Originally posted by twhiteheadSo what do you do, rely on lords to distribute boons? "Thank you, my lord, for this fish, without which I could not eat since it has no price!"
I'm afraid I am not a capitalist so I say what is 'proper' to you is not 'proper' to me.
Or should the lord just determine the price: "Fish -- $5" ?
People have thought of this, you know. They have tried many versions of it -- all of which completely failed to the great mystery of those setting the prices. I think Zim was the last place to try it on a large scale, and we see what that led to.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI agree with your pragmatic approach.
My view regarding the whole idea is to do a scientific study on the results and see what the effects are. If it causes people to drink less, then I would probably judge it a good thing, though I would like to see what other side effects there are too.[/b]
I'm thinking that one side effect will be increased profits for supermarkets as alcohol is relatively price inelastic!
Originally posted by invigorateOK, next obvious question -- why 45p? Not 40p? Not 57.5p? You paid a lot of public servants a lot of money to study for years and come up with that figure -- so let's hear the rationale.
The UK government is proposing put a minimum price of 45p (80cents) per unit.
Making the cheapest possible bottle of wine £4.38 $7.20
This is not a tax, just a statutory level of pricing.
Part of me thinks this will punish the poor.
Part of me thinks it will improve the health of the nation, and reduce problems of alcoholism especially amongst ...[text shortened]...
Part of me thinks it will make British drinks producers less competitive.
What do you think?
Originally posted by spruce112358Because at 45p a unit, it is considered a fair price.
OK, next obvious question -- why 45p? Not 40p? Not 57.5p? You paid a lot of public servants a lot of money to study for years and come up with that figure -- so let's hear the rationale.
A higher price would punish the consumers wallet
A lower price would punish the consumers health
The amount of money paid to civil servants will be insignificant in relation to the amount of financial and social benefit that the proposal has the potential to yield.
Originally posted by invigorateBut all you have done, essentially, is removed wine in the $1-7$/bottle range from the market because with wine, you pretty much get what you pay for in terms of quality. So what you are doing is just destroying certain wine stocks -- $4/bottle wine can't be sold anymore because if you are willing to pay $7/bottle there are better bottles -- so you go for those.
Because at 45p a unit, it is considered a fair price.
A higher price would punish the consumers wallet
A lower price would punish the consumers health
The amount of money paid to civil servants will be insignificant in relation to the amount of financial and social benefit that the proposal has the potential to yield.
Ah, but you think the guy who would have bought that $4 bottle won't drink anything, right? R-i-i-i-ght.
What you guys have actually voted to do is bring back bootlegging and SMUGGLING! OK, now I understand -- great idea, actually. Provides no end of amusement -- both for authorities and the participants.
Leads to more crime, too, which provides more work for the police. Loads of fun.
Great idea.