Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

COSTCO: Advocate for consumers?

Letter by Kathleen Tomandl, Orting on Nov. 15, 2011 at 1:05 pm with 99 Comments »
November 15, 2011 3:40 pm

I got a good chuckle out of Robert Mak’s K5 News Up Front interview with the Costco CEO. The Costco CEO stated, “it wasn’t for profit” but that Costco was an “advocate for consumers.” Is he trying to make us believe that Costco spent $22 million to “advocate for consumers” just so consumers can buy more liquor? Once again, the 99 percent was duped by corporate greed. How sad.

Tags:
,
Leave a comment Comments → 99
  1. tree_guy says:

    The shoppers at Costco overwhelmingly supported the petition drive which preceeded the voting on the initiative. They filled up the required number of petitions in just a few days and nobody twisted any ones arm. Therefore, when the Costco chief said he was advocating for consumers, he was telling the truth. The public has spoken Kathleen, you can either get over it, or start your own petition to force the state liquor stores to open again. Good luck.

  2. redneckbuck says:

    If I can buy a gallon of Kirkland Rum for half what I pay now, I win! Hello, I am the consumer. Do I care where the dough goes?

  3. stumpy567 says:

    Kathleen, Get a clue. How much do you think the Liquor Companies, who sold the state booze at monoply prices, paid to support the “Against” campaign. All on the premise of public safety….B.S. Now that’s a lie.
    Corporate greed? 99% ?
    Guess what, boycott Costco if you have hurt feelings.
    Also, buy yourself lunch with the money the state doesn’t extract from you to operate their own liqour stores.

  4. SadujTogracse says:

    Stumpy, that pricetag would be 12 million dollars. Funny how only the yes votes were bought, but the big business (and OUT OF STATE) money behind the no campaign was pure as the driven snow. More hypocrisy.

  5. NickDixon says:

    Not one dime spent on liquor at Costco and they are already claiming savings.

    I can’t wait until June. But they’ll blame it on “taxes” because that’s always a good target.

  6. NickDixon says:

    “Costco’s record-breaking contribution of $22 million”

    Can someone identify the donations on the anti side?

  7. SadujTogracse says:

    Regarding the donations on the anti side…”It’s a total of 118 sources. The big spenders are mostly national wine and beer companies, with smaller contributions from private citizens.”

  8. SadujTogracse says:

    I can’t wait until June either. Just imagine I’ll finaly have a CHOICE on where to purchase liquor. I always thought choice was a good thing, I guess some don’t feel that way.

  9. Stumpy – those same Liquor Companies will be selling to Costco, Safeway, all those other 10,000 sq ft stores.

    SadujT – hope you will still be able to find your favorite brands.

  10. SadujTogracse says:

    xring, if customers demand it they will provide it.

  11. taxedenoughintacoma says:

    I have but one thing to say to Costco…..Thank you.

    You have shown us how we can close a state department and get 1000 people of the state dole, reduce forced union dues to union thugs, reduced state cost for pay and benefits and made state government SMALLER.

    The legislature will not do this. Those losers won’t even close the state print shop and contract out that service. I don’t drink, hope Costco makes millions but don’t forget they saved us all $$$Millions in the process.

    Thanks again, I am a costumer for life and hope many will join me in thanking the CEO of Costco.

  12. taxedenoughintacoma says:

    I went into a state store and asked, “when is the going out of business sale”. I was aked to leave, can’t that take a joke. I am sure they will like working for Costco. They don’t have to wear those stupid vest and pay forced union dues that are wasted by feathering the bed of the union bosses.

    They too should thank Costco for freeing them from the union shackles.

  13. Saduj – not necessarily. Even Costco workers tell you the individual stores have little control over what the individual stores receive.

    Taxed – you ever been in a Costco? All the workers wear fun blue vests.

  14. Can we get Costco to sponsor a petition for legalization of pot?

  15. NickDixon says:

    Many Costco stores are unionized.

    Epic failure in the state store and on the forum.

  16. LarryFine says:

    I, for one, feel I will benefit from Costco’s support…

  17. taxedenoughintacoma says:

    nickdixon

    About 18% of costco stores in liberal blue socialest states are union. Below is part of the story this week from the Seattle Times about the CEO offering state liquor workers a job interview at WA state Costco’s.

    “Costco Wholesale said it will offer any displaced state liquor-store worker the opportunity to apply for a job at the chain, and, “We will make sure that they get an interview,” chief legal officer Joel Benoliel said Thursday.

    Taken from the Seattle Times
    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2016734642_costco11.html

    “There is obviously no guarantee of a job, but anyone who would like to work at Costco will have the advantage of being interviewed. We will be working on a procedure to make that happen between now and June when the transition will happen,” he said.

    Benoliel also noted that workers who want to keep their affiliation with their union, which also represents grocery-store workers, might be better off seeking work elsewhere; Costco is nonunion.”

  18. NickDixon says:

    “I am sure they will like working for Costco.”

    “There is obviously no guarantee of a job, but anyone who would like to work at Costco will have the advantage of being interviewed.”

    There is a big difference between “working” and “interviewing”

    “Benoliel also noted that workers who want to keep their affiliation with their union, which also represents grocery-store workers, might be better off seeking work elsewhere; Costco is nonunion.”

    There is the key line.

    There once was a newspaper group that purchased a family owned paper. They gave notice to all union employees and only hired back those in the interview process that were scared and willing to abandon the organization that had served them for 5-10-20 years. Many of those who sold out their labor organization were later tossed by the wayside.

    Of course, it might be poetic if Costco employees organized after this, but I’ve heard it said that Costco is a smart employer that takes are of employees to avoid unionization. There is nothing wrong with that.

  19. NickDixon says:

    BTW – “18% of Costco’s total workforce is unionized”

    Not 18% of their stores.

    Big difference.

  20. NickDixon says:

    “The non-union locations have revisions to their Costco Employee Agreement every three years concurrent with union contract ratifications in locations with collective bargaining agreements. Similar to a union contract, the Employee Agreement sets forth such things as benefits, compensations, wages, disciplinary procedures, paid holidays, bonuses, and seniority. As of March 2011[update], non-supervisory hourly wages ranged from $11.00 to $21.00 in the United States, $11.00 to $22.15 in Canada, and £6.28 to £10.50 in the United Kingdom. In the US, eighty-five percent of Costco’s workers have health insurance”

    Imagine that. They handle the non-union workers the same as their union workers. So much for saving money by not having a union in place.

  21. SadujTogracse says:

    xring, that may be the case at Costco, but Costco won’t be the only store. If I don’t like their selection I have Safeway, QFC, Fred Meyer, Trader Joe’s, Winco, Wal-Mart, Sam’s Club, and many others who will be happy to offer what Costco doesn’t. Dontcha just love competiton?

  22. took14theteam says:

    I wonder if employers provide benefits equal to union shops to avoid drama and work disruptions associated with union shops (i.e Teachers)?

  23. tree_guy says:

    kardy, i like your new handle nickdixon. that’s pretty funny.

  24. What the hell does liquor sales have to do with the #ows protests??!!?? Sheesh!

    Up until this Costco was put forward as the model of a “good” corporation – with good wages, treating their employees fairly – but now, because of this single issue, idjits are adopting #ows language to demonize them.

    As Bugs said of Daffy “what a maroon”
    And Yosemite Sam said of Bugs “idjit galoot”.

  25. I wonder if employers provide benefits equal to union shops to avoid drama and work disruptions associated with union shops

    Now there is some trickle down (or is it sideways) economics that actually benefits the worker!

  26. NickDixon says:

    tree_guy – you missed the final episode of “where in the world is kardnos sandiego”

  27. NickDixon says:

    “avoid drama and work disruptions”

    We understand you oppose equal rights for workers.

    A good management requires no union to help it manage.

  28. itwasntmethistime says:

    Someone mentioned something about buying a bottle of Kirkland rum for half price. How is that going to happen? Most of the cost of a bottle of liquor in Washington is the tax, and liquor taxes aren’t decreasing through this process.

    I think many voters assumed this initiative would substantially lower the cost of alcohol. That’s not going to happen. Even Costco didn’t claim that alcohol would be cheaper for the consumer. Costco’s position was that there would be a savings to the state because the state would still collect every bit of the taxes they are already collecting without having to pay the overhead for running the stores.

    Don’t hold your breath waiting for your cheap booze.

  29. SadujTogracse says:

    itwasntmethistime, under the state monopoly they mark up the price of liquor 52%, that’s not including any taxes. Private retailers will now be able to decide how much to mark up the price. You may be right, there may not be much savings to the customer. But one thing is for sure, prices will never drop under a state run monopoly, competition is what brings them down.

  30. NickDixon says:

    itwasn’tme – you’re correct. There is no incentive for Costco to lower the price of retail product. A quick conference call can get everyone else in line.

    Voters just took a nice chunk of revenue from themselves and handed it to Costco because they believe they’ll drink cheaper.

    Maybe the problem is obvious.

  31. itwasntmethistime says:

    Saduj–I wonder how that 52% mark-up compares to other items in the grocery store. Obviously, all stores have to mark up their goods in order to make a profit. If 52% is high, then there is room to lower the price. If 52% is low or typical then the price won’t move. Are there any grocers out there who can tell us about the typical mark-up of other items in the grocery store like milk, eggs, bread, meat, cereal, fruit, etc?

    Frankly, it wouldn’t surprise me either way if we learned that grocsry stores only mark up their goods 10% or 200%. Albertsons has roasts on buy-one-get-one-free special all the time so I would assume they charge at least twice as much as they pay for the meat. Apples will be $0.78 per pound one week, then $1.29 the next, so I’m assuming they pay less than $0.78 per pound, regardless of what they are selling them for that week.

  32. itwasntmethistime says:

    Nick–Anyone who thinks they are going to save enough money on their liquor next year to make any sort of difference in their personal budget needs to check into rehab.

  33. SadujTogracse says:

    The chance of cheaper liquor prices was at the very bottom of the list of why I supported 1183. Getting the state out of a non-essential service, increasing revenue to the state, and providing more options to the customer were at the top of the list.

  34. SadujTogracse says:

    itwasntmethistime, I don’t know what the standard markup is, but I do know stores often lower their standard markup on one item to get you in the store to buy other items. I’m sure this will happen with liquor. Will it be a large reduction in price? I don’t think so.

  35. NickDixon says:

    We’ll see how “non-essential” this service was AFTER the money is gone.

  36. SadujTogracse says:

    The money is gone??? Taxes will remain the same, the state will no longer have to pay high overhead for liquor stores and distribution. In addition there will be NEW revenues with a retail licensing fee of 17% of gross revenue and a distributors’ licensing fee of 10% of gross revenue.

    The state’s own projections said the new system will generate ~40 million dollars more than under the current one. But I guess you had to read the initiative to get all that.

  37. NickDixon says:

    “the state will no longer have to pay high overhead for liquor stores and distribution”

    False premise. It is well known that the State of Washington made substantial profit over and above their cost of doing business.

    Essential services – police, fire, etc.

    Part of the funding for said services – profits from the sale of liquor. You can’t have the essentials without the revenue.

    Projections are not revenue, as we’ve learned, or did we? After successive years of revenue not making projections, we subtracted a tried and true performer – profits from liquor sales.

  38. SadujTogracse says:

    It’s not a false premise. The state will no longer have to pay for running liqour stores and an expensive distribution system, so you have to subtract those costs that will no longer have to paid in the new system. Accounting 101.

    Yes, they made a profit after all the overhead was paid, nobody is denying that. The point is they stand to make MORE of a profit under the new system and that is from the state’s own analysis. That new funding will also pay for police, fire, etc. So unless you are expecting liquor consumption to significantly drop (which it hasn’t even in these economic times) your claim that the money will be gone is false.

  39. artiepuy says:

    One thing that has been galling me throughout this months-long discussion is when the declaration is made that “Costco will make millions from the sale of liquor.” I interpret that statement to mean that their net income will rise as a function of the additional earnings.

    If you believe what Costco has said for the past few years about their earnings structure (and I have no evidence to the contrary), they make absolutely no income from the sale of goods. None, nada, zero. What they tell us is that their income comes from the annual dues (which did go up this year) paid by their members, and that all earnings on sales are used to pay for their operating costs, those being the price of the goods that they sell, plant and payroll costs, and any other fixed and variable costs attributed to the stores being open and operational.

    So, if this is true, one should expect that the “millions” that Costco stands to make would be used for a relatively small number of purposes, none of which would be expected to affect their net income. They would either use it to build or remodel buildings or equipment, to hire additional people or give existing employees raises, to prop up location that do not sell enough to cover their costs, or to reduce the price the goods that they sell.

    I doubt that this means that every penny of profit made in a store stays in that store, but it likely does mean that it goes back into their stores as a whole.

    People are of course free to disagree with how Costco makes up their net income, and if you do so you are also free to disagree with the paragraph above. Costco is a publicly traded company however and as such is required by law to provide their financial information. If you wish to call them liars, then I challenge you to find information in their financials that does not match how they say their sales profits are used.

    Costco could be expected to make a profit if they were to become the sole (or most convenient) provider of a given product, requiring that people buy a membership in order to obtain that product. To the best of my knowledge, they are not doing that, as any other area alcohol provider will be free to sell everything that Costco does if they choose to do so.

    Like many who comment on this subject, I am not a huge consumer of alcohol. One area where I hope to see progress is in choice. I mostly buy wine and beer, both of which have been provided for years in grocery stores. More than once in the past, I’ve tried to find a specific wine only to be told that the WSLCB “buyer” (I’m sure that there’s probably more than one) doesn’t like it and therefore will not buy it. Since that bottle has only been available through WSLCB, it is therefore unavailable for the store to sell.

    My hope is that in eliminating the state-run liquor stores, we will also eliminate the option of this one office having the power to decide what will and won’t be sold within the borders of Washington State. That decision should be left up to the market.

  40. NickDixon says:

    “so you have to subtract those costs that will no longer have to paid in the new system.”

    Subtract from what? We’ve given the entire opportunity for profit to private enterprises.

    Nuthin’ from nuthin’ means nuthin’.

    Another conservative that thinks you should make profit without a cost of doing business.

  41. NickDixon says:

    Artie – if you think it was tough to get a particular bottle of wine from a state seller, wait until you come up against Costco.

    They carry products for a short period of time and when it’s gone – it’s gone.

    They used to carry a great frozen rice mix. I bought it regularily. They ran out. I filled out the forms, talked to the local manager, who nicely informed me “we aren’t carrying that anymore”, as if the lack of product on the shelf didn’t already tell me.

    I don’t doubt that they’ll carry gallons of cheap bar hooch, beyond that, it will be closeouts and private label deals.

  42. NickDixon says:

    “The point is they stand to make MORE of a profit under the new system and that is from the state’s own analysis.”

    Has the state missed a revenue projection in the past couple of years?

  43. SadujTogracse says:

    KardNick, Costco won’t be the only business selling liquor, so if they don’t have something one of the many, many other businesses will.

    Pointing out that under the new system we won’t have to pay for sale and distribution overhead is not insignificant.

    Like I said you would have to show me data that consumption will dramatically decrease under the new system to say that “the money will be gone”. You have provided nothing other than silly slogans and references to license tabs. Apples to apples please!

  44. artiepuy says:

    Nick – Costco will not be the only provider of alcohol, and I’m well aware of their “buy it now, it may not be here tomorrow” mentality.

    The person in charge of wine (I really don’t care about the varietal selection of hard alcohol) at the Federal Way Trader Joe’s told me that he would LOVE to be able to get some different stock, but WSLCB won’t allow him to get what they don’t supply. I would like for TJ’s, and every other grocery store who sells wine, to be able to respond to a request.

    Under the old plan, they couldn’t.

  45. citizendoe says:

    So if you don’t buy that Costco was doing it for the good of the consumer, thats ok, my motive for voting yes on 1183:

    1. The government should never retail anything.
    2. Monopolies are anti consumer.
    3. Paying people Union scale to sell what can be sold in any grocery, by people with the same skill, is the tax payer subsidizing the wages of state retail works, when they would never get that on the open retail market.
    4. If the government is not going to be the retailing of pot business, they should not be in the retailing of booze business. Lets face it, its already legalized, even though I’ve never supported it, any pot head can claim pain and buy it now.
    5. As a tax payer, it benefits me two ways, the state dollars spent on keeping all those stores open, and over paid retail workers employed will save the tax payers approximately 80Million annually, and the sales tax revenues are expected to go up (ever so slightly) from a minor initial bump in sales.

  46. NickDixon says:

    1. So say you.

    2. I’m not worried about alcohol being “non-consumer”

    3. Many grocery stores employ union labor

    4. HUH?

    5. Those “over-paid” workers and the stores brought about $300 million net back to taxpayers. Nice trade. Wanna buy a bridge?

  47. NickDixon says:

    artie – I love the old “blame it on the government” trick. You bought it and Trader Joe’s is the champion, right?

  48. NickDixon says:

    Orly Taitz II – The state sales were bringing about $300 million a year back to the taxpayers in PROFIT FROM SALES. THAT PROFIT IS GONE.

    $300 million, minus $300 million equals?

  49. NickDixon says:

    The losses, according to 2009 sales –

    http://wasavp.org/Documents/liquor-store-system_fact-sheet.pdf

  50. SadujTogracse says:

    How can you say that profit is gone? Are taxes no longer going to be collected? Is everyone just going to stop drinking come June 2012? Are the new retail licensing fee and distributors’ licensing fee just made up fairy tales? You can’t just make up dumb claims without ANYTHING to back them up.

  51. itwasntmethistime says:

    I can’t figure out why so many people were so fired up about this in the first place. “GET THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF BUSINESS!!!” was the rally cry of the yes-voters. Why the passion for an issue that affects so few people directly? Is the ability to buy vodka at midnight really worth all the hoopla this created?

  52. NickDixon says:

    I cannot be more complete about an explanation. Someone just doesn’t know the difference between “taxes” and “profit” under the current plan.

    There is no way I can educate someone that lacks that simple skill.

    I get the idea that the someone thinks there are $300,000,000 in licensing fees to be made up. Maybe they could present what said fee per store will be and then we can do the math.

    In the meantime, I stipulate “lost profits”.

  53. SadujTogracse says:

    itwasntme, speaking for myself I was passionate about this issue because it is a great example of backing up my beliefs with action. If one really believe in streamlining government, if one really believes that government should get out of providing non-essential services, then this was the perfect opportunity to vote on it. The Legislature had been batting this around for years, but as usual they sat on their hands and did nothing about it. Now we got the chance to show them what we want from our government. It wasn’t about getting vodka at midnight, it was a much larger issue than that.

  54. NickDixon says:

    Lets try this one more time.

    WSLCB made money (primarily) by:

    1. Taxing

    2. Licensing

    3. PROFIT FROM SELLING.

    They will no longer be selling, thus some $300,000,000 million will be profit for someone else who is selling. (if selling price and margin remain the same) unless there is $300,000,000 in licenses out there just waiting to be spent.

    Lost. Gone. Aloha. Sayonara. Adios. Etc.

  55. NickDixon says:

    To address “non-essential services” –

    The sale of liquor is but a revenue arm to funding essential services. Without the profits from the sale of liquor, the funding will have to come from taxation.

    As the old commercial used to say – “You can pay me now or pay me later”.

    To call the sale of liquor a “non-essential service” is a smoke and mirrors game. It wasn’t a service. It funded a service, an essential service (see liq.wa.gov for a complete financial breakdown on essential services funded). It cut the private sector middle man out of the equation and provided more money for the essential services.

  56. NickDixon says:

    “It wasn’t about getting vodka at midnight, it was a much larger issue than that.”

    In all of the conversations I had during the campaign, the number one reason people were voting for it – “cheap booze”. #2 – get State out of the business (no reason why they wanted to give away all that money, but it probably related to #1) #3 – screw the union workers.

    One person continually stipulated “get state out of non-essential service”.

    Monitor the archives for your own research. Sorry, I can’t provide data on the verbal conversations.

  57. SadujTogracse says:

    “I-1183 also would impose a new a retail licensing fee of 17 percent of gross revenue and a distributors’ licensing fee of 10 percent of gross revenue. The new fees would generate between $400 million and $480 million in new revenue to state and local governments over six years, according to the state’s estimates.”

    Yeah, I’m the one needing to be educated (eyeroll) It’s obvious KardNick did zero research on the initiative. He just wants the government to be involved in as many areas as possible. That’s fine he can have that view, but 60% of us disagree.

  58. SadujTogracse says:

    I can’t speak for others I can only give my reasons. And I have been consistent from day 1. If you can get the state out of the service AND collect more money for the state and local communities then that is a no-brainer. Those services that you referenced will STILL be funded and in fact funded at a higher amount.

  59. NickDixon says:

    The current markup on a sale is 28%

    http://liq.wa.gov/about/where-your-liquor-dollars-go

    Resulting in $300 million dollars in revenue.

    Now 17% fee to one seller and 10% to another will result in $400-480 million??? New math!

    What Nick did was avoid the campaign pamphlets and used the actuals from the financial states and his trust calculator.

  60. SadujTogracse says:

    Except it isn’t my math. What part of “according to the state’s estimates” don’t you understand?

  61. NickDixon says:

    Which part of “actuals” don’t you understand?

  62. NickDixon says:

    Who said it was “your” math?????

    I said it was a quote from campaign literature.

  63. SadujTogracse says:

    No actually it was a quote from the Seattle PI… http://www.seattlepi.com/mount-rainier/article/Last-minute-vote-What-would-I-1183-mean-for-2256666.php

    But don’t let the facts get in your way.

  64. NickDixon says:

    Gross Sale – $1,000

    Markup (28%) – $280
    ———————
    Gross Sale – $1,000

    License (17%) – $170

    License (10%) – $100

    At THAT simplistic example the “new improved” system comes up short, much less a projection of an increase of up to 62% in revenue.

    Somebody better start drinking heavily. There is ground to make up!

  65. NickDixon says:

    Rather obvious that the PI took a press release and did no research or math (nothing new these days).

    Look at what is getting left out, though –

    “”In the private market, markups will vary considerably from product to product and store to store,” notes the Washington Research Council report.

    I-1183 also would impose a new a retail licensing fee of 17 percent of gross revenue and a distributors’ licensing fee of 10 percent of gross revenue. The new fees would generate between $400 million and $480 million in new revenue to state and local governments over six years, according to the state’s estimates.

    The distributor fee would drop to 5 percent after the initial two years.

    Then, of course, someone forgot to admit that the projection was over six years. My “projection” was computed against one year’s actuals.

    Apples to apples? The loss of revenue to the state is more like $1,8000,000,000

    Want to keep going?

  66. NickDixon says:

    To quote “The Great One” –

    “But don’t let the facts get in your way.”

    “The new fees would generate between $400 million and $480 million in new revenue to state and local governments over six years, according to the state’s estimates

  67. NickDixon says:

    Oh, someone must have run outside to enjoy the sunshine and not our crappy lives. :)

  68. SadujTogracse says:

    I didn’t forget it, the six years was in my 12:00 pm post, you just forgot to read it. And let’s see you are forgetting to include licensing fees for all the new stores and the ~30 million sale of the state distribution warehouse. I guess you like this new math thing!

  69. It cracks me up that WA residents are soooooooo happy that they don’t have an Income Tax and yet they complain about sales tax, property tax, gas tax (highest in the nation), etc.

  70. to say nothing about the absurd B&O taxes.

  71. SadujTogracse says:

    400-480 million in NEW revenue over six years averages out to ~67 million more a year. Now that’s real money!

  72. SadujTogracse says:

    beerboy did you vote for 1183? You don’t have to answer if you don’t want, I’m just curious.

  73. SadujTogracse says:

    And KardNick STILL thinks I’m someone that I’m not :)

  74. NickDixon says:

    “New revenue” – revenue you didn’t have before. Doesn’t take into consideration the revenue you lost. How about “additional revenue”. Nope, we ain’t using that phrase.

    There is all sorts of dancing around, but no one addresses the issue of the $300 million net that has been annually a part of the state’s bank account. Why? If the low information voter suddenly realized that someone will have to make up the $300,000,000 that is no longer available in sales profits, they would have probably ran the other direction. Fast.

    But, don’t forget. They’ll be able to drink cheaper.

  75. NickDixon says:

    Orly Taitz II thinks I’m someone I’m not.

  76. SadujTogracse says:

    KardNick, I guess I’ll just have to wait until the new system is up and running to say “I told you so”. That’s ok, I’m a patient man!

  77. NickDixon says:

    “And let’s see you are forgetting to include licensing fees for all the new stores”

    See my simple example

  78. NickDixon says:

    As I said, we’ll see in June. And I’m a patient woman.

  79. It is my understanding that any monopoly can pretty well rule the market for the the product they control.Such as gas company being the only supplier to a certain area and no else allowed to share the market,in that case the company controls what the consumer will have to pay to get their product.Without competetion,the consumer is at the mercy of the monopolist.Competetion is what helps the prices from getting out of consumers reach.

  80. stumpy567 says:

    Nick Dixon,Kardnos,beer boy or whatever your name is….
    Go stand out in the cold with all the other misfits at the occupy waste of time and make a point of not making a point.
    Hey stupid, Do the math. If you don’t have the cost of occupancy of 350 liquor stores you have a cost savings.
    Wait call me kooky, because I don’t make any sense????

  81. itwasntmethistime says:

    Saduj — Okay, so you were impassioned to stand up for something you truly believe in. I get that. But since there are literally scores of current issues that are worthy of your passion couldn’t you single out and direct your focus on one of the many that consume revenue instead of the only one that generates it?

    And, I believe it’s SueKardNick.

  82. took14theteam says:

    Kardnos must have a big dog in this race because he wasted a lot of my bandwith defending the old system. (I.E. wallpaper). And he did an about face on Costco. He praised Costco in the past now he is criticizing them for not continuing with a product line after he purchased it.

    I am sorry people will lose their job, but if WA is progressive enough to allow medical pot, they are progressive enough to get out of the liquor business.

  83. SadujTogracse says:

    Fair enough itwasnt. Now that the liquor issue is done do you have any good examples?

  84. The bottom line is that Gregoire cannot run a liquor store as well as Costco or the state as well as Dino Rossi. Once 1183 goes into effect consumer choice will go up and prices down- Gregoire will look like the incompetent she is.

  85. Nick Dixon,Kardnos,beer boy or whatever your name is….

    To quote you “hey stupid”, I have written several posts in support of getting the state out of the liquor business – IN DIRECT OPPOSITION to posts made by the other screen personas you lump me in with.

  86. beerboy did you vote for 1183?

    Since I am a former WA resident that would have been fraud but, if I had been eligible to I would have voted for every measure seeking to remove the State’s monopoly conflict of interest in selling alcohol.

  87. NickDixon says:

    took14 – don’t forget ehill and sandblower. Since you are LarryFine, I’ll just call you OrlyTaitz and answer.

    Big dog in the fight? Yep. Over $300 million in revenues (read: PROFIT) for state programs and employment. I’m tired of the race to the bottom.

    For the record – beerBoy and I disagree on this subject. It’s OK. Progressives disagree frequently, which is the reason for Obama not polling above 50% right now.

  88. NickDixon says:

    “Once 1183 goes into effect consumer choice will go up and prices do”

    Choice number 1 – cheap booze

  89. NickDixon says:

    Itwasnt – wrong also. Ain’t “kard” although close to kard and don’t have a clue who “sue” is. Maybe “sue” is “toyotaman”. Ask Orly.

    Back to elan – Gregoire didn’t run the liquor stores and Rossi just ran and also ran. Efficiency in operation is running at a cost of $89 million and returning over $300 million to the state treasury. Wall Street would die for such returns.

  90. NickDixon says:

    Never underestimate the power of the low information voter:

    (from the TNT poll)

    Less expensive liquor, more widely available – 52%

  91. SadujTogracse says:

    So a TNT online poll is your basis of fact? Talk about low information LOL! More widely available was in my top 3 or 4 reasons for voting for voting yes, but less expensive was not. I wonder where I fall in that list???

  92. LarryFine says:

    When it suits him…

  93. itwasntmethistime says:

    Saduj — Okay, here’s one that has always bugged me — public works employees who do very little work, yet drive their expensive trucks around all day, racking up wear and tear and wasting fuel. It couldn’t be tough for some impassioned citizens to tail a few trucks for a few days and document the actual activity. I can’t do it because I have to work and raise small children, but maybe if you spark the flame you could inspire some fellow citizens to take up the game. Surely some of the same people who were heck-bent on “GETTING THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF BUSINESS” can now rally the public works departments to “PICK UP THAT SHOVEL AND DO SOMETHING!”

  94. NickDixon says:

    itwasnt – have you spent a day with those workers? Try a day during storm season.

  95. NickDixon says:

    is Orly2 saying that the TNT posts non-factual information on its polls?

  96. NickDixon says:

    itwasnt – I know a few vactor operators that would invite you down into a sewer or drainage job. Hope you doing mind closed spaces.

    Ever been in a septic tank? Ever worked near high voltage lines?

  97. itwasntmethistime says:

    NickDixon — I’ve had a few friends quit public works jobs over the years because they were literally dying of boredom. During a storm, you’re likely to find public works laborers snug in their trucks with the heat on full blast, taking the longest route possible to the next job site.

  98. NickDixon says:

    itwasnt – thanks for letting me know that you know nothing about those workers.

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0