It sounds like you can boil anything down to something along those lines. I dont think that is really the issue people are taking with this... like someone else said, it just sucks. We get it, its all legal, but let me be angry and bitter because just like these businesses have the right do what they're doing, i have a right to my own feelings and opinion on the matter.
Nice article on how AB InBev is trying to destroy good beer for higher profits
- Thread starter Gravedigger
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
BrewKnurd
Well-Known Member
Who's stopping you from being bitter or angry?
You're allowed to be angry, other people are allowed to be angry with you being angry, etc, etc. Just like you have a right to your opinions, others have a right to their opinions about your opinions. 
aubiecat
Well-Known Member
I love xkcd. I also think that pic is better suited for the brewer who doesn't drink beer thread.
stay away from my opinion!!
Well, you have people you are zen, who let things happen the way things do and they look at the bright side, like how many more companies are making good beer.
It does suck that some historical beers that managed to stay in business are only empty brands now. We can safely admit to that and then move on.
Woo! It's 1997 internet banana dancer!You are awfully optimistic.
That would seem a simple thing if it didn't have to compete against cheap.
There are some people who should feel perfectly happy that their fave beer is deleted because not enough people like good beer. I GUESS. go capitalism.
Anyway I am fine with the H.a.t.e theory re inbev. WTF not?
cheezydemon3
Well-Known Member
MUST WATCH:
Beer Wars
Holy Hell!!!!
Budweiser was completely stinking evil before Inbev (or as I like to call it...THE BLOB) took over.
Beer Wars
Holy Hell!!!!
Budweiser was completely stinking evil before Inbev (or as I like to call it...THE BLOB) took over.
It's the goal of capitalism to make and sell inexpensive products and not to make and sell cheap products. This is a lesson that neither Brito nor Sam Walton learned.
Gameface
Well-Known Member
No, those people should open a brewery and operate at a loss as their children starve.
Capitalism is the system most closely linked to reality.
Q: When can I buy stock in your company?
A: We are honored that you are interested in investing in our business. But the short answer to your question is: never. We are happy to be a privately held company. It allows us to have more control over our business direction, quality and product line-up. You can buy stock in your own drinking pleasure by purchasing our beers. That’s always a smart investment.
Source: http://victorybeer.com/blog/category/qa/
:rockin:
Does that make them socialists??? (sarcasm)
ie. Stop saying a pig company InBev is doing it because of capitalism. They are just gross.
A: We are honored that you are interested in investing in our business. But the short answer to your question is: never. We are happy to be a privately held company. It allows us to have more control over our business direction, quality and product line-up. You can buy stock in your own drinking pleasure by purchasing our beers. That’s always a smart investment.
Source: http://victorybeer.com/blog/category/qa/
:rockin:
Does that make them socialists??? (sarcasm)
ie. Stop saying a pig company InBev is doing it because of capitalism. They are just gross.
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2006
- Messages
- 3,996
- Reaction score
- 94
Here's what most people do not understand about the stock market vs capitalism:
Let's say Walmart stock goes from $100/share to $200/share.
How much does Walmart benefit from a doubling of their stock price? Not much. They could conceivably borrow money more cheaply (using stock as collateral), but in terms if their bottom line, it has almost no effect.
How much do workers benefit? Hardly at all. Regardless of what the company is worth, people still need to be there to stock the shelves, check-out customers, etc.
The bottom line is that Wall Street has little to do with capitalism.
Compare that to Victory Brewing (since they have just been mentioned... it could be any privately-held company, really).
There is no stock price. Well, technically and legally there is, but it doesn't matter because it's just owned by the business owners who run the business. They have zero interest whatsoever in the stock price. All they care about is the business and maintaining profitability. That's capitalism. The first, isn't.
Wall Street isn't capitalism. It's a perversion of capitalism where people who have nothing but money invested get to tell the people whose livelihood is at stake how they need to run their business.
Let's say Walmart stock goes from $100/share to $200/share.
How much does Walmart benefit from a doubling of their stock price? Not much. They could conceivably borrow money more cheaply (using stock as collateral), but in terms if their bottom line, it has almost no effect.
How much do workers benefit? Hardly at all. Regardless of what the company is worth, people still need to be there to stock the shelves, check-out customers, etc.
The bottom line is that Wall Street has little to do with capitalism.
Compare that to Victory Brewing (since they have just been mentioned... it could be any privately-held company, really).
There is no stock price. Well, technically and legally there is, but it doesn't matter because it's just owned by the business owners who run the business. They have zero interest whatsoever in the stock price. All they care about is the business and maintaining profitability. That's capitalism. The first, isn't.
Wall Street isn't capitalism. It's a perversion of capitalism where people who have nothing but money invested get to tell the people whose livelihood is at stake how they need to run their business.
i think "rent seeking" is the term.
TyTanium
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2011
- Messages
- 3,976
- Reaction score
- 611
???
The people who have "nothing but money invested" are called owners. They employ people to generate a return on their capital. This is fundamental to proper allocation of capital in an economy.
zeg
Well-Known Member
This is true, to a point.
However, much of the current system is so far removed from operating a company that it's a bit of a stretch to say that it's improving the operation of the companies and commodities that are the core of the real economy. If it were as simple as buying ownership shares and then helping guide the company, that'd be one thing. While the more complicated investments CAN help things within the market move more efficiently, many are primarily used to generate money with little connection to the underlying fundamentals.
It's this latter exploitation of the system that is, perhaps, a problem. It's unclear that it is improving the economy for anyone other than those at the top.
kombat
Well-Known Member
"Nothing but money invested???" What else matters that you can "invest?"
I'm glad I wasn't the only one shaking my head at this ludicrous comment. We're talking about businesses here. Money is the only thing that a business exists to generate. Otherwise, it'd be called a "charity."
And as someone else pointed out, the people with money invested are called "owners." If they don't have the right to dictate what is done with the company, then who does? The government? The low-level hourly employees with nothing at stake?
cheezydemon3
Well-Known Member
Likewise shaking my head at you.
It means someone that knows nothing of beer runs the brewery. No sadness there?
Again, this discussion has been done. While you are obsessed with "legal" and technically "fair", things can be horrible, sucking, crappy, whatever the term even though no laws have been broken.
TyTanium
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2011
- Messages
- 3,976
- Reaction score
- 611
InBev surely employs some awesome brewers to run the brewery. But those brewers may not be the best equipped or experienced to run the business. Just proper resource allocation - letting people do what they're good at.
I bet many small private brewers would welcome the help of a few JDs/MBAs/experienced executives to help them navigate the business, were it available.
Again, I'm not defending them, I'm not a "fan" of this company before, or after, just presenting an alternative view here.
when ALL decisions in a capitalist system are made in the interests of capital, by definition there will be huge societal problems flowing from those decisions. this is an inescapable fact that is easy to see by taking a quick glance at, say, flint, michigan (or any other former manufacturing city). the question is do we just worship at the altar of capitalism with no regard to it's effects or do we try to find ways to keep people from being crushed under the interests of capital? do all people matter or just some people? if i invest a million dollars in a company do i matter more than the employees of that company who depend on those jobs to provide for their families?
TyTanium
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2011
- Messages
- 3,976
- Reaction score
- 611
Sounds like political rhetoric to me. Capitalism is amoral; it only reflects the values people bring to it. If we no longer value manufacturing in Flint, relative to something else, then artificially subsidizing manufacturing in Flint may not be optimal. I realize jobs & livelihoods are at stake here; that comes with the territory of capitalism. So then it comes down to whether the incentives it creates are worth those costs.
So, can we find a way to make manufacturing in Flint competitive in a global economy? If not, then perhaps those resources are better allocated elsewhere.
MODS: I realize this can get political real quick since at the core the InBev discussion is political & economic theory & beliefs.
So, can we find a way to make manufacturing in Flint competitive in a global economy? If not, then perhaps those resources are better allocated elsewhere.
MODS: I realize this can get political real quick since at the core the InBev discussion is political & economic theory & beliefs.
this makes my point rather nicely. who is the WE you are referring to? the people who lost their jobs? the "comes with territory of capitalism" encapsulates the religious dogma that whatever the results are they must be seen as good...for someone, and that's good enough. this is not a political or economic discussion, it's more a religious discussion since it's mostly faith based; you have to have faith that capitalism will save....someone. maybe not you or me, but that shouldn't matter, the free market will most efficiently allocate the resources. NOT. the last thing big money wants are free markets and they spend billions trying to insure that the markets are free for them and a little less free for anyone else. "regulatory capture" is what they call it, and it's legal so that tells you a little more about who's really winning in these "free markets".
TyTanium
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2011
- Messages
- 3,976
- Reaction score
- 611
Ahh, I see where you're coming from now. Yeah, I'm not a fan of regulatory capture either, and agree that in many respects the free markets aren't "free". Regulators definitely have an important role to play, but I'm all too familiar with the costs imposed by over-involvement (I'm a banker).
I'm reacting to the notion that someone (e.g., gov't) should intervene when industries change...the government (and by extension, regulators) exist to set and enforce the rules, not pick winners & losers. So it sounds like we're in agreement there. As far as "big money" being in cahoots with regulators, I don't even want to go there. I'm content to leave that one be.
I'm reacting to the notion that someone (e.g., gov't) should intervene when industries change...the government (and by extension, regulators) exist to set and enforce the rules, not pick winners & losers. So it sounds like we're in agreement there. As far as "big money" being in cahoots with regulators, I don't even want to go there. I'm content to leave that one be.
neko
Well-Known Member
"Analysts speculate that it will acquire SABMiller, the world’s second-largest brewer."
Haven't read all the posts in this thread, but I have a feeling this wouldn't pass the antitrust authorities.
Haven't read all the posts in this thread, but I have a feeling this wouldn't pass the antitrust authorities.
cheezydemon3
Well-Known Member
At what point do anti-trust laws come into play? (Laws which evidently must have been UNFAIR before they were signed into law:cross
callmebruce
Well-Known Member
All the article made me do is to look a little more closely at the beer I buy. And kick myself, since I've fallen for Beck's, Bass and Stella Artois. So it made me more determined to purchase locally brewed beers and wander over to a Growler shop.
If other folks want to drink AB InBev stuff, enjoy it, and like the lower prices - that's fine. If they decide to try something else and take a closer look at craft-brewed beer or locally brewed beer - all the better.
If other folks want to drink AB InBev stuff, enjoy it, and like the lower prices - that's fine. If they decide to try something else and take a closer look at craft-brewed beer or locally brewed beer - all the better.
TyTanium
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2011
- Messages
- 3,976
- Reaction score
- 611
At what point do anti-trust laws come into play? (Laws which evidently must have been UNFAIR before they were signed into law:cross
Generally the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) is used to measure market concentration. You plug in market share numbers of both parties and other competitors, it gives you an indexed number, and depending on how high it is, it raises various levels of antitrust scrutiny.
An InBev/SABMiller merger would almost certainly raise the antitrust flags.
And again, having a monopoly isn't illegal, it's taking action to create or protect one (such as buying SABMiller).
http://www.unclaw.com/chin/teaching/antitrust/herfindahl.htm
aubiecat
Well-Known Member
I did the same thing. I looked at the list of beers and put that in the memory bank. I have no desire to feed the beast.
kombat
Well-Known Member
Do you boycott all companies that sacrifice quality for profits, or just this one?
If the answer is "all," then I have to ask: Where the heck do you shop?
aubiecat
Well-Known Member
Sometimes we don't have the luxury of choice in a matter like that.
Luckily we still have a choice in what beer we buy. Not buying AB products is an easy thing to do.
cheezydemon3
Well-Known Member
Do you KOMBAT Everyone?? or just everyone?
I hates inbev because they took EXISTING beers, cheapened them by cutting corners and buying crappier ingredients, and then sell them as the same product it was before the changes.
It is like Mcdonalds putting cheaper ingredients, like earthworms in the burgers and selling them as if nothing was different......wait, what???
Oh yeah! I EFFING HATE McDonalds too!!!!
Gonna tell me I'm wrong?
(I inserts mugs and winks, and talks like a pirate so that I seem less kombative)
Do you KOMBAT Everyone?? or just everyone?
I hates inbev because they took EXISTING beers, cheapened them by cutting corners and buying crappier ingredients, and then sell them as the same product it was before the changes.
It is like Mcdonalds putting cheaper ingredients, like earthworms in the burgers and selling them as if nothing was different......wait, what???
Oh yeah! I EFFING HATE McDonalds too!!!!
Gonna tell me I'm wrong?
I hate all of BMC not just Inbev and refuse to shop in a Walmart or eat fast food.
CD3 you sir get a :rockin:
People do not understand the power they have when they stop spending on corporations (and the tax dollars that go with it). Starve the beast, it will die.
Yar!
cheezydemon3
Well-Known Member
Zamial said:
Yar yerself!!
Well ... maybe. But then obviously InBev is going to buy all the bratwurst companies, close down all but two sausage factories, fiddle with the recipes (frog meat tastes a lot like pork when processed the Rite Way), fire all the traditional bratwurst veal and pig farmers, fire thousands of sausage factory workers, pretend there are still a dozen brands using same old dumb marketing techniques instead of really just one hideous puppet master wizard of oz machina-thing brand, and occasionally swallow a budding young independent craft bratwurst meat packer that walks by. Then, when they are done cutting costs, they will be left to sell sausages.
I can answer that! I boycott all that I can. I boycott B/P, Wal-Mart, In-Bev, etc. I have friends who boycott Boy Scouts due to their "no gay" policy, and I support them but have no children of that age so it's not really a boycott.
I don't think they miss me, but I think it's important to live by your convictions. I think it's wrong to decry the policies of a company, but then run through their drive-through at lunch. I think a person of strong convictions must stand by them.
I won't make a decision to boycott all of inBev, or any of the large brewers. My general preference for local beers is close to a boycott in all but name. However, I may soemday feel the urge to pick up a lighter macro beer for whatever reason. I'm not interested in spending time finding out who owns what brand, or carrying around a cheat sheet on the off chance I might decide to buy something other than a Michigan beer or favorite craft.
If they tweak their recipes enough to make people stop buying their beer, then they get what they deserve. If they don't lose customers due to the recipe changes, then the people get what they want. Like Lee Iaccoca once said, the dog must like their dogfood!
That stuff doesn't bother me. The illegal leaning on distributors to give their brands preference is not right, but that seems to be loosening up more every day.
Oh, and did you hear about the new beer coming out from Bud? 6% ABV, baby! Apparently they think craft beer drinkers drink craft beer because it has more alcohol. Either that or they figure more people buying their beer for the buzz... I'm not sure which.
If they tweak their recipes enough to make people stop buying their beer, then they get what they deserve. If they don't lose customers due to the recipe changes, then the people get what they want. Like Lee Iaccoca once said, the dog must like their dogfood!
That stuff doesn't bother me. The illegal leaning on distributors to give their brands preference is not right, but that seems to be loosening up more every day.
Oh, and did you hear about the new beer coming out from Bud? 6% ABV, baby! Apparently they think craft beer drinkers drink craft beer because it has more alcohol. Either that or they figure more people buying their beer for the buzz... I'm not sure which.
cheezydemon3
Well-Known Member
Watch beer wars yet? Bud has been aiming for the craft brewers in absolutely diabolical sneaky ways for a long time.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2008
- Messages
- 64,951
- Reaction score
- 16,516
And it is working, with craft beer's market sharge surging and all.
Just admit it cheezy, you hate wealthy people.
I'm not sure I've seen that one yet or not. I think I netflixed it once.
A craft brewery gets in trouble when they desire to expand beyond what they can manage. That often sets them up for loss of control or for a takeover. Sometimes the owner is just tired of working and want to sell.
A beer company just can't walk into a private company and buy them.
Gravedigger
Well-Known Member
IMO if you enjoy a product and you find the price resonable then by all means keep buying and enjoying. That is probably the case with most of the people who enjoy BMC's flagship offerings. Most of those people don't really care what ingredients are used or how fresh they are. Not trying to flame anyone that likes those beers just my experience/opinion. The biggest problem I have is when companies take a "premium product" and mess with quality by using cheap ingredients then they still market it as "premium" and continue to sell it at a premium price thus deceasing the quality while increasing profits by trying to fool consumers. For instance AB Inbev bought Goose Island a little over a year ago. GI has some good offerings and then they also have a premium line of Belgian styles such as Matilda. I don't believe it has happened yet but it seems to standard practice for In Bev to reduce the quality of ingredients so they have higher margins. If they were to do that to Matlida they would be destroying a great product. Regardless of what they price the product at, that is very dissapointing.
Just to be clear I'm not saying they have done that to the GI offerings yet, but they do have a habbit of that practice.
Just to be clear I'm not saying they have done that to the GI offerings yet, but they do have a habbit of that practice.
Similar threads
