Thanks for Commenting
Just curious. Are you maintaining that there should be No restrictions on entry into the liquor selling business, other than perhaps age of consumer and his/her level of intoxication? Would you extend that argument to restrictions on other consumer products such as marijuana and the current group of prescritpion drugs? Why or why not? To the licensing of professional services such as medicine, law, etc. Plumbers, electricians? Carpenters?
And on the off chance that you see some justification for restricting entry such that licenses have economic value, should such rights be granted on an annual basis, or for perpetuity?
Of course the question here is the extent/rationale to/for which such goods are to be taxed, either as a mechanism to raise revenue, or as a means to change behavior/ consumption/production patterns.
I would be especially interested in your views on former Governor Johnson's proposal to treat alcohol and marijuana as similar products, with similar social and legal public policy responses.
I commend you for your willingness to understand what has been done by economists in the area of understanding the attributes of products and market power/information in determining the mechanisms inherent in the optimal production of public and private goods.
Thus you might be interested in this years trio of economists winning the prize for their work in designing market mechanisms when the ideal Adam Smith market conditions are not met.
From the Nobel committee:
"... Likewise, mechanism design theory explains why there is often no good market solution to the problem of providing public goods. Indeed, the theory demonstrates why the efficient provision of public goods may require substantial departures from the principles of unanimous decision-making.
Footnotes 1 & 2, btw:
"1. Goods are called private if one person’s consumption of them precludes their consumption by another person. Typical examples are food
and clothes.
2. Goods are called public if one person’s consumption of them does not preclude consumption by others. Typical examples are television
programs and (uncongested) roads.
Full .pdf article is at:
http://tinyurl.com/23px8b
"... liquor licenses limits are about one thing, and one thing only, raising money for state coffers"
If no more liquor licenses have been created for years, aren't they bought from other holders, and not the state? It sounds to me like buying stock: after the initial offering, the issuing company isn't affected.
very perceptive, Michelle.
"... liquor licenses limits are about one thing, and one thing only, raising money for state coffers"
If that were actually true, we would have another mechanism for selling the rights to sell alcohol. One might try looking at political contributions by current license holders for insight as to why the state is not, in fact, raising money this way, and in essence, transferring wealth from the public to current holders.
The big buck license fees are paid to holders of licenses and to the brokers who derive a commission from the sale of the licenses AND not to the State of New Mexico.
Yep...liquor licenses are traded as a commodity on the private market. Who owns many of those VERY valuable licenses? Those connected to or related to current political leaders. In other words those licenses are about putting money in the pockets of those who are politically well connected.
Lets not limit the number of licenses. Lets open them to all who wish to operate a legal business. Lets decriminalize drugs. (Oh yeah, the Federal Government is still fighting THAT war. So much for smaller government. Thanks Republicans. Whatever happened to staying out of our lives and pockets? You guys had twelve years and the only visible result is MORE Federal control of EVERYTHING.) Legalizing drugs might shake up things for a while but it will all settle down and we can get on with worrying about things like whether or not the government should decide who you can marry.
But I digress...Limiting the number of liquor licenses is stupid, you just have the facts wrong about which pockets are being lined. Jeez Mario you are Republican this should be right down your alley. Oh, I see, the pockets of Democrats are being lined. That is criminal. Maybe Blackwater can set up shop here in New Mexico to balance things out, as it were.
But, yes, the liquor license debacle is treacherous and filled with money grubbing thieves taking advantage of a screwed up system.
DWI should be a violent crime e.g. assault, reckless endangerment, etc. Punishment and sentencing should be handled in the same way we handle other violent felonies. People don't just accidently jump in a car and drive. They do it knowing that they are committing a crime. You don't trip over your shoelace and rob a bank. Similarly you trip over your shoelace and fall into a started car that drives you away. Being drunk does not absolve your criminal act.
Commenting by HaloScan
