsoe stores can only sell products that are carried by the gov't liquor stores. They can not source their own product and have it brought in.

PEI, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan are all entirely gov't as far as I know - PEI for sure. If there is any kind of private operation in MB and SK, it's run the same as the agency system described above. In otehr words, your selection is at the mercy of what the gov't is willing to carry.

Andicus wrote:

detritus wrote:

Belgian wrote:If we were not living in an Ontario-wide retail system it might be tricky to get a lot of good beers anywhere other than a large urban center.

At the risk of offending non-urbanites... so what? Quite frankly, I couldn't care less (well, not much less) if people outside of urban centres have the same access to a huge range of consumer goods as I do. I pay a big cost-of-living premium to live in my urban centre, why should the Province be concerned with redistribution of luxury consumer goods?

It would be one thing if bread and milk (as a trite example) weren't available province-wide, but come on... beer?

-Josh

In that sense, none of us should bitch about anything the LCBO does. I mean, it's just beer, right?

The point is, since there is no alternative, due to their monopoly, they should be obligated to supply those of us outside major urban centres with anything we want, assuming it is something they already carry. In my experience, they do, but you may have to request it. Personally, I don't have a problem waiting a couple of days, or a couple of weeks. As long as I have access, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

Your second point is correct - if they are going to operate in a monopoly, they should be obligated to supply everyone in the province anything they offer in downotwn TO. But your first comment misses the point - which is that beer, or alcohol of any kind, as a luxury good, shouldn't have it's supply controlled by the government. More to the point, that some people wouldn't be able to get a particular brand of alcohol in Northern Ontario is not justification for keeping a gov't monopoly distribution system in place.

On top of that, in a privately-run system, a retailer in even the most remote are of Ontario could respond to the needs of consumer by trying for a speical order of something, even if it weren't available in Ontario. Or you'd be able to order anything you'd want from a mail order place. Neither of those things can happen with the LCBO in place.

Queef wrote:So essentially you feel that the ontario prices are what they are because of the distribution internally? And that the cities are paying a premium on beers, that they shouldn't because the LCBO has higher prices because of the province wide distribution?

Yet in privatized Alberta, the price for a craft beer six pack is pretty much the exact same price as it is here.

Actually, our prices (on beer, wine is a different matter) are quite low, particularly on imports.

However, they'd probably be lower in Toronto if the LCBO didn't have to ship beer to Timmins and sell it at the same price.

Now, like I said, the price differential might not be significant, but beer is heavy, and fuel is expensive.

--Josh

Bobbyok wrote:Your second point is correct - if they are going to operate in a monopoly, they should be obligated to supply everyone in the province anything they offer in downotwn TO.

Why does this imply that they should be obligated to supply everybody in the province at the same price (i.e. at a price that doesn't incorporate the differentials in cost associated with disparate locations)?

-Josh

detritus wrote:

Queef wrote:So essentially you feel that the ontario prices are what they are because of the distribution internally? And that the cities are paying a premium on beers, that they shouldn't because the LCBO has higher prices because of the province wide distribution?

Yet in privatized Alberta, the price for a craft beer six pack is pretty much the exact same price as it is here.

Actually, our prices (on beer, wine is a different matter) are quite low, particularly on imports.

However, they'd probably be lower in Toronto if the LCBO didn't have to ship beer to Timmins and sell it at the same price.

Now, like I said, the price differential might not be significant, but beer is heavy, and fuel is expensive.

--Josh

Agreed.

Agreed.

Agreed.

detritus wrote:

Bobbyok wrote:Your second point is correct - if they are going to operate in a monopoly, they should be obligated to supply everyone in the province anything they offer in downotwn TO.

Why does this imply that they should be obligated to supply everybody in the province at the same price?

-Josh

Perhaps it's more a political statement than an economic (or common sense) one, but because if the government is going to operate a monopoly, then they really have no choice. Government operates a monopoly in health care, so in theory they have to offer everyone in Timmins the same health care as someone in Toronto. If alcohol is indeed improtant and essential enough that the government feels they need to provide the service and ONLY they can provide that service, then they have to offer the same level of service regardless what the market in general wants.

That of course, is only in theory. In practice, assuming the government isn't worried about a few votes in Timmins and Nippissing from people who want a few extra special wines or beers, they really don't give a damn if you can get Brooklyn Lager in Timmins.

Bobbyok wrote: Perhaps it's more a political statement than an economic (or common sense) one, but because if the government is going to operate a monopoly, then they really have no choice. Government operates a monopoly in health care, so in theory they have to offer everyone in Timmins the same health care as someone in Toronto. If alcohol is indeed improtant and essential enough that the government feels they need to provide the service and ONLY they can provide that service, then they have to offer the same level of service regardless what the market in general wants.

Right, but alcohol isn't controlled because it's important to ensure everyone can get it, like health care. It's controlled because the government wants to make sure we don't abuse it (or something), and controlling the retail chain is their way of doing it.

There doesn't seem to be anything inherent in that that implies that there should be redistributive pricing.

-Josh

detritus wrote: Right, but alcohol isn't controlled because it's important to ensure everyone can get it, like health care. It's controlled because the government wants a very easy way to fill their pockets.

There doesn't seem to be anything inherent in that that implies that there should be redistributive pricing.

-Josh

Fixed!