In 1993, Alberta said a private liquor model would bring more choice and stable prices. Did it? (www.cbc.ca)

submitted 11 months ago by SamuelRJankis@lemmy.world to c/canada@lemmy.ca

27 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] SamuelRJankis@lemmy.world 51 points 11 months ago

A 2012 report from David Campanella, then the public policy research manager for the Parkland Institute, and Greg Flanagan, a public finance economist, concluded that privatization has led to Albertans paying more compared to public stores.

[-] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 25 points 11 months ago

Who would have thought, adding a private profit incentive would mean overall prices go up?

You're supposed to be smarter than us Canada!

[-] can@sh.itjust.works 7 points 11 months ago

Not Alberta

[-] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago

Ah, is Alberta like Alabama?

[-] dom@lemmy.ca 5 points 11 months ago

Yes, but it really wants to be like texas

[-] can@sh.itjust.works 3 points 11 months ago

I more often hear "Canada's Texas".

[-] Peppycito@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago

Lol! What gave you that idea? We signed NAFTA after all.

[-] sik0fewl@lemmy.ca 20 points 11 months ago

Privatization in a nutshell.

[-] Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net 12 points 11 months ago

But hey! I have this GREAT idea for faster medical services!

[-] DScratch@sh.itjust.works 9 points 11 months ago

And transport!

And internet!!!

And schools!!!!!!!

And utilities!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[-] Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net 3 points 11 months ago

You keep that up and I'm going to mail you a brick.

[-] pdxfed@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

And brick mailing!

[-] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 2 points 11 months ago

That will be $25 in postage, $30 in shipping and handling, $35 for insurance, and $15 cause we can fucking charge whatever you we want.

Thank you for mailing with us with your prized possessions.

[-] Omgpwnies@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

Don't forget the $10 "convenience fee" because you didn't talk to an actual human employee, thus saving the company money, so you have to pay more for that convenience

[-] tarsn@lemmy.ca 11 points 11 months ago

Every single time

[-] Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net 12 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

It's so infuriating, and we keep electing politicians who suck corporate dicks and promote privatization.

Say it with me now:

Critical services must be government owned to promote service integrity.

While people might argue against this, if your existence of as a government hinges on the quality of the services you provide, and the only metric is votes, then you're going to do your damnedest to make sure you get the most votes and that means providing the best services.

Conversely, private industry has money as the metric and the best way to get more money is to get people to pay the same for less. It's the easiest way. Who wants to invest in better products/services when we can do less and cut shit and make more money.

Now that's not to say there aren't exceptions, but this is the general theme

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 11 months ago

There's way more to it than that.

He said consumer prices in Alberta are influenced by supplier-set wholesale prices, store and government markups and the timing of limited-time offers. All the factors at play means it's challenging to track retail price changes over time.

"What I concluded in the data that I looked at in my own study, is that there was some increase in retail prices as a result of privatization, but it was not large," West said.

"But it depends on product category, and the time period."

In addition, when Alberta privatized, it changed the tax system from a percentage of the price to a unit tax.

"It doesn't matter what it costs. The tax is flat," Enoch said. "Which dings lower-cost alcohol, right? Because everything is charged at the same tax rate."

There's other positive things mentioned in this article, too, so what you're doing is almost cherry picking.

[-] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 months ago

None of this refutes what was said above.

Privatization resulted in alcohol prices increasing.

I've also not seen any numbers that suggest that the Alberta government makes more revenue from the private system than they would have a public system.

Every back-of-the-napkin calculation I've done suggests that the move to a private system increases access to alcohol for citizens while reducing the government revenue related to alcohol sales.

[-] terath@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago

Much of Europe is privatized and their prices are much less than here. The main reason our prices are so high is the special alcohol tax the government puts on to discourage drinking.

[-] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago

To clarify your point. The privatization in Europe has nothing to do with the lower prices, it's the lower tax rate.

In places like Ontario we "double dip" on revenue where the LCBO marks up alcohol as any retailer would and makes revenue for Ontario, but at the same time, alcohol tax is also collected.

When people talk about privatization of the LCBO, it's a portion of that retail markup revenue which we would be unnecessary giving away.

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 11 months ago

Yeah, I don't see why tax collection would increase.

The article mentions more selection, which is unambiguously good, and more locations which is good from a buyers perspective (although less so from a public health perspective). To be fair, it also mentions a lot of the jobs being minimum wage, but that seems like it has less to do with liquor and more to do with trends in the whole economy.

I don't know, it just doesn't seem like something the private sector couldn't do for any reason, so I'm unsurprised the sky didn't fall, and the situation even improved in some respects.