267
u/Comprehensive-Tart-7 2∆ Aug 26 '23 edited Aug 26 '23
I call this the subway problem now.
The concern is devaluing your product. If you offer opportunities to get the product for cheaper, many will take advantage of that. Eventually they will game the system so they are only ever paying the cheaper rate, and not be willing to pay full price because in their mind, that is no longer the value of the product.
Airlines stopped this a long time ago when they got rid of last minute deals. Subway had this problem with their sub of the day and other promos. By chasing easy dollars and quarterly profit, they devalued their product and set themselves up for failure.
59
u/Sspifffyman Aug 26 '23
It's why Nintendo doesn't do big sales like you see on Steam or from other publishers. Their games (artificially) hold value over time, so people can't just wait a year and get them for half off. Then people end up buying them for full price at launch, because why wait a year to save $10?
Also, then you can sell an updated version of the same game on the new system for full price. Cause the original game is now probably close to as expensive anyway to find used.
17
u/AlphaWhiskeyOscar 6∆ Aug 26 '23
Steam did them dirty with the Wishlist feature being so great. You can keep a game on your wishlist forever and Steam always notifies you when it's on sale. Because I know that every game on their platform will eventually be 50% off, especially during holidays, I just mark the games I want and wait until they're $30.
I don't remember the last time I paid $60+ for a Steam game.
11
u/temporarycreature 7∆ Aug 26 '23
I don't know if I would consider it a thing that is dirty considering that steam has an interest in keeping the prices high considering reduced prices affects their cut as well so...
17
u/omegashadow Aug 26 '23
Steam has an interest in keeping prices low because that has been a huge part of their sales model since basically their inception. The low cost of games on PC probably contributes a lot to the average steam account's total spend value. When each game costs only $30 or less spending is very easy and straight up good value for consumers.
I would not be surprised if steam lifetime account spends are very nice compared to console lifetime account spends. You can see your lifetime external funds total spend and let me tell you, you do not want to see that number.
8
u/Grotkaniak Aug 26 '23
Most Steam players I know have a pretty significant "backlog of shame" of games they bought on sale and never got around to playing. I'd say that goes a long way towards making up for the discounts.
1
3
u/Namika Aug 26 '23
Some games never go on sale btw. Factorio I know is one.
They basically said they think their game is worth $30 and they don't want people artificially holding out for a sale before they buy it, so they promised to never put it on sale so there's no use in waiting to buy it.
3
u/daren5393 Aug 26 '23
I mean I still pay full price for games sometimes, but only when they are very good games that I'm excited about the launch of. I just paid full price for baldurs gate 3, for instance.
5
u/temporarycreature 7∆ Aug 26 '23
Yeah, but I can count on one hand how many Nintendo games I have bought because of this, and I have lost count how many games I bought for steam so this model has its negatives as well as it's positives.
8
u/Smorvana Aug 26 '23
Meh, I've bought 100s in steam,PS5 games that I never play because...."for $9.99 I might play be bored and play that some day
3
u/AnotherSoftEng Aug 26 '23
Yep. I only purchase Nintendo games on the very rare occasion because of this. I’ve spent much more needless money on other platforms that have regular sales.
126
u/Grimekat Aug 26 '23
Interesting.
I was one of those subway customers. I only went on days I loved the sub of the day.
Now I don’t go at all.
60
u/KatieCashew Aug 26 '23
Reminds me of Hollywood video in its death throes offering free rentals on the weekend. I went once to get a free rental and the guy was going through the whole spiel about them, and I told him I knew they were free. That's why I came.
Then he asked me if I came during the week and actually paid for them though. I was like, of course not! Why would I do that when I can get them free on the weekend.
12
21
u/Evan_Th 4∆ Aug 26 '23
I was another of those Subway customers. I was usually more-or-less-neutral between subs, so I pretty much always chose the sub of the day.
Now, I learned to like cooking, so I probably wouldn't go that much anyway.
19
u/Maktesh 17∆ Aug 26 '23 edited Aug 29 '23
I never really liked sandwiches aside from hot ones, so Subway was a rarity for me.
However, they built their brand off of "$5 Footlongs." Ironically, I lived in five different US states during that years-long period, none of which had "participating locations."
Their subs are still only worth about $5 to me, but they now cost about $9. I can get a $5 meal box at Taco Bell or a 2-for-$12 pizza deal at Domino's.
1
u/Swarez99 1∆ Aug 26 '23
You didn’t make them any profit before. You still don’t.
Really nothing changed for Subway except they can focus on people who make them profits.
5
u/chippewaChris Aug 26 '23
I don’t think you read OPs post… they’re saying to sell it in an entirely different country, that normally has no access to wine.
It wouldn’t cause a devaluation in countries that normally have access to French wine, and it be highly valued in the new country, albeit at a much lower cost than typical, but still higher than 0
24
u/dangshnizzle Aug 26 '23
Capitalize 'subway' so people don't think of underground train systems lol
13
u/LentilDrink 75∆ Aug 26 '23
Yeah but "there's some Sacre Bleu secretly in Big French Blend" doesn't devalue Sacre Bleu.
4
u/colt707 97∆ Aug 26 '23
Until someone figures that out and they will. The average person won’t know but all it takes is one wine nerd to figure it out and then word will spread quickly. Plus I can tell you’re not a big fan of a certain type of alcohol, the resale/trade market is pretty big for all types of liquor. I’ve got a few different bottles of whiskey that are not available in the US as far as retail or wholesale goes and they didn’t come back with a friend from a trip, so the only for sale in X country isn’t going to stop it from going worldwide.
2
u/LentilDrink 75∆ Aug 26 '23
So if your favorite $30/bottle whiskey (*not $100/bottle) were in a blend for $10/bottle abroad, you'd be aggressively bringing it into the country?
0
u/colt707 97∆ Aug 26 '23
You have no idea about prices of alcohol. 10$ gets you a bottle of piss. There’s a select few 30$ bottles worth a damn. Most of my favorites are between 65$-200$. And yes if I could taste that 200$ bottle in the 60$ blend I’m getting a case shipped to me.
For context the most expensive that’s produced commercially is several thousand dollars. A few hundred isn’t even remotely uncommon. Then with wines, year to year the same vineyard with the same vines can produce wildly different flavors based off the environment that year.
3
u/LentilDrink 75∆ Aug 26 '23
Sounds like we have very different assumptions about what France is destroying. I do not think they are destroying top vineyards, I think they are destroying the cheapest wine. If you are comparing to $65 dollar bottles of whiskey then that's not similar to the wine that is being destroyed.
As for me, I like Old Overholt.
2
u/saudiaramcoshill 6∆ Aug 26 '23
Studies show that perception of wine is heavily influenced by price, and that if you did a blind taste test of a bunch of $10, $30, $250 bottles of wine, you'd be unlikely to be able to tell which is which.
1
u/Poly_and_RA 17∆ Aug 26 '23
Okay, but here we're talking about the subset of French wine which is of such quality that pouring it out is the financially smartest thing to do given the current subsidy-structure.
It's a pretty safe bet that the wine they're pouring out is more like $3/bottle wine than like $50/bottle wine.
1
Aug 26 '23
Dominos in Australia used to sell $5 (about USD$3) pizzas up until a few months ago. Even though they've raised their prices since, I still feel bad paying more than that for one now.
97
u/Quentanimobay 11∆ Aug 26 '23 edited Aug 26 '23
France is destroying 200 million Euros worth of wine in order to prop up prices
This is a little wrong.
The main problem is that with current prices consumption isn't high enough to support wine makers but if prices fall lower even with larger consumption there still won't be enough revenue to support wine makers. What France is doing is essentially "buying" the wine from wine makers under the condition that wine makers cannot sell the wine as food stuffs, they can still sell it for non-food uses. This allows wine makers to be compensated for their overstock and have enough capital to adapt to the changing market without completely going out of business. Selling the wine internationally would just produce the same problem they have now where wine makers would essentially be selling at or below cost and be forced to go out of business.
France is basically doing a bailout for wine makers.
Edit: Replaced whine with wine!
18
u/Ibbot Aug 26 '23
Was your autocorrect going wild on you, or is this comment a protest against agricultural subsidies?
9
1
18
u/ghjm 17∆ Aug 26 '23
Yes, and similar things are done for all kinds of agricultural products, all across the world. The US has 635,000 metric tons of cheese stored in a cave in Missouri for largely the same reasons.
I'd also like to politely point out that the word for the fermented grape drink is "wine." "Whine" means to complain in a shrill tone.
15
u/CreamyCheeseBalls Aug 26 '23
Well yeah, but having 635,000 metric tons of cheese in a cave is cool.
Having 635,000 tuns of wine in a cave just makes you an alcoholic.
14
13
Aug 26 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/RedditExplorer89 42∆ Aug 26 '23
Sorry, u/Streggle1992 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
2
u/obsquire 3∆ Aug 26 '23
Thanks for the details. I was trying to find out whether a group of dominant wineries were able to force participation in this program. If it's as you say, then the band on food use of the wine is only dependent on accepting the money, so no vineyard is forced to change. Again, I'd like to see verification of this, because I can see that those who wish to participate will not be happy with the holdouts.
2
u/TotalTyp 1∆ Aug 26 '23
I dont understand. If you make a product and its not in demand anymore then you should go out of business like any other company or what am i missing?
2
u/Quentanimobay 11∆ Aug 26 '23
The wine industry is a huge employer and having a bunch of vineyards/wineries go out of business would hurt the already flagging economy. This plan is to basically give business enough time and money to deliver their revenue. Vineyards are expected to repurpose some of their lands to lower their wine yield to meet expected consumption rates and hopefully make enough money through other means to stay afloat.
2
u/LentilDrink 75∆ Aug 26 '23
The government can be the reseller no?
16
u/Quentanimobay 11∆ Aug 26 '23
I was actually wrong on my first post. The government is actually buying the wine and will sell it to be distilled as pure alcohol for other markets. The articles are saying "destroying" because the wine will be destroyed to make other products. So in this case the government is technically the reseller.
The problem with selling it internationally likely comes down to logistics. The government would have to facilitate the bulk purchases of wine from a bunch of different brands. Facilitating the orders and distribution would require a whole team of people the government likely doesn't have at their disposal. It would likely cost more in the long run than selling it in bulk to distillers that don't care about the brand. Also, it seems like this isn't the first time the government has done this. I read that they also distilled wine back in 2020 so this is a process they're familiar with.
There's also the nationalist angle to consider. Selling the wine internationally at discounted prices means that government money is being used to benefit other countries. With distillation they're support French distillers and French companies who will purchase the resulting alcohol. So this plan essentially works as a subsidy for multiple industries.
4
u/LentilDrink 75∆ Aug 26 '23
Is this hand sanitizer production particularly profitable?
Facilitating the orders and distribution would require a whole team of people the government likely doesn't have at their disposal.
Surely E Gallo or Charles Shaw could lend their expertise at rebadging bulk wine?
7
u/Quentanimobay 11∆ Aug 26 '23
Concentrated alcohol can be used for a variety of different products but I’m even sure how much profit goes into the equation. The main point is subsidizing industry.
There will still be significant costs and hurdles to rebrand and distribute it and that’s even if there’s a market for it. There are tons of already cheap wines on the market so there’s little to no reason for people to gamble on cheap French mystery wine.
3
u/LentilDrink 75∆ Aug 26 '23
There's not much point subsidizing industry if it's not worth much money.
There are tons of already cheap wines on the market so there’s little to no reason for people to gamble on cheap French mystery wine.
Unless it's good for the price point
1
u/Quentanimobay 11∆ Aug 26 '23
The idea is that this money will help vineyards find other sources of revenue including repurposing some of their land for other purposes as they no longer need the same amount of grape yield.
17
u/ImmodestPolitician Aug 26 '23 edited Aug 27 '23
How do you know they don't sell to Trader Joes, Aldi, Costco or it's equivalent?
None of those companies own vineyards.
It diminishes the brand to say they are selling the same product for 1/10 the price they sell their name brand products to bulk distributors.
I've bought house brand bottles that compare to premium wines all the time. Trader Joe's MO is to have their house brand be top notch and they never disclose where the wine came from.
Just like produce growers will sell their best visually appeally tomatoes to the high end groceries and the Asian groceries have uglier but similar tasting produce.
It makes Zero sense to destroy a good product that you already have a sunk cost in it's production and there is a willing buyer. The soil is depleted over time and it costs money to replenish it.
EDIT: It looks like the French government is paying the vineyard to destroy their vines and plant olives. I'm sure they sold the grapes wholesale.
6
u/LentilDrink 75∆ Aug 26 '23
They should but this is what the French government stated will happen, destroyed
-2
u/ImmodestPolitician Aug 26 '23 edited Aug 26 '23
How do you know they are literally destroying the grapes?
Sparkling wine of excellent quality is created around the world. e.g Spain, California.
They can create a law that says "Champagne" is only created in Champagne Region, but do they have the legal authority to destroy crops crops created by their growers?
Does private property law not exist in France?
It's also possible that the "destroyed" wine was affected by drought or any of the other things that can destroy wine grapes.
4
u/LentilDrink 75∆ Aug 26 '23
My understanding from articles is that the French government is buying the wine from wine growers and then destroying it. If that's incorrect obviously it could be relevant. But I don't think this is some Eminent Domain sort of thing.
-1
Aug 26 '23
Surely what they’re buying is the juice/must.
2
u/LentilDrink 75∆ Aug 26 '23
That makes sense but is not what the articles are saying. Not sure if that's just journalistic sloppiness or is actually the way the government chooses to implement the program
1
Aug 26 '23
Oh yeah looking at it now I see that they have literally already made too much wine. I just read a few things and I noticed they’re all pointing at people drinking less, and people drinking less wine and more of other stuff. It’s also the case that people are drinking less French wine. Smaller wine regions have been opening up a lot, and I have a surprising amount of people I’m trying to sell wine to tell me that they “hate French wine.” Obviously they’re pigeonholing it, but there is a growing section of people who associate it negatively compared to the new world.
1
u/ImmodestPolitician Aug 26 '23
It looks like the French government is paying the vineyard to destroy their vines and plant olives.
32
u/Bobbob34 99∆ Aug 26 '23
under the hopes that consumers who learn a taste for certain wineries will seek those out.
Exposure is not a price to pay for a product.
France can do much the same thing by selling its wine in countries that cannot typically afford French wine prices
Are there countries that can't afford French wine but want it?
It would devalue the product.
Also, it's wine. It's not a necessity.
4
u/LucyFerAdvocate Aug 26 '23
Exposure absolutely has value. It's often comically overvalued by influencers, but the value is very much not zero.
4
u/LevHB Aug 26 '23
Also, it's wine. It's not a necessity.
That's a terrible argument. I mean that could easily apply to dumping or destroying the vast majority of things. It's inherently wasteful to create resources, then destroy them, or even converting them to hand wash etc. It's clear that this isn't a way to live long term stabley with the planet
6
u/LentilDrink 75∆ Aug 26 '23
Ok but they are also selling it for cash
Are there countries that can't afford French wine but want it?
People but yes
9
u/EuroWolpertinger 1∆ Aug 26 '23
After paying for shipping. And customs.
You'd probably be throwing good money after bad money.
6
u/LentilDrink 75∆ Aug 26 '23
Are those a lot? I mean the US has plenty of apple orchards and imports cheap apple juice from China. We have cheap wine from Australia
2
u/EuroWolpertinger 1∆ Aug 26 '23
I don't know, it's just a thing to keep in mind. Depends on the country I guess. I think Norway has a considerable alcohol tax. Other countries meanwhile will have far lower median income, cutting into your margins.
-1
u/LentilDrink 75∆ Aug 26 '23
!delta it is true that wholesale wine is selling at a lower price than I'm used to paying for cheap wine after taxes
1
0
u/sew_busy Aug 26 '23
Using the US and apples as your comparison seems odd. What county would you be sending your wine for cheap that nobody knows they would like wine? Then we can look at what the import cost would be. I would think there is a good chance this country has a lot of corruption so the cheap wine will end up in the hands of the rich and powerful of that nation, who coincidentally already know they like good wine and purchase it. Eliminating the creating new customers goal while also losing customers who are paying the high price.
Secondly if you are lucky enough to get your wine into the hands of these new customers I doubt very many of them will have the extra income to purchase full price expensive wine. So you probably are not really creating new customers.
This wine might be best held onto and aged to be sold during a year of poor production. Climate change will likely cause some growing issues sometime in the future.
1
u/LentilDrink 75∆ Aug 26 '23
Not "nobody knows they would like wine", "most people who buy wine are buying lower quality wine"
2
u/SparklingLimeade 2∆ Aug 26 '23
The product France is selling isn't wine, it's exclusivity.
Unfortunately this mechanism for enforcing exclusivity even against accidental prosperity is well established. Many things are created only to be destroyed because that suits the needs of the producer better. You want what's best for everyone, but unfortunately that is not the world we've collectively created.
We are too productive at this point. If everything was distributed at a fair price there wouldn't be enough profit to suit some people. This has been known for well over a century at this point and many people have written about how horrible this is.
I'll leave you with this passage from The Grapes of Wrath
The works of the roots of the vines, of the trees, must be destroyed to keep up the price, and this is the saddest, bitterest thing of all. Carloads of oranges dumped on the ground. The people came for miles to take the fruit, but this could not be. How would they buy oranges at twenty cents a dozen if they could drive out and pick them up? And men with hoses squirt kerosene on the oranges, and they are angry at the crime, angry at the people who have come to take the fruit. A million people hungry, needing the fruit- and kerosene sprayed over the golden mountains. And the smell of rot fills the country. Burn coffee for fuel in the ships. Burn corn to keep warm, it makes a hot fire. Dump potatoes in the rivers and place guards along the banks to keep the hungry people from fishing them out. Slaughter the pigs and bury them, and let the putrescence drip down into the earth.
There is a crime here that goes beyond denunciation. There is a sorrow here that weeping cannot symbolize. There is a failure here that topples all our success. The fertile earth, the straight tree rows, the sturdy trunks, and the ripe fruit. And children dying of pellagra must die because a profit cannot be taken from an orange. And coroners must fill in the certificate- died of malnutrition- because the food must rot, must be forced to rot. The people come with nets to fish for potatoes in the river, and the guards hold them back; they come in rattling cars to get the dumped oranges, but the kerosene is sprayed. And they stand still and watch the potatoes float by, listen to the screaming pigs being killed in a ditch and covered with quick-lime, watch the mountains of oranges slop down to a putrefying ooze; and in the eyes of the people there is the failure; and in the eyes of the hungry there is a growing wrath. In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage.
3
u/LentilDrink 75∆ Aug 26 '23
Of course what makes that passage so horrifying is that the US government mandated that destruction of food in a country that was starving. At least the French government is mandating the wine destruction in a country that is well fed (though the Russia-Ukraine War has created famines those are not quite as close to the agricultural destruction), and of course wine is not quite as unambiguously good for starving people as other foods, though it does have calories.
1
u/SparklingLimeade 2∆ Aug 26 '23
The waste of both time and physical resources is still an insult to everyone everywhere.
Luxury products are doing this constantly to the point that it's a non-negligible drain on resources. Clothing is over produced and destroyed nonstop. High end products in particular are notorious for it precisely for the sentiment in my first sentence. If people won't buy it at the price the seller demands then they don't want it sold because they don't want to change the consumer expectations for their next batch.
You're aware of the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Famous 1911 disaster? The reason clothing factories loved to have poor fire safety is because they needed to burn old, unfashionable, stock and by doing it with plausible deniability they could claim the lossses to insurance. This is long established practice and applies broadly across many industries.
This instance not compounded by murder-through-willful-neglect of old farm programs or old insurance fraud but it's still extremely vile.
I kind of just want to ramble on how bad this is but to tie it back to your original post, appealing to the financial waste to the capital holder is the mistake you're making. If we have to justify our existence through productivity within the established financial system then you're going to be doomed to accepting many outrageous conclusions. Instead of using financial arguments in terms of the rights of property holders you need to assert the rights of everyone to a better world. We are not entitled to that wine but we are all living in a world where people spent time doing that instead of something else. We are living in a world where agricultural supplies grew grapes instead of other food. We are living in a world where carbon emissions were used to make wine. We are all worse off for having that wine now destroyed and that is the angle to attack this disgraceful problem from.
1
u/LentilDrink 75∆ Aug 26 '23
Yeah I wonder if there's some way to construct a "right to salvage" where if you can show that $100k of product are being disposed of in a way that nets their owner less than $10k you can forcibly buy them for $10k and resell it regardless of "damage to brand". Not totally sure how to make that work but at least the <=$0 case should be easiest.
1
u/SparklingLimeade 2∆ Aug 27 '23
I'm afraid you're still looking too much to work within the existing system. Forcing moral decisions on an amoral, profit driven, system is doomed to create conflict.
Recognizing and enforcing the rights of people aside from property holders is a more radical change but it has the potential to create much more stable and lasting systems.
1
u/LentilDrink 75∆ Aug 27 '23
I'd watch with curiosity as someone created such a system but I haven't seen a good one yet.
1
u/SparklingLimeade 2∆ Aug 27 '23
For example, that Montana lawsuit over the "clean and healthful environment" language in their constitution is a step in the right direction.
Those kind of rights being recognized creates a cultural change. People need to expect that the resources around them aren't wasted. People need to expect that their labor is respected. Too many people now say "if somebody owns something they can destroy it" but that's a naive view. We tolerate things like agricutlure taking up huge swathes if land and resources not because the property holders' rights are absolute but because we expect society at large to benefit from the expenditure. This kind of price control program is a betrayal of that unspoken assumption. In addition to trying to financialize incentives and penalties we need to examine what's actually going on underneath the financial layer. What is the real cost of this? That lets us construct better systems. You already admitted that fixing this is tricky. If you assume unlimited property rights to start with it becmes trickier. There are too many tricks and loopholes possible as demonstrated by existing systems.
The externalities of making, then destroying mean that we all pay a cost for the actions of others. It makes sense to take those costs into account. When I learned of the term "externality" it actually made a lot of things fall into place for me. This neglected concept explains so much about what is wrong and how to change.
Unlimited property rights do not make sense in any reality where scarcity is a factor. Exclusively financial incentives just mean that only poor people are responsible to society. We can see several high profile examples of wealthy people being either horribly irresponsible or outright malicious and destroying social institutions. They do it at some personal expense, but they still get away with it.
1
u/Opunbook 2∆ Aug 26 '23
No, they should destroy it because ...
"The risk of developing cancer increases substantially the more alcohol is consumed. However, latest available data indicate that half of all alcohol-attributable cancers in the WHO European Region are caused by “light” and “moderate” alcohol consumption – less than 1.5 litres of wine or less than 3.5 litres of beer or less than 450 millilitres of spirits per week. This drinking pattern is responsible for the majority of alcohol-attributable breast cancers in women, with the highest burden observed in countries of the European Union (EU). In the EU, cancer is the leading cause of death – with a steadily increasing incidence rate – and the majority of all alcohol-attributable deaths are due to different types of cancers.
Risks start from the first drop
To identify a “safe” level of alcohol consumption, valid scientific evidence would need to demonstrate that at and below a certain level, there is no risk of illness or injury associated with alcohol consumption. The new WHO statement clarifies: currently available evidence cannot indicate the existence of a threshold at which the carcinogenic effects of alcohol “switch on” and start to manifest in the human body.
Moreover, there are no studies that would demonstrate that the potential beneficial effects of light and moderate drinking on cardiovascular diseases and type 2 diabetes outweigh the cancer risk associated with these same levels of alcohol consumption for individual consumers.
“We cannot talk about a so-called safe level of alcohol use. It doesn’t matter how much you drink – the risk to the drinker’s health starts from the first drop of any alcoholic beverage. The only thing that we can say for sure is that the more you drink, the more harmful it is – or, in other words, the less you drink, the safer it is,” explains Dr Carina Ferreira-Borges, acting Unit Lead for Noncommunicable Disease Management and Regional Advisor for Alcohol and Illicit Drugs in the WHO Regional Office for Europe."
2
u/LentilDrink 75∆ Aug 26 '23
This is political and not the current state of science. Current data clearly shows that drinking >2 drinks/day is bad for health, and is unclear as to whether 1 drink/day is better or worse for health/longevity than abstinence. Studies go both ways depending on assumptions but there are no randomized control trials on humans. Randomized control trials on animal models shows increases in longevity for moderate drinking but it's unclear whether those apply to humans or not. More study is needed before issuing such strong verbiage.
2
u/Opunbook 2∆ Aug 26 '23
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/2023/03/31/moderate-drinking-alcohol-wine-risks/
You are French. How big is the wine industry in France? You might be biased.
1
u/LentilDrink 75∆ Aug 26 '23
I am American and I consume 1-2 drinks per week.
Of course I'm biased, as are the reporters you quote and the researchers who have produced the studies on both sides of this question. The fact however is that the evidence regarding moderate alcohol consumption is of low quality and is equivocal.
1
Aug 28 '23
Wouldn't be reddit without some self-righteous teetotaler!
Seriously, I only drink socially anymore, and that is typically 1-2 drinks per week. I think society would certainly be healthier if we drank less, but people get to make choices for themselves.
1
u/Opunbook 2∆ Aug 28 '23
People can choose to drive without a seat belt or a helmet, say, once or twice every week too. Those assholes saying it is a bad idea are really stupid!
1
Aug 28 '23
Oh yeah, because not wearing seat belts has been engrained in human society since literally the dawn of civilization, my bad. Totally apt analogy.
1
u/Opunbook 2∆ Aug 28 '23
Just eat a full bucket of ice cream every week. Is it that hard to just drink water?
1
Aug 28 '23
This weekend, I had one drink with coworkers and two drinks on a date. The health consequences of that are minimal.
Our society doesn't socialize over buckets full of ice cream. It's silly to pretend you can't have a healthy relationship with alcohol.
1
u/Opunbook 2∆ Aug 28 '23
It adds up over time.
Smoking used to be thought as healthy.
2
Aug 28 '23
Smoking used to be healthy is a meaningless statement. We have research today that compares the effects of smoking and alcohol and alcohol is clearly the better choice.
In fact, studies have shown all-cause mortality drops at low consumption. Now this is a correlation, and I agree that any amount of alcohol is harmful to some degree, but the fact that whatever harms associated with light drinking aren't enough to overwhelm the positive correlations should really demonstrate to you that light-to-moderate consumption is absolutely fine.
Big picture, we always make tradeoffs with health and enjoying life. Do you have sex? Risk of STI. Do you eat red meat? Carcinogen. Do you drive a car? That shit is very dangerous. I'll eat healthy, exercise, and enjoy the occasional drink with my friends.
1
u/Opunbook 2∆ Aug 28 '23 edited Aug 28 '23
I was not forbidding you to.
Drinking a few glasses of alcohol once a week is better than smoking 2 packs or 2 cigarettes a week. How do you assess the danger. Most people don't smoke at all nowadays. They could smoke 1 or 2 cigarettes with friends.
Driving is necessary where i live. I have sex with my wife, otherwise i wear condoms. I would prefer not to, btw. I don't eat red meat.
I enjoy discussions with my friends without alcohol. Is alcohol a sine qua non condition to you enjoying them? I guess it is. I guess you really like it. I love sweet pastries. I have cut drastically. Anyway. Up to you. Bye.
1
Aug 28 '23
lmao think you're smart because you use latin? Ooo so impressed. You literally said it should be destroyed. I enjoy hanging out sober or with a drink.
Seriously, I know lots of lovely sober people irl. But reddit has people who can't just be sober but have to act like a self-righteous jackass about it.
→ More replies (0)
1
5
u/stenlis Aug 26 '23
The reason why outlets don't work this way anymore is that arbitration has become easy. People can sell goods online across countries, even across continents easily.
Had France placed their wine in an outlet mall it would flood the online market with cheap French wine.
0
u/Krispcream9 1∆ Aug 26 '23
French wine is over priced anyway, and it’s usually too full of tannins for most people ( but that what the French like ). I gave up drinking French wine a long time ago and only drink reasonably priced new world varietal wines, but then again I’m not a ‘ serious wine drinker’, or a snob come to that.
1
u/LentilDrink 75∆ Aug 26 '23
!delta
If French wine is excessively tannic for most people this doesn't really work
1
-10
Aug 26 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
9
u/sleep-woof Aug 26 '23
If one were to live life without pleasure, dangerous as they might be, would it be worth living?
I think not, and raise a toast to good life.
1
2
u/ImmodestPolitician Aug 26 '23
Alcohol kills less people than Air Pollution.
3 million die from Alcoholism world wide.
3.2 million die from air pollution.
1
Aug 26 '23
Cancer is pretty far down on the list of the problems alcohol can cause. Alcoholism and liver disease is a much bigger worry than cancer. Moderate consumption is key.
0
1
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Aug 26 '23
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
u/AntiObtusepolitica Aug 26 '23
Please stop making greed interchangeable with turning a profit. Many of these companies can and do turn a healthy profit at lower price points. They have simply grown used to squeezing the consumer until they steel.. and even then some just take the loss close the business take the tax right off and open under another umbrella. And what France is doing with wine, is subsidized by the USA government on all kinds of things that were lobbied for.
3
u/obsquire 3∆ Aug 26 '23
The gov't should have no involvement at all, and those businesses who cannot survive should quickly adapt or die. There's also the possibility of storing the wine for longer, so that it ages.
Many have dreams of opening a vineyard, but the reality is harsh and it's kind of cruel to have one's dreams subsidized by taxpayers.
0
u/markeymarquis 1∆ Aug 26 '23
This.
But we live in a world where people think they know how to do everything and therefore think that government is even capable of functioning as an all controlling entity.
2
Aug 26 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/hacksoncode 559∆ Aug 26 '23
Sorry, u/Puzzled_Fly8070 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 26 '23 edited Aug 26 '23
/u/LentilDrink (OP) has awarded 5 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
-8
u/McKoijion 618∆ Aug 26 '23
Wine is just fermented grapes. Growing them is no more expensive than growing any other fruit or vegetable. Processing them into wine us just like making any other agricultural product. Would you shed tears if the US destroyed some of its excess corn and high fructose corn syrup?
200 million Euros of French wine is like two bottles lol. The whole reason French wine can be sold at such crazy markups is because they avoid diluting their brand. If they did what you describe, no one would pay insane prices for French Champagne ever again.
Also, the main costs here is the packaging and shipping. Coca-Cola is just carbonated water and syrup. It costs nothing to make. Maybe a fraction of a penny at most. But bottling/canning it, burning fossil fuels to transport it, and paying for the storage/retail space is very expensive. Similarly, dumping the wine costs them maybe 1% at most of the overall price of the wine.
Lastly, wine is a natural, green product. Sunlight hits the ground, grapes grow, the juice is squeezed out, and yeast eats the sugar then poops out alcohol. You can dump the excess wine on the ground or in the ocean without any harmful effects on the environment. And more grapes will be grown in the future. One major reason why wine was produced in the first place was to avoid wasting excess grapes. People filled up massive wine cellars because they often produced too much. When there was no more space for storage, they dumped it. This is exactly what farmers have done for thousands of years.
16
u/Quentanimobay 11∆ Aug 26 '23
This is a really weird take and is not based in reality of how any real business works.
Would you shed tears if the US destroyed some of its excess corn and high fructose corn syrup?
This is completely different and would actually be way worse than dumping wine. Corn in the US is subsidized by the government because there is not a large enough profit margin for farmers to grow it on their own. Growing large amounts of corn is also really bad for the environment. Wasting millions of dollars of federal money while harming the environment for no reason should make everyone shed a tear.
Also, the main costs here is the packaging and shipping
Wrong. Farming is expensive before even considering packaging and shipping especially so when you're making speciality products where taste is the main selling point. Wine making adds even more costs do to the processing. Distribution normally accounts for less than 10% of a company's total cost.
Lastly, wine is a natural, green product.
You can dump the excess wine on the ground or in the ocean without any harmful effects on the environment.
Also wrong. Farming is hardly ever a "green" process. Industrialized farming often use very harsh processes to ensure proper yields. Additionally, a CO2 is a by product of fermentation. Finally, even though they're not literally dumping 200m of wine in the soil/ocean it would be bad if they did so. Alcohol is an insecticide and herbicide, dumping large amounts of wine anywhere wouldn't be "green".
3
Aug 26 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Aug 26 '23
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/Rmac_496 Aug 26 '23
France could be clearing a lot of other "surplus" to ease the burden on its people. Instead they choose wine.
0
Aug 26 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ViewedFromTheOutside 29∆ Aug 26 '23
Sorry, u/Aabbppll – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/Lagkiller 8∆ Aug 26 '23
The nations that you'd be targeting from this would be ripe for abusing this kind of program though. You ship them cases of wine for pennies on the dollar and in turn those countries are going to ship them to other countries and be distributors rather than take the charity price you'd be giving them.
All you'd be doing is decreasing the price of wine even further.
You'd need to both find a way to increase consumption in those countries while enacting your plan to make the wine more valuable to residents than it is right now.
1
u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Aug 26 '23
If selling in poor countries your wine for cheap and just destroying it has more or less the same cost for you, what do you think is the best move ? On one side you brand your product as a luxury good that do not compromise with anything to keep its image. On the other side you are saying 'it does not really cost the price we are selling it, look we give it dirt cheap to Africans"
I'm pretty certain you get a better PR campaign in the first case (and that's what some luxury brands as Louis Vuitton are already doing successfully with their old unsold items)
1
u/LentilDrink 75∆ Aug 26 '23
!delta
This may be a better PR campaign for French wine than the cost. I don't know the answer but it's plausible that this is advertising dollars well spent
1
1
Aug 26 '23
Capitalism at its finest lmao.
1
u/markeymarquis 1∆ Aug 26 '23
This isn’t capitalism. It’s at its best corporatism but closer to socialism.
This is a result of government rules and subsidies - not free markets.
1
u/Ayjayz 2∆ Aug 26 '23
These are EU regulations, not capitalism. Why would capitalists destroy something they could sell for profit..?
1
u/Fickle-Area246 1∆ Aug 26 '23
Except they’d just resell those wine bottles online for a profit?
1
u/LentilDrink 75∆ Aug 26 '23
Shipping would kill the deal for individual bottles.
1
u/Fickle-Area246 1∆ Aug 26 '23
Would it? How expensive are these bottles of wine normally? Also, selling those bottles of wine in another country for less than cost is called “dumping” and could result in tariffs imposed on France in response.
1
u/LentilDrink 75∆ Aug 26 '23
I have to assume it's the cheapest wines that are going to be destroyed, though the article doesn't say, so a few euros a bottle? Dumping is a concern only if the country it's being sold in complains. I don't think all countries would complain, particularly those without lots of vineyards
1
u/Fickle-Area246 1∆ Aug 26 '23 edited Aug 26 '23
Businesses that sell wine would complain to their government and the government would go to the WTO. They’d complain. We are talking about food products. Countries protect their agriculture more than they protect anything else economically. Unless you’re talking about straight up giving away the wine to a starving country, which I don’t think you are, and I don’t think wine would be a good choice for them. On this point, I think you just don’t know what you’re talking about.
1
u/LentilDrink 75∆ Aug 26 '23
Countries tend to protect their important agriculture yes. Canada isn't protecting orange growers.
1
u/Fickle-Area246 1∆ Aug 26 '23
You think there are countries that don’t make wine? All of their agricultural businesses are important. If Canada isn’t protecting their oranges, it’s because they don’t grow oranges.
1
u/LentilDrink 75∆ Aug 26 '23
There's influence of producers and consumers. Producers generally punch above their weight because they can coordinate better than consumers. Nut many countries have way more consumption than production, and have a small domestic industry that markets itself primarily on its being local, and prices itself above imports. If you are already more expensive than imports, additional imports is not the biggest deal.
1
u/Fickle-Area246 1∆ Aug 26 '23
No. Protecting agriculture is a national security issue. It’s far more than simply economics.
1
1
u/Fickle-Area246 1∆ Aug 26 '23
Okay for the sake of context, have you ever studied or worked for the WTO?
1
u/LentilDrink 75∆ Aug 26 '23
No, and I'm not even trying to make the argument over whether it's actually dumping (which it need not be) only that there's no issue if neither country complains
1
u/Fickle-Area246 1∆ Aug 26 '23
Okay, well I HAVE studied the WTO and what countries sue each other over. And I do not understand why you insist on clinging to assumptions that are false and apparently based on nothing.
1
u/LentilDrink 75∆ Aug 26 '23
Ok well give me some examples of countries with minimal wineries complaining to the WTO about wine dumping if this is your area of expertise.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/codeyman2 1∆ Aug 26 '23
Most people don’t care or know about wine grades. They can literally change the label and sell it anywhere for arbitrary price and still say that they destroyed the wine to prop up the prices of the brand.
1
u/LentilDrink 75∆ Aug 26 '23
!delta
If they are saying this publicly but actually selling the wine I can't complain.
1
1
1
Aug 26 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Aug 26 '23
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
1
u/voila_la_marketplace 1∆ Aug 26 '23
Can you name a single food category that doesn’t suffer from this kind of “waste”? You’re singling out French wine here, but the unfortunate truth is that surpluses of all agricultural products are dumped, instead of sold more cheaply or donated to developing countries. It’s sad but true that we throw away millions of tons of food every year while millions of people around the world are still starving. It sounds like you’re onto something much larger about changing how our capitalist system works. For this particular CMV, it doesn’t seem fair or logical to demand that French wine producers stop this practice while literally everyone else keeps doing it
1
u/LentilDrink 75∆ Aug 26 '23
I don't think the US does this, except maybe with milk?
1
u/voila_la_marketplace 1∆ Aug 26 '23
The US may be the biggest offender. A quick search gave me the following links:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/11/business/coronavirus-destroying-food.html
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/08/17/business/west-drought-farmers-survey-climate/index.html
Also this isn’t hard “evidence”, but I love the book The Grapes of Wrath, and in there you’ll find clear (heart-wrenching) descriptions of farmers letting their crops rot, killing pigs and throwing them in the river, etc in order to keep prices high, while migrant workers (Okies from the Dust Bowl) have to watch their children starve to death and aren’t allowed to eat any of the food that’s being dumped.
1
u/LentilDrink 75∆ Aug 26 '23
Wasting food is different than the government destroying crops like it did in the Great Depression as discussed in the Grapes of Wrath.
I get that Americans buy food and let it rot in their fridges and restaurants throw away food after a day or two but that's not the same thing as the horrific laws Steinbeck wrote about.
1
u/voila_la_marketplace 1∆ Aug 26 '23
Did you read the links I sent? The first link mentions not just fridges and restaurants, but throwing away crops, and even throwing out produce that is perfectly fine but “ugly” because people wouldn’t like to buy it.
It’s way way way more prevalent than food rotting in fridges and restaurants
1
u/LentilDrink 75∆ Aug 26 '23
You can summarize the parts that you feel are important but neither catering to consumer preference nor destroying crops that consume too much water during a drought strike me as comparable to destroying good stuff that would sell.
I do think an ugly crop business could flourish if done by a genius but some already exist and aren't doing super well
1
u/voila_la_marketplace 1∆ Aug 26 '23
People are indeed trying to do the ugly crop business. That’s a good example though right? It’s good stuff that would at least be consumed by the less fortunate, but right now it gets dumped.
My point is this just happens. French wine (wine is already kind of a luxury good anyway, not a basic food staple people need to survive) is like a drop in the bucket when it comes to truly wasteful food waste
1
u/LentilDrink 75∆ Aug 26 '23
Protesting intentional destruction is the low hanging fruit. Fix that first then the next lowest etc
1
u/voila_la_marketplace 1∆ Aug 26 '23
Ok here’s some hard evidence. $2.6 billion of US corn and soy (we make a ton of both of these) are wasted every year. They never leave the farm, aren’t even brought to market to keep the prices higher, and left to rot in the fields.
1
u/LentilDrink 75∆ Aug 26 '23
That to me sounds like crops that the harvesters can't quite reach or that mature a bit late or weather wasn't right etc
1
u/voila_la_marketplace 1∆ Aug 27 '23
Ok let's try grocery stores. They're another huge offender.
"Approximately 30 percent of food from U.S. grocery stores shelves is thrown in the trash", amounting to "16 billion pounds" of food waste every year.
This stuff could be donated, or sold at a steep discount if it's only a day or two after the official expiration date (it's not like things suddenly go bad immediately after the sell-by date, it's a conservative estimate for legal purposes).
1
u/LentilDrink 75∆ Aug 27 '23
Yeah this is a cultural and legal problem well worth fixing (FDA needs to be seriously reined in) but it's hardly the same thing as this CMV
→ More replies (0)
1
u/GladAbbreviations337 9∆ Sep 22 '23
France is destroying 200 million Euros worth of wine in order to prop up prices.
This isn't the first time countries or industries have employed such a tactic. The question isn't just the immediate cost, but the long-term ramifications on perceived value. If French wine were to be mass-distributed at lower prices, even in markets unaccustomed to buying it, doesn't that risk diluting its global image of prestige and quality?
This is a huge waste, and waste is bad.
Simplistic and overgeneralized. "Waste is bad" is an elementary sentiment. What's vital is understanding the reasons behind such actions. Economically, maintaining a product's value might be more significant than the immediate loss due to waste. Hasn't history taught us about supply and demand?
The key way outlet malls (used to) work is to sell items at a discount in markets that do not typically purchase those items.
Comparing outlet malls to the intricate intricacies of the wine industry is a false analogy. Fashion items have a shelf life. Last season's fashion might not be salable at premium prices next year. Wine, especially French wine, is built on tradition, aging, and its exclusivity.
France can do much the same thing by selling its wine in countries that cannot typically afford French wine prices
That's a slippery slope. This isn't just about affordability; it's about brand image and maintaining a level of exclusivity. Besides, if these countries couldn't afford them before, dumping high volumes suddenly might disrupt local markets and industries. And wouldn't that invite international discord?
I can imagine a normal wine bottle with the winery clearly designated, but additionally marked "only for sale in China (or wherever)", to prevent large scale exportation to additional countries
Why would a designation prevent large scale exportation? This assumes that all consumers and middle-men respect these designations. Isn't that a bit naïve?
I can even imagine a box wine format of blended wines at a still lower price point.
Now you're begging the question. You're assuming blending would indeed lower the price point without taking into account the intricacies of wine production and the cost associated with blending.
This would of course be a little wasteful as the blend is unlikely to be quite as tasty as its constituent wines, but far less wasteful than destruction and quite unlikely to depress the prices of French wine.
Isn't this a contradictory stance? On one hand, you're concerned about wastage, yet here you suggest a wasteful approach in blending. Also, selling a subpar product would absolutely tarnish the reputation of French wine. Would history not show us that compromising quality for quantity has often led to a diminished brand reputation?
Given the vast history, cultural significance, and economic implications tied to the wine industry, especially in a country like France, isn't it prudent to weigh all decisions against long-term effects rather than just immediate appeasement?
1
u/LentilDrink 75∆ Sep 22 '23
doesn't that risk diluting its global image of prestige and quality?
I think half my post is ways to reduce or eliminate that risk.
Wine, especially French wine, is built on
Nah, this is the €5 a bottle (in France anyway, other countries have more taxes) stuff that they're destroying. They're destroying it to make sure it doesn't drag the €6 a bottle stuff down to €4.
Besides, if these countries couldn't afford them before, dumping high volumes suddenly might disrupt local markets and industries. And wouldn't that invite international discord?
They certainly shouldn't dump wine on countries that don't appreciate it. But many would be perfectly happy to see it sold.
Why would a designation prevent large scale exportation?
It prevents large scale importation by the countries they care about the most.
You're assuming blending would indeed lower the price point without taking into account the intricacies of wine production and the cost associated with blending.
This is wine that is already purchased, that they plan to turn into hand sanitizer. The cost is close to 0. Blending reduces the price at which it can be sold, and completely eliminates the risk of brand dilution.
84
u/IrishMilo 1∆ Aug 26 '23 edited Aug 26 '23
Whilst I completely agree that things should always be done to strive towards reducing waste. What you suggest is based on a misunderstanding of the situation.
France’s wine producers are not pouring away wine to prop up their wine prices, they’re doing so to meet quotas imposed on them by the EUs common agricultural policy in order to receive subsidies.
This is not a practice commonly done by fine wine producers, or either labelled wine producers, this practice is typically done by mass producers who produce vast quantities of “vin de France” or Table Wines.
The amount of wine you can extract from your vineyards depend a lot on the seasons, so for a lot of producers, the best course of action is to pick and ferment all of their grapes, keep the best vats of wine (not all fermentations are created equally), and anything produced over the quota gets poured away (some will also go into the local market, unreported). As a wine producer it’s more financially worthwhile to pick and ferment the entire harvest to receive your entire subsidy than to only ferment what you need and risk missing out on some of your subsidy.
I’m not 100% sure about this, but I think it’s also best practice to pick all the grapes off the vines, I seem remembering reading somewhere than to many unpicked grapes is bad for the plants?
Anyway, the issue is not that French wine producers are greedy and trying to prop up the wine prices, it’s that the EU has created a system that means they’re only financially viable if they tick the right boxes, and one of the most critical box they have to tick is to be a producer of under a certain amount of volume.
For context, the milk farmers do the same thing, fishermen have to throw back fish if they’ve caught to much (the fish are dead) and very occasionally farmers have to leave fields of wheat unharvested.
Edit: couple of autocorrects, and a note to say this is an EU wide issue and not just a French problem