0
Thumbs Up |
Received: 34,729 Given: 61,129 |
Thumbs Up |
Received: 34,729 Given: 61,129 |
Interesting. I didn't know that. But you still have to pay through the nose, I guess, at your local Vinmonopolet ? Personally, I consider the whole idea to be absurd and a typical example of the bureaucracy expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy under the guise of fighting a social ill. I believe that if there are well-paid jobs all around (and proper housing), that such social ills tend to disappear anyway.
Last edited by The Lawspeaker; 12-14-2019 at 03:39 PM.
Wake up and smell the coffee.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 34,729 Given: 61,129 |
Thumbs Up |
Received: 34,729 Given: 61,129 |
Yes. But they had that problem 100 yeas ago in a time when people suffered an abysmal quality of life with poor housing, extremely long working hours and no security whatsoever: a life of constant stress. We are no longer in the year 1900. The Netherlands is another such example of a country that was as bad as Sweden - and now.. not really. But we didn't need strong government interference. Denmark ? Same story ? Germany ? Same story. I actually believe that those governments who implemented those laws only did it for political and financial gain: to get more money into their own pockets as the quality of life in either Sweden or Norway - wasn't remarkably improving after the laws were implemented.
Wake up and smell the coffee.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 5,642 Given: 5,915 |
I wonder what members from those countries would say about this politic.
It's possible to apprehend if it's done to improve the health of the nation or to improve the bank accounts of the politicians. There are indicators like if the advertasement of alcohol is prohibited or well allowed and so on.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 34,729 Given: 61,129 |
Do know that all profits in Norway and Sweden go to the State - here are some corruption cases in Norway:
As for Sweden - when they set up the forerunner of the system - profits would still go to the individual proprietor of the establishment - by 1870 it was decided that everything should go to the State and guess what how corrupt it became during WWI:In what is known as Dysthesaken (the Dysthe case) in 1930 exposed flaws in the goods acquisition procedures of Vinmonopolet, and as a consequence changes were made to the procedures. The leadership were sentenced for combining company and personal interests, and the influence and power of individuals in purchasing decisions were reduced after the process.[5] Following this, a law of 19 July 1931 (Vinmonopolloven, the wine monoploy law) came into effect.[33]
Ekjordsaken, (the Ekjord case) uncovered in 2005, brought new allegations of corruption against employees and leadership of Vinmonopolet. A probe led by Erling Grimstad exposed that the importer firm Ekjord A/S over the course of several years had sponsored outlet leaders by arranging luxury dining and accommodations as well as other gifts in order to influence purchases and placement of their products within the stores. Membership in this exclusive group was symbolized by the gift of a tastevin.[34] Several Vinmonopolet leaders admitted to having received wines and other perks, which led to reprimands of 9 individuals, two of whom were dismissed.[35]
The initiating factor came when an employee who had been fired from Ekjord A/S, sued against wrongful dismissal. The scandal escalated as the media discovered the particulars of the lawsuit, with Lindin as the chief source of allegations that would result in wide consequences.[36] During the trial the elaborate "grease culture" in the company Ekjord A/S was uncovered.[34][37] Knut Grøholt withdrew from the position of CEO of Vinmonopolet later that year,[35] and in August 2006 was replaced by Kai G. Henriksen.[38][39][40]
During the First World War, alcohol was strictly rationed. The state bars and stores started registering purchases. People were allowed only two litres of liquor every three months, and beer above 3.6% ABV (2.8% ABW) was banned.[7] After the war, the rationing continued, using the Bratt System of a household ration book called a "motbok", Gender, income, wealth and social status decided how much alcohol you were allowed to buy. Unemployed people were not allowed to buy anything at all, while as the motbok was issued by household instead of per person, meant that wives shared their allowance with their husbands and in effect got nothing at all. A referendum on prohibition in 1922 advised government not to issue total prohibition. The rationing system was very unpopular. When even the temperance movement protested against it (they felt it encouraged consumption), the government decided a new policy was needed.It was always about taxation and control. Not about public safety.In 1955 the rationing system was abolished, and people were allowed to start buying as much alcohol as they wanted from Systembolaget stores (as long as they are sober, over 21 and not suspected of buying for later private resale). This led to increased consumption, so the government increased taxes heavily and made it compulsory that everyone had to show ID to get served. There was also an age limit of 21, which in 1969 was changed to 20. In 1965 it became legal for privately run stores to sell beer up to 4.5% with an age limit of 18. 12 years later, after alcohol consumption – especially that of light beers – rose dramatically, the limit was lowered to 3.5%.
Wake up and smell the coffee.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 2,064 Given: 4,192 |
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks