meltsintowonder
Login to Send PM
Lisa is spot on. State minimum pricing from a retail perspective gives opportunity for the small businesses locally in Ohio to remain competitive. Buying power on a national level means nothing in Ohio for wine and beer.
On the other hand, wholesalers are against winery to consumer sales, which is aggravating. This doesn't impact the local shops but the wholesalers are doing their part to prevent this from happening. It appears that it might go to a national level.
WildmanDan
W. Hubbard/Vic Village
Login to Send PM
lisathewaitress wrote >>
KSquared wrote >>
I'm also curious about the concept of "state minimum" pricing. If there is a good source for this information I am missing, please let me know.As irritating as i find the state laws, i will say this - one thing nice about the price "fixing" is that any store selling booze in Ohio, big or small, makes the same amount of profit. There isn't a discount for buying in bulk.
But then I would see times that Dave would not get something yet another store would always habitually have pallets of the stuff. So maybe no discount, but maybe some idiot distributor delivery vehicles favoring some stores that would make their day shorter. As for state minimum, well some stores like Viking wouldn't even know what that is.
Landon Proctor
Olde North Columbus
Login to Send PM
lisathewaitress wrote >>
KSquared wrote >>
I'm also curious about the concept of "state minimum" pricing. If there is a good source for this information I am missing, please let me know.As irritating as i find the state laws, i will say this - one thing nice about the price "fixing" is that any store selling booze in Ohio, big or small, makes the same amount of profit. There isn't a discount for buying in bulk.
compare that to discounts given by companies such as Coke. Coke gives such a huge discount to giant box retailers for buying in bulk that it is sometimes cheaper for independent grocery stores to purchase Coke at WalMart instead of from Coke themselves. (this example was provided by a friend in the independent grocery biz).
Hear, hear! There's no way small stores could compete with Kroger or Giant Eagle even if we wanted to were there volume discounts. The best solution is obviously to not overlap much with what grocery stores sell to begin with!
That being said, deep pockets still help. Price fluctuations from month to month for wines currently allow national stores like Whole Foods to buy pallets of wine at the reduced price one month while smaller joints who have to buy by the case (or bottle!) must reorder the next month at the higher price. Big box stores can then sell through their pallet of less expensive wine until the price dips again. There's always a way around if you have enough money.
jackoh
The Village
Login to Send PM
Landon Proctor wrote <
Hear, hear! There's no way small stores could compete with Kroger or Giant Eagle even if we wanted to were there volume discounts.
So the answer to not being able to operate efficiently in the marketplace is government price controls?
Andrew Hall
Dennison Place (The Circles)
Login to Send PM
jackoh wrote >>
Landon Proctor wrote <
Hear, hear! There's no way small stores could compete with Kroger or Giant Eagle even if we wanted to were there volume discounts.So the answer to not being able to operate efficiently in the marketplace is government price controls?
If the whole industry were unregulated, I would agree with you. But it is not and it won't be for historical reasons as well as social ones.
As it stands, there is a kludgy mess of interconnections and law written with particular special interests in mind, usually the distributors. (For example, a wine company can't fire its distributor in Ohio.)Given that context, price controls which protect the small business are by far the lesser evil.
A.
jackoh
The Village
Login to Send PM
Andrew Hall wrote <
If the whole industry were unregulated, I would agree with you. But it is not and it won't be for historical reasons as well as social ones.
As it stands, there is a kludgy mess of interconnections and law written with particular special interests in mind, usually the distributors. (For example, a wine company can't fire its distributor in Ohio.)Given that context, price controls which protect the small business are by far the lesser evil.
A.
So, you are willing to capitulate to a political arrangement that "for historical reasons an well as social ones" either dictates or encourages a certain economic outcome; because it results in "a kludgy mess of interconnections and law written with particular special interests in mind, usually the distributors". I thought, maybe, you were better than that!
jackoh
The Village
Login to Send PM
michaelcoyote
!seabus
Login to Send PM
jackoh wrote >>
JonMyers wrote >>
Wait til the legalize pot. It'll happen. It'll make liquor laws look like a walk in the park.Not if the outcome is the purchase is legal. Then, according to the principles of American free enterprise, let the market determine the nature of the transactions.
I also disagree. Liquor laws have about 75 years of cruft built into them. in some places they brought back the pre-prohibition statues, so there may be more cruft in some cases. I'm guessing it will and up being a clusterfuck because taxes are involved, but probably not near as bad as liquor control.
jackoh
The Village
Login to Send PM
JonMyers wrote >>
True...
Colorado nabbed $7 million in medical marijuana fees this weekend
Where is Hunter Thompson when we need him?
Andrew Hall
Dennison Place (The Circles)
Login to Send PM
jackoh wrote >>
Andrew Hall wrote <
If the whole industry were unregulated, I would agree with you. But it is not and it won't be for historical reasons as well as social ones.
As it stands, there is a kludgy mess of interconnections and law written with particular special interests in mind, usually the distributors. (For example, a wine company can't fire its distributor in Ohio.)Given that context, price controls which protect the small business are by far the lesser evil.
A.So, you are willing to capitulate to a political arrangement that "for historical reasons an well as social ones" either dictates or encourages a certain economic outcome; because it results in "a kludgy mess of interconnections and law written with particular special interests in mind, usually the distributors". I thought, maybe, you were better than that!
You need to read what is there instead of what you want to make it for the bent you have.
Ideally, it would be a free enterprise system. Realistically, it isn't going to happen due to the historical and unique place alcohol commerce regulation has (XVIII and XXI). There are already regulatory advantages given to one part of the system (distributors). Only removing one given to the retailers is not defending free enterprise, but using that deceptive gambit to further stack the system in favor of a particular interest. That is so obvious that one has to wonder about your positioning there.
You want to turn over the whole apple cart. Great, I agree. It is not a politically realistic goal. You want to throw out only the apples you don't like, then admit it and don't hide behind the 'free enterprise' schtick when it is really just a play to use regulation to benefit your chosen parties.
A.
jackoh
The Village
Login to Send PM
@ Andrew Hall: Two things.
1. Why should "alcohol commerce" be treated any differently than any other commodity in commerce?
2. In a "free enterprise" system there would be no need for regulations, except for the fact that in such a system economies of scale will skew the outcomes. So the question, in this instance, becomes do we forgo any regulation and let the market takes its course(which will mean survival of the "fittest," ie. "biggest") or do we adopt regulations designed to level the playing field?
But, as you point out, regulations that are sold as "leveling the playing field" are never that, but rather are designed to benefit one player as opposed to another. When the cart is full of rotten apples and attempting to sort out those that are free of blemishes becomes an impossible task, it's better to get rid of the whole cart and start again. And I, personally, resist capitulating to what is "politically realistic."
Rockmastermike
CORNspiracy HQ
Login to Send PM
jackoh wrote >> And I, personally, resist capitulating to what is "politically realistic."
how are you resisting? i mean short of bathtub gin there is no really practical method to "fight the power" of liquor control overall and no politician you can vote for has any real interest in revising these laws in the face of heavy political and special interest inertia.
also, you guys pretty much agree so why am i reading subtle hostility in your posts? srsly, is that just me?
Andrew Hall
Dennison Place (The Circles)
Login to Send PM
@jackoh
1) It is because of the legacy of the XVIIIth and XXIst Amendments. The regulation of no other industry is embedded in the Constitution this way.
2) Politics is the art of what is realistically possible. Waiting for the ideologically perfect end point is just another form of apathy and excuse for not actually doing anything.
You are the one that took a potshot at a *particular* regulation, not the whole edifice. That undermines your credibility of your last line.
A.
jackoh
The Village
Login to Send PM
@ Andrew Hall:
1. Those two amendments, which cancel one another out(or can be seen to be an admission of failure at attempting to intervene in social and economic activity), establish "alcohol commerce" as somehow unique; and this is to be defended?
2. Politics is, indeed, the art of the possible(that was the original formulation without the modifier "realistically.") But what constitutes "possible" in any given situation may encompass a fairly wide spectrum. And, all too often, the call to accept what is "realistically possible" is a demand to accept the status quo.
Rockmastermike
CORNspiracy HQ
Login to Send PM
Andrew Hall
Dennison Place (The Circles)
Login to Send PM
jackoh wrote >>
@ Andrew Hall:
1. Those two amendments, which cancel one another out(or can be seen to be an admission of failure at attempting to intervene in social and economic activity), establish "alcohol commerce" as somehow unique; and this is to be defended?
Once again, please read what I wrote and not the filter you put on it. I am stating what the reality is, not my opinion of it.
You are also quite wrong. The XXI didn't just rescind XVIII. SCOTUS acknowledges that XXI created a new legal ground with alcohol as an exception to the normal qualities of the Commerce Clause. Granholm curbed some of that, but the minority opinion (5-4) by Thomas shows the idea that XXI and subsequent rulings create an absolute exception for alcohol.
But hey, if your idea of "resisting capitulation" is taking uninformed swipes at people ...
A.
lisathewaitress
SoHud
Login to Send PM
@Andrew Hall - are you sure about the wine company/breakup thing? Do you suppose it's different for importers? I feel like I've known a few of each who have nixed their relationship with their distributors.
lisathewaitress
SoHud
Login to Send PM
jackoh wrote >>
Landon Proctor wrote <
Hear, hear! There's no way small stores could compete with Kroger or Giant Eagle even if we wanted to were there volume discounts.So the answer to not being able to operate efficiently in the marketplace is government price controls?
let's see....are you talking about the same free market system wherein WalMart receives millions and millions of dollars from government tax rebates? sometimes accounting for 25% of a state's sales tax rebates? That "free" market? (source: http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/pdf/skimming.pdf)
You must log in to post.
Launched in August 2010, TheMetropreneur.com is a local online resource devoted to small business development and entrepreneurship. Its aim is to tell the stories of Central Ohio's business community, foster regional economic development and assist entrepreneurs with its resource-heavy focus. Click here to visit TheMetropreneur.com.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
