Two more states bite the dust

It appears that you will no longer be able to ship wine to Illinois starting in 2008 and I believe Missouri has a bill on the govenor's desk. He is such a right wing fanatic that there is no doubt he will sign it. Not sure of all the details and you may be able to ship from reciprocating states but that takes all of the NYC wine stores out of my cellar.

OK Robin, I will call a truce to selling wines with cartoons. This is something you need to get emotional about. Of course, we still want to require an adult signiture.

Walt

Yeah, I got the Free the Grapes organization's update in my e-mail this morning. The wholesalers' lobby seems to be on the march to victory in many areas, even some where legislation had been more direct-shipment-friendly.

I doubt there will never be a consumer groundswell large enough to boycott wine shipped through WSWA members which is what it would take to get legislation changed. We œnophiles are just too small of a lobby.

Wineries need to refuse to ship through the system and protest politically, but, of course, this would cost them money in the short to medium term. Apparently, however, the status quo seems to suit many wineries just fine; otherwise, they would have done something about the WSWA a long time ago. It appears that the system works in favor of many wineries, especially those with thriving tasting rooms and clubs.

One winery owner explained it to me this way. (This is not me speaking now, so don't pick on me if you do things differently. It's only one example.) They use the theory of fours, i.e. cost times four is retail. The winery has its cost which is the first fourth. The winery marks that up (and potentially discounts) to the wholesaler, the second fourth. The wholesaler marks up to the retailer (third fourth) and the retailer marks up to the customer (fourth fourth). So the somewhat simple-minded method means a bottle which costs $8.00 to produce will cost about $32.00 in the retail shop. If you buy this bottle at the winery, the winery pockets $24.00 for the $8.00 of cost. That's a pretty healthy margin. Buy a case or through a club with, say, a 20% discount and the winery is still making $17.60 for that $8.00 cost. To my mind, here's no real motivation to change the system there.

And lest you think I'm pointing fingers. Another friend of mine and winery owner gets really agitated when he see the above happening. He knows he can charge almost three times as much for certain of his wines, but he does not because he is, dare I say it, ethical. He knows what he needs to keep the business going and what he needs to live on and bases his pricing on that. He does a thriving business.

I'm sure there are winery owners of every stripe out there from folks like my friend to folks like the theorist of fours ... and more extreme. But the bottom line is that if the winemaking industry doesn't buck the system, it is never really going to change.

And lest you think I'm pointing fingers. Another friend of mine and winery owner gets really agitated when he see the above happening. He knows he can charge almost three times as much for certain of his wines, but he does not because he is, dare I say it, ethical. He knows what he needs to keep the business going and what he needs to live on and bases his pricing on that. He does a thriving business.

Gary: I understand what you're saying...and don't disagree with it at all...but you could have made a better choice of word than "ethical". Your friend is no more, nor less, ethical than the first person you cited. Or for anyone else in the wine business, for that matter (at least to this point). What your friend chooses as his wine price, and the personal reasons he chooses them for, is simply a relfection of his personal philosophies. Doesn't mean he has "more" or "better" ethics than someone else who makes different decisions.

So: if I have the same costs and the same lifestyle as your friend, and I choose to decide to charge $1.00 more a bottle.....does that make me unethical? Or less ethical than your friend?

I'm not an unfettered capitalist. Nor am I Gordon Gekko. But when you equate percentage of profit directly to 'good ethics', I have a bit of a problem.

I'm not an unfettered capitalist. Nor am I Gordon Gekko. But when you equate percentage of profit directly to 'good ethics', I have a bit of a problem.

I agree. Maybe "ethical" wasn't a such a hot choice of epithets, not objective at all, a bit prejudiced, and more reflective of my personal outlook on life. I just happen to feel that when you start taking huge profits you hurt the system and society in general, even a capitalist one. All it takes is for one person to start taking more and then the next person needs to take more and the next and the next. It's a chain reaction which then impacts the poorest members of society the most. Fortunately, wine is a luxury item and nobody has to buy it. But if the same theory is applied to bread, potatoes, medical care, rent etc. where would society end up? Oh, in the U.S.A. Is my achy-breaky, bleeding liberal heart showing? (I have my flame-retarding Speedo on.)

All it takes is for one person to start taking more and then the next person needs to take more and the next and the next. It's a chain reaction which then impacts the poorest members of society the most. Fortunately, wine is a luxury item and nobody has to buy it. But if the same theory is applied to bread, potatoes, medical care, rent etc. where would society end up? Oh, in the U.S.A. Is my achy-breaky, bleeding liberal heart showing? (I have my flame-retarding Speedo on.)

Ah, the Old Domino Theory.

Gary, if some other guy jumped off a cliff, would you feel compelled to do it to? (echoes of your mom?)

The theory works only if you presuppose that if one does it everyone else HAS to do it as well. And, yes, while you might say that's 'human nature', you might just as easily say "But look, Gary and other high minded individuals (i.e., people with liberally bleeding hearts) counter all those greed-driven fatcats!"

Of course, the next step is to have government step in and mandate exactly who gets what in equal proportions (well, except for all those who aren't equal, also decided by the same government and usually, for some reason all better-than-equal tend to be either selfsame government and their buddies).

Or you could 'benefit the people' the Mugabe way: just dictate that all retailers cut the price of all goods in half! And then promise to print more money if there's not enough around to handle soaring inflation.

My God: I'm sounding like Yaniger, aren't I?

The theory works only if you presuppose that if one does it everyone else HAS to do it as well.

As I noted, no one needs to buy wine, but other things most folks do need. And, unfortunately, once prices for the basics start to spiral upward, people do HAVE to follow suit or not have enough money to meet their basic needs. And then some just fall off the end of the spectrum and have to live with the coyotes in Golden Gate Park. I've seen more gouging and hoarding in my lifetime than restraint and social consciousness and this has definitely colored my view of human nature.

(Maybe I'm just a little ticked off right now because my doctor dropped his in-network contract with Blue Cross because they were offering him "sub-market reimbursement," his choice of words not mine. He didn't say he was having a hard time getting gas for the Mercedes or operating funds for his practice.)

Will you pass up your next raise to help cut overhead so that I can perhaps better afford Brown-Forman's products? Of course not and neither would I mine (if I were working). Our survival in this world of greed depends on our keeping up. That's the way the game is played in our society.

Of course, the next step is to have government step in and mandate exactly who gets what in equal proportions (well, except for all those who aren't equal, also decided by the same government and usually, for some reason all better-than-equal tend to be either selfsame government and their buddies).

Government control would be fine and exactly for the reasons you are satirizing, but it doesn't work exactly because of the reasons you are satirizing. Most humans, in my estimation, will always bop the next guy on the head with their club if it means making their cave a better and safer place to live for themselves and they will not apologize for it. And all of us must choose whether to swing that club or live off the grid or in relative poverty.

I honestly think capitalism is the economic model which best reflects human nature. Its motivators are probably needed to keep many folks, well, uh, motivated and to spur technical advancement. Still in all, its excesses are what hurt people and these do need to be controlled somehow. (Willi Brandt, Helmut Schmidt and Gary went into a bar ...)

My God: I'm sounding like Yaniger, aren't I?

Naw, there wasn't any sexual innuendo or egging on to drive the debate in some direction that it shouldn't go in.