Prices

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Stu McKinlay on July 26, 2012 at 11:24am

Make love, not regulation!

 

Let's do a collaboration on that theme...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stu McKinlay on July 26, 2012 at 10:01am

You pass the cost of that tax onto the consumers, so you're not paying it really.

Start brewing commercially, do that for a year or two, and then try repeating that phrase.

 

Other than that I'm in total agreement with you. Somewhere between us and Greig is

Perhaps the Brewers Guild of NZ and Wine Growers NZ should commission a survey around the kind of alcohol related to crime. My hypothesis would be that the majority of breweries and wineries (in numbers, not by volume produced) are overpaying excise if you have some traceability between the drink and the cost of crime or healthcare.  I am sure that staggered excise is a better option than minimum pricing.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Greig McGill on July 26, 2012 at 10:39am

OK, I lied, one more response. Eric Crampton has already pointed out to the govenment exactly how flawed their lame cost study done by BERL was. It didn't help. :(

Here's a great starting point on his work.

http://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.co.nz/2009/05/costs-of-everythi...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stu McKinlay on July 26, 2012 at 11:25am

For an economist, Eric's pretty cool.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Greig McGill on July 26, 2012 at 11:49am

He is, he also just tweeted this: @greigmcgill Hey, my membership on the Real Beer forum is still pending. Meantime, this corrects couple errors: http://t.co/llPcdwJW

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tilt on July 26, 2012 at 1:07pm

Good link Greig - thanks for posting.  Eric's done some hefty research there and I'm liking his approach.  Some would say its all a bit heavy for a brewing forum but hey... what better way to chew over these concepts than over a (virtual and sometime hopefully an actual post July) pint.

Interesting that on (admittedly a fairly cursory) read of his potential solutions he seems to advocate a pragmatic "responsive policy" or evidence based approach... i.e understand the issues and their nuances properly by appraising the research and then targeting solutions at the causes.  Often this results in combined approaches to dealing with complex social issues - targeted education and economic pressures and regulation and building individual/ community responsibility.  Complex problems , complex solutions.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hillman on July 26, 2012 at 10:30am

Start brewing commercially, do that for a year or two, and then try repeating that phrase

Ha ha fair play.

I'm sure the structure of the system needs serious revision, as it was developed with a less diverse industry in mind, but it's a long leap from there to an unregulated market. Does the craft side of the industry have any sort of lobbying going on?

Greig, you're arguing against a position no one here holds, as far as I can tell. I'm not arguing for prohibition, but for regulation through some kind of price signal i.e. what already happens, but in a manner more favourable to the craft end of the market. This whole "individuals bearing the cost of their actions" doesn't make sense if the immediate cost is to the victims of violence that might not have occurred otherwise i.e. if person a drives drunk and kills person b, it's small consolation to person b's family that person a is going to prison. They would vastly prefer for it not to have happened in the first place. This sort of thing will still happen (obviously) but if pricing signals make it less likely (mitigate, which they do, not solve, which I agree they can't), then good. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stu McKinlay on July 26, 2012 at 10:35am

the tax can pay for education, which is always better than regulation.

 

Although in the liberterian world, all education would be privately funded. Look forward to the day I drop my kids off at Winfield Primary.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page