Beeronomics 101
It has been brought to my attention that, for better or worse, the most important issue to me in this election may just be Ballot Question 1, concerning the sale of wine in grocery stores. The Prizblog invokes the classic argument about the benefits of a free market economy in lobbying for a Yes vote. The Bomber raises a more practical concern as reason to vote No.
But as I visited my neighborhood liquor store today to stock up before the games, a third argument occurred to me. Today's loss leader was Bud and Bud Light 30-packs for $19.99. A tempting offer, but there was never a real chance I would be swayed from my old standby Miller Lite. And yet, as I pondered just how much more I would be willing to pay for my preferred brand of cheap domestic beer, I began to wonder about the economic repercussions of voting Yes on 1. Suppose this legislation passes and more grocery stores begin selling wine. The expectation is that they will be able to sell it for less, forcing liquor stores to lower their prices. Certainly that's why the liquor stores oppose the legislation.
The problem is, the liquor stores would still maintain a quasi-monopoly on beer and liquor sales. If they are forced to lower their prices on wine in order to compete, the logical conclusion is that they will raise their prices on beer and liquor to compensate. In fact I'm a little surprised the liquor stores haven't used this angle in their own campaign. Although this legislation may be a stepping stone in the direction of allowing grocery stores to sell beer as well, in the short term it seems like a Yes vote would end up costing me money. And frankly I don't care how much wine costs. So unless someone can supply a counterargument between now and Tuesday, I'm voting No on Question 1.
But as I visited my neighborhood liquor store today to stock up before the games, a third argument occurred to me. Today's loss leader was Bud and Bud Light 30-packs for $19.99. A tempting offer, but there was never a real chance I would be swayed from my old standby Miller Lite. And yet, as I pondered just how much more I would be willing to pay for my preferred brand of cheap domestic beer, I began to wonder about the economic repercussions of voting Yes on 1. Suppose this legislation passes and more grocery stores begin selling wine. The expectation is that they will be able to sell it for less, forcing liquor stores to lower their prices. Certainly that's why the liquor stores oppose the legislation.
The problem is, the liquor stores would still maintain a quasi-monopoly on beer and liquor sales. If they are forced to lower their prices on wine in order to compete, the logical conclusion is that they will raise their prices on beer and liquor to compensate. In fact I'm a little surprised the liquor stores haven't used this angle in their own campaign. Although this legislation may be a stepping stone in the direction of allowing grocery stores to sell beer as well, in the short term it seems like a Yes vote would end up costing me money. And frankly I don't care how much wine costs. So unless someone can supply a counterargument between now and Tuesday, I'm voting No on Question 1.
Comments
"hey lushes - if you dont vote no on #1, then you're precious beer prices will go up."
Simple, yet effective
If anything, you could argue this will cause LOWER beer prices. Packies, looking to keep Ed Prisby from heading to the supermarket for that wine could try and keep me from heading to Shaws to begin with by selling that 30 for $18.99 - making them one-stop shopping for my beer and wine needs.