Here’s a letter that I sent to the New York Times:
Labor-union official Vincent Fyfe wants the state of New York to continue prohibiting supermarkets from selling wine (Letters, Feb. 12). His reason? Supermarket wine sales will put some liquor-store owners out of business and their employees out of work.
Note to Mr. Fyfe: the purpose of the wine trade – like every other trade – is to serve consumers, not to create jobs for producers. If job creation were paramount, then government should not only continue to prohibit supermarkets from selling wine, but should require that bottles of beer, wine, and spirits be hand-delivered to retailers, one at a time, while cradled in the arms of carriers each pulled though the streets in a rickshaw.
Of course, such a requirement would harm consumers, but it would also create lots of jobs.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
(I thank Bill Anderson for suggesting the title of this post.)
Share
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 24 comments }
Well…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaXWVBHAWII
Someone had to post it.
Why stop at wine? Supermarkets must be outlawed! In fact no store should be allowed to sell more then one type of product. It's an outrage that evil supermarkets are destroying millions of jobs at diary stores, meat stores, fruit stores, vegetable stores, etc.
Aw heck! Isn't this the nature of Walter Block advocacy for job destruction? If George Jetson works three hours a day for 3 days a week then how much job destruction has gone on? Similarly the Jetsons have a robot maid? More job destruction. People ultimately desire job destruction – to have so much money as to not have to require a job again.
Really happy to see your letter in the WSJ the other day. You should be featured in it every day.
I'm laughing out loud right now.
Of course, such a requirement would harm consumers, but it would also create lots of jobs.
Or wine would become so expensive that wine consumption would drop.
Pennsylvania has the same problem with its state owned liquor stores. Every time the issue is brought up, the state officials talk about the long time proprietors, the great service that they've provided through the years, etc., etc., etc.
There's never any mention that the system is set up to benefit these state liquor store license owners (who no doubt “reward” certain politicians well). Beer is sold by the case or large pack, for instance, because it's easier for them. Consumers can't buy a 6-pack if that's what they want…..can't be done. Never a word about what consumers really want (convenience, choice, etc.).
Have they not seen how it works in other states? Yes, supermarkets sell wine here, and we still have liquor stores. The difference being that the liquor stores adapt to the market dynamic by either situating themselves in more convenient locations, offer a wider selection, or specialize in varieties and markets that a supermarket really can't afford to (i.e. more upscale offerings).
If they can't adapt, knowing full well that the supermarkets can't efficiently deliver on all these aspects, then it's nobody's fault but their own.
While I completely agree with your point, doesn't your method of argument leave you wide open for a similar response? Could Vincent Fyfe not argue “If the point of trade were to serve consumers, why not have the government turn producers into indentured servants with fixed, regulated wages to keep prices artificially as low as possible?” Isn't free trade designed to serve both the producers and the consumers?
I was surprised to read that New York had a blue-collar law like this. I thought only “backward” states like Indiana had them. In Indiana, the law currently allows supermarkets to sell wine, liquor and beer, but they cannot sell any of them cold, only proper liquor stores can do that. Oh yeah, and you can't by alcohol on Sundays from the store, only restaurants. Sigh.
New York has alot more than just the law Don mentions. You cannot buy booze before noon on Sunday, only liquor stores can sell alcohol and wine, while grocery stores and convenience stores can sell beer. The list goes on, even the “progressive” states are “backward.” Not that surprising to most patrons of the Cafe eh?
Logically banning Wal Mart is next.
I see two points that argument overlooks. The first, which you hint at in your last sentence, is that people can't be simply divided in “producers” and “consumers”. Most everyone is both a producer and consumer. Wine makers produce wine, then turn into a consumer when they use the money they make to purchase goods for themselves. So, turning wine makers into indentured servants doesn't serve consumers over producers, it just hurts one group of people with the goal of helping another. The second point is that such a policy wouldn't even benefit people who consume wine. The government cannot enact a policy such as that and hold everything else constant. The quantity, and quality, of wine produced in a world where the wine makers are indentured servants is not the same as it is when wine makers are free to sell their wine in the market. This would result in less wine, of a lower quality. It would really just hurt everyone.
I agree with everything you said. I want to be clear that I'm not suggesting that the example I gave would be a valid argument. Your point that most everyone is both a producer *and* a consumer is dead-on. That's why I think that Don's claim that the purpose of the wine trade is to “serve consumers” is misleading. While the wine trade does in fact serve consumers, I would say that is only half of the equation, the other half is to make profits as producers. I was making the point that just focusing on the consumer side is just as misleading as only focusing on the producer side, by taking that logic and reversing it the other way. Also, I fully realize that Don is well aware of how trade works and I didn't mean my point as any kind of insult or to insinuate that Don doesn't know what he's talking about. I guess I was just being “nit-picky” about his language is all. No hard feelings. You're still my hero Don. And you too Russ.
Goes to show the efficiency of supply side economics.
It seems as though everything nowadays that represents the establishment is moderated by some delegate responsible for God’s work. Even their websites have moderators to intervene in the information that you produce. I think I am about to get drunk again today from reading this…. : )
haha… priceless (no pun intended)
which .gov site do I go to to get the drink specials tonight?
Well golly whiz, what do you expect from a regressive union guy. Union = communism, communism = stasis, let's don't do anything to change or make progress.
Screw the consumer, I want a job and it had better be high paying, and I damn well want it NOW!
“Driving me to drink”
And what is it that you have against drinking?
Colorado has similar, idiotic liquor laws to NY State, in addition to 3.2% beer (a leftover from when States were privileged to set their own drinking age, and Colorado allowed 18-21 year-olds to drink 3.2% beer), and every attempt to fix some of these issues is met with hue and cry about how liquor stores won't be able to compete. Yet, when I visit friends in Vegas (screw you, Obama. I like Vegas) I see all of these liquor stores right next to supermarkets that are allowed to sell spirits.
I blame my addiction on What-A-Burger. It offers the concoction on its soda fountain selection. I get one on each of my four visits per week. Now, you can buy the blame stuff by the two-liter as well as in individual bottles. I have no shot at kicking my habit.
Sometimes I think Texas has the lock on silly-ass laws regarding alcohol sales. The power to decide to allow it or not is diffused down to the level of each city or town.
Which means here in greater Houston you can be in a store that sells no alcohol, yet walk across the street to another town and buy what you want. Yes, I said that, walk across the street.
In the last 20 years Texas has made remarkable progress and now, where alcohol sales are allowed, even the supermarkets sell wine and beer. Hard liquor sales are still restricted to state licensed liquor stores.
Even so, It is hard for me to buy wine from a supermarket because I just don't trust a store that has wine as an added convenience to have the same respect for the handling and storage of the wine as does a place like Spec's, where wine is what they do, and they do it well.
here in NZ the shift to supermarkets has simply meant there are more outlets all aggressively pricing……..great for the consumer. it also leads to the local hospital emergency dept being overworked every weekend, esp with young and often under aged drinkers. but then you rarely step out of the economic to talk of the societal costs of economic freedom
Nevada is the only state I've bought booze in that has anything resembling sanity regarding liquor (and I don't know if it's Nevada, or just Vegas), but the idea that the State should tell me I can't buy whiskey at 4:AM, or that I have to close my tavern at a certain time is a result of the muirdiotic notion that only politicians can know how much liberty I need in order to be free.
Nevada is the only state I've bought booze in that has anything resembling sanity regarding liquor (and I don't know if it's Nevada, or just Vegas), but the idea that the State should tell me I can't buy whiskey at 4:AM, or that I have to close my tavern at a certain time is a result of the muirdiotic notion that only politicians can know how much liberty I need in order to be free.
Comments on this entry are closed.