Big breweries using small names to conceal themselves?

[Bogforce]

You will know if you buy a "craft" type beer made by BMC, it's terrible.. If you get on the beerwars website it tells you all the beer that BMC makes but not the names they use to cover up some beer

 

[Homercidal]

Yeah, saw another "craft" beer I didn't recognize a while ago, looked at the fine print on the six-pack, and, sure enough, said "Michelob." Like many people, I'm willing to try something new, no matter who brews it, but I've gotten tired of that, for several reasons, when it comes to the "bigs." 1) the beer is invariably drinkable, but what I would call craft beer "lite," and 2) I think the bigs are using this as a shotgun approach to try to saturate the distribution channels and counteract the inelastic demand (look it up) in the market they face. So- I won't buy that stuff any more. Too many genuine good craft beers out there.

FWIW - I think Michelob makes a couple of pretty decent "microbrews".

I don't buy the BMC beers mostly because I think they suck. I also don't care for the racketeering methods they use to exclude the smaller breweries form having a little shelf space. It's gotten better in the past few years, but only due to massive demand from the new craft beer drinkers.

At Meijers I can get a fair selection of "local" craft beer, but at Wal-mart next door, it's ALL BMC beer. They don't care to stock anything that isn't made by one of the BMC companies. Their loss.

But even though I choose not to support the ultralarge beer companies, I will buy Blue Moon because I like it (At least until Oberon is out!), but if Celis White would be available instead, I'd choose that.

The simple fact is that the beer companies entice the distributors and store owners into stocking their products over the smaller guys. It's all done off the books, so they don't get in trouble, even though everyone knows they are buying shelf space.

If they want to spend millions on trying to make young men think that drinking Miller Lite will get them laid, then I don't care. But using illegal methods to literally push craft beer out of the stores, and taking our choices away from us (it was not until a few years ago that I'd seen a craft beer in, or near, our small town), then I got a problem with it.

But just because craft beer is available doesn't mean it will be bought. Last year there was several 6-packs of Hopslam sitting on the shelf at the party store in town, months after it had disappeared from the rest of the country. nobody here is crazy enough to spend $20 on a 6-pack of beer that can make a rednecks face pucker.

I mean, I was talking with a lady the other day and she described Heineken as a "Dark Beer". I'm not kidding. Some people will just not buy anything that is even a little different from what they grew up with.

 

[remilard]

inelastic demand (look it up)

Lol, did someone just take first year microeconomics?

 

[MaltMonster]

Have you seen how much Anheuser-Busch spends lobbying congress each year? Much of which is spent trying to keep distribution laws from changing in favor of smaller brewers.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

Well, Rev, I suppose that's true, if all one cares about is the beer. But the huge breweries have been able to sustain the three-tier distribution system that effectively controls small and craft brewers' access to markets, through political and economic influence. That, to me, is reprehensible, whether I can stomach their beers or not, and I won't support them.

Rediculousness.

If this is your stance don't drink any coca-cola or Pepsi products. Same mindset, different product line. Deep pockets mean preferred product placement and increased media presence for just about anything we buy.

 

[rycov]

this comment is kinda towards revvy and those that are more inline with his thinking about this subject. why is beer wars and the other stuff people get their ideas about the "evil corporations" wrong, but what you read in your book right?

i realize that sounds argumentative, its not meant to. i'm actually pretty neutral on this subject.

i like to drink "real" craft beers if i can help it, because it makes me feel like i'm helping small businesses or whatever. i do also drink the BMC's if i'm drinking alot, or if its hot outside and there's one in the fridge (PBR is my fav). i'm by no means a purist, and am open minded.

i find the information your providing interesting, and am not arguing. i would like to know the real truth behind all of it, but thats not likely to ever happen. not that its a secret, but there are different perspectives (two people could tell the same "true" story, and they be different) and none of us were alive in the 1800.

so to my original question, its not to say that your wrong, but how do you know its right? (hope i didn't sound like a dick)

 

[Pilgarlic]

Rediculousness.

Do I understand you to believe, then, that monopolistic or oligopolistic behavior, supported by regulation, is equitable, efficient or merely tolerable because "that's the way the world is"? I'd guess it's the latter.

 

[rico567]

Lol, did someone just take first year microeconomics?

You mean me? Yep, in 1966.

 

[cimirie]

I also love the chapter about how using rice/corn as an adjunct actually made the beer cost back then. That's another one of those myths that the anit-BMC crowd uses - "they use rice/corn to make their product cheaper!" That ain't true...

The history of this is actually quite fascinating and I WILL be picking up ambitious brew (thanks Revvy). All that being said, we're not brewing beer 100 years ago. AB, MC, DFH.... They all change and tweak recipes over time based on current products. Corn my have been more expensive THEN, but now, it is absolutely cheaper than malt today. Check out Autin Homebrew.

And the Budweiser that was first produced so expensively back in the day, is not the world's best selling beer. Bud Light is, and it wasn't first produced until 1982 and THAT uses even more adjuncts than Budweiser. You can't tell me that in part at least, wasn't cost related (in addition to the "diet" craze in the eighties)

I'm not one to buy into the Beerwars hype. To be honest, I was a bit disappointed it wasn't firmer in facts. BUT frankly, I'm kinda surprised that based on one book (even one that is viewed as the authority de jour) many people have so quickly changed their tune on BMC. Especially when there are multiple sources that still claim otherwise. Not saying it's not true, but from a group that yells to the hills to use multiple sources for all brewing facts, it's weird to rally around a single source like this.

 

[ReverseApacheMaster]

If you think you live by sticking it to the big corporations, you will have to stop buying almost everything. The same battles over cutting out the competition and warring over display space is stores happens in almost every product out there. Food, computers, tools, etc. it happens everywhere. Large food companies, for example, produce organic options to compete in health food stores and they also produce a lot of the "store brands" on the shelves.

I'm not saying it's bad to want to support competition or local businesses, but you aren't going to topple the entire economic system by not buying Leffe or Blue Moon.

 

[cimirie]

Rediculousness.

If this is your stance don't drink any coca-cola or Pepsi products. Same mindset, different product line. Deep pockets mean preferred product placement and increased media presence for just about anything we buy.

Just because, Coke, Pepsi, Johnson and Johnson, Haliburton, or Lockheed does the same thing, doesn't make it any "righter." It's still just as reprehensible. Difference is, I'm not passionate about soda or defense contractors. I'm passionate about beer. Your argument falls flat.

 

[Homercidal]

Rediculousness.

If this is your stance don't drink any coca-cola or Pepsi products. Same mindset, different product line. Deep pockets mean preferred product placement and increased media presence for just about anything we buy.

Difference is, I rather like Coke better than pretty much any other cola out there. And Mountain Dew on the Pepsi side.

If there were a BETTER product to be had, then I'd absolutely choose it over Coke or Mt. Dew. Even the "local" Faygo products aren't as good IMO.

 

[Hugh_Jass]

Every market has a buyer and a seller. In the market of "favorable distribution laws", BMC is the buyer and local, state, and fed are the sellers. Who's worse, the buyer or the seller? We blame BMC to try to get an edge up on their competition but no mention of the ones who enact these anti-competitive laws, namely the politicians. IMO, those of you who dislike BMC because of "unethicial practices" are blaming the wrong people.

BMC, with their enormous demand for and consumption of malted barley and hops, allow craft breweries and we wittle homebrewers to enjoy FAR lower pricing because of the scale of their operations. Hell, I'd bet BMC SPILLS more malted barley than all homebrewers use in a year. The enormity of their usage allow us to piggy back on the economies of scale created by BMC in terms of pricing, quality, and availability. Thanks BMC

Oh, and I'd bet even homebrew supply stores and homebrew supply wholesalers went long on hops a few years ago. It's called ensuring you have the supplies your customers need and want. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[bgruis]

If you think you live by sticking it to the big corporations, you will have to stop buying almost everything. The same battles over cutting out the competition and warring over display space is stores happens in almost every product out there. Food, computers, tools, etc. it happens everywhere. Large food companies, for example, produce organic options to compete in health food stores and they also produce a lot of the "store brands" on the shelves.

I'm not saying it's bad to want to support competition or local businesses, but you aren't going to topple the entire economic system by not buying Leffe or Blue Moon.

+1 to that

I agree that we can vote with our pocketbooks and if that makes you fell good then do it. No, it's not going to topple some evil empire ...but If your like me it's not about punishing them...it's about supporting causes you believe in....In my case I like to support local (Colorado) enterprises and the craft brewing industry. I support craft brewing because they bring a different product to market are pushing innovation and choice...and I support local enterprise because they are my customers and neighbors....just my 2 cents

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

I'm passionate about beer. Your argument falls flat.

Your rebuttal is beyond flaccid. Mine was in response to context condemning a product line solely on business practice alone, to which MY argument is voluptuous as Aunt Bertha's bosom. Fact is fact. Practically every successful product line (cars, shoes, beverages, sanitary napkins, pharmeceuticals) are that due to competitive marketing tactics.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

Do I understand you to believe, then, that monopolistic or oligopolistic behavior, supported by regulation, is equitable, efficient or merely tolerable because "that's the way the world is"? I'd guess it's the latter.

To condemn a retailer based solely on level of success is naive. I will not go so far as to say that all retailers/product manufacturers start with the goal of global domination but I will say that there are not many that would refuse the opportunity if it presented no negative impact to the organization.

Securing a solid presence in the marketplace is fundamental to any product.

 

[Pappers_]

....In my case I like to support local (Colorado) enterprises and the craft brewing industry. I support craft brewing because they bring a different product to market are pushing innovation and choice...and I support local enterprise because they are my customers and neighbors....just my 2 cents

What you said, Bgruis, fits very nicely with what I said a few pages back. Put these two together and I think we have a reasonably good drink local manifesto.

I choose to drink locally brewed beers, because I can, because it supports brewers in my community, because it supports the beer culture I benefit from, because it's fresh and doesn't have to be shipped, and because they make great beers. Cheers!

 

[Teromous]

Remember when beer was about having a good time and enjoying what you like to drink, and not having to worry about politics? It seems like you can't enjoy a good burger without somebody freaking about about saturated fats, or eat a pie without somebody commenting on hydrogenated oils, or drink a beer without somebody shunning you for supporting the evil empire...

 

[rycov]

i damn sure can. i can do all of those things. **** everybody else!

 

[Pilgarlic]

To condemn a retailer based solely on level of success is naive. I will not go so far as to say that all retailers/product manufacturers start with the goal of global domination but I will say that there are not many that would refuse the opportunity if it presented no negative impact to the organization.

Securing a solid presence in the marketplace is fundamental to any product.

a) I condemned no one. b) Who's talking about retailers? c) Domination of a market is a rational pursuit, if a competitor believes he can get away with it, and a competitor should and will pursue it That's why we have laws regulating market domination (albeit laws that haven't been enforced, much, since the 70's). d) I'm not begrudging a solid presence in the marketplace. I'm speaking of monopolistic or oligopolistic companies exercising monopoly or oligopoly power with the blessing and protection of government. Surely you "free" marketers can't countenance that? Wait. I'm ASSUMING nobody wants to make the case that the beer industry ISN'T oligopolistic. Does anyone want to try to make that case?

 

[Pappers_]

or drink a beer without somebody shunning you for supporting the evil empire...

Nobody is shunning you. I have my preferences (drink locally brewed beer) and you have yours. When I say that I prefer to drink local beer, eat cage-free eggs, brew beer with organic ingredients, or any other eating and drinking preference, I am not telling you what to do. No reason to bash each other's preferences.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

a) I condemned no one.

...But the huge breweries have been able to sustain the three-tier distribution system that effectively controls small and craft brewers' access to markets, through political and economic influence. That, to me, is reprehensible, whether I can stomach their beers or not, and I won't support them.

con·demn/kənˈdem/Verb
1. Express complete disapproval of, typically in public; censure.

b) Who's talking about retailers?

I should have included "..../product manufacturers" in the first instance.

Wait. I'm ASSUMING nobody wants to make the case that the beer industry ISN'T oligopolistic. Does anyone want to try to make that case?

There is no argument that they aren't oligopolistic but you blame "Big Beer" and condemn a successful model for achieving what only makes perfect sense in the context of a securing ones "share"in a competitive market.

As an analogy, you goto a friends house for a visit and your friend places a bowl of candy on table, presumably for BOTH yours and their children. But your friends child alaways manages to reach the bowl and hoard the candy for himself which results in upsetting your child. You appeal to the friends child and are met with a "You can't make me!". So, you appeal to the childs parent. The child naturally lobbies his parents to secure his "share" of the candy and the parent agrees, out of bias, to "allow" his child a greater share.

Is this fair? No. Was this a successful tactic in the context of competition? Yes.

Do you then still condemn the child for his actions? No. You condemn the parent and place sole responsibilty for the childs actions on them because they, through a means of bias, regulated their "blessing and protection" for what is clearly unjust to the competitor.

My point is your condemning rant against "Big Beer" is misplaced.

 

[Pilgarlic]

Blame isn't the big deal here, althought I DO find political manipulation of markets through influence buying and selling (not what I would typically refer to as a "successful model") reprehensible. If you consider that concern misplaced you have more stomach for one or both sides of corruption than I do, but... we seem to AGREE that the government shouldn't be protecting the big brewers through the three tier system's legal protection. I'll call that progress!

 

[DannPM]

Who cares who owns what...All that matters is if you like the beer or not. This whole beer snob thing is ridiculous....Heck read some folks opinions of some of the beers made by some craft breweries...Some folks think Dogfish head sucks...All that really matters is if you like the beer or not.....

Right on man. Exactly what I was thinking!

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

Blame isn't the big deal here, althought I DO find political manipulation of markets through influence buying and selling (not what I would typically refer to as a "successful model") reprehensible. If you consider that concern misplaced you have more stomach for one or both sides of corruption than I do, but... we seem to AGREE that the government shouldn't be protecting the big brewers through the three tier system's legal protection. I'll call that progress!

Yes. We do agree that government fails here. And I do find the corruption within the political system reprehensible but I cannot condemn an industry for attaining a position successfull enough to be capable of imposing an influence on a corrupt political system.

To exploit an opportunity that secures a relatively guaranteed majority share in competitive market just makes perfect business sense.

To have a regulatory system "of the people, for the people" that manages to justify, protect, and practically promote said exploitation is what is reprehensible.

 

[Wahoo]

The biggest thing is that the AHB is successful, not because they've made themselves into the "evil corporate empire" that Beerwars would have you believe. They've done it because the majority of people choose their beer over all the vast choices out there, whether macro or micro. It's that simple...

It's not that simple. It would be if this was a free market and AB's dominance was solely a question of demand. It's not. The 3-tier system is anti competitive in nature and absolutely limits the freedom of the market. In my state, once a brewery signs on with a distributor, they are locked in FOR LIFE! A small CT brewery (the one from the eastern part of the state) has a distributor that is totally shafting them on product placement in stores and is not helping them at all get tap lines. I have seen the beer on tap at only 2 bars in the entire state. The demand is there. Me and other beer drinkers want their beer. But, because of the three-tier system (which AB lobbies for), they are stuck in a situation where they cannot reach their consumers. This is the reason why it matters. It's not snobbery. It is a belief that what is best for beer consumers is to have CHOICE and full disclosure and frankly the big breweries do everything in their power INCLUDING CHANGING LAWS to ensure that the choice is not there for us.

For those of us that want more choice and a better market for consumers, I can't imagine why we wouldn't care that, for instance, Blue Moon is owned by Coors. I do.

 

[munche]

I agree Revvy - Ambitious Brew should be required reading for anyone wanting to debate the American beer scene...

Gonna add a +1 to this, based on the last time Revvy talked about this I checked the book out at my local library, and it was incredibly interesting.

If you want to find someone to blame for the "fizzy yellow beer" that took over the market, blame the American beer buyer of 50 years ago who drove anyone not selling that style of beer out of business.

edit: Let me add a little something to this.

A lot of you at the same time seem to be overestimating the taste and underestimating the intelligence of the average consumer.

The fact is, you can put a massive ad campaign out there and have it fall completely flat. I could show a hardcore Coors Light drinker the funniest, most creative ads in the world for Bud Light, and odds are he'll tell me it's piss water and he doesn't want it. Or I could tell him about how wonderful and nuanced this local craft beer is, and have him try it. In fact, I've done that. Tons of times. I get the same response.

An awful lot of people just LIKE these beers.

They want a simple beer that they can throw a few back, not feel bloated, not bitter, not challenging, not expensive. The flavor is mild. People are fine with mild.

There's obviously a growing segment of the public who are getting into and appreciating craft beers. That's awesome! But it's not everybody, and it never will be.

A really great example for you. The Yardhouse, a chain bar near me, has over 100 beers on tap. They don't promote one over the other EVER, and just have a ton of tap handles and a menu that lists all the beers by style.

I asked the bartender one day....the number one beer they sell?

Bud Light.

I'll sit there at the bar, trying to tick off trying every beer on the list, and watch a guy and his buddies come in and order 6 BL's for the group. If I gave them a sip of my Pale Ale? They'd make a face and go back to their Bud Light. These are the beers they like.


Out of curiosity, 5 minutes of google turned up an interesting link about coffee: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err38/err38b.pdf

The jist of it is, over 70% of coffee all comes from like, 3 companies. Big companies. Kraft, Proctor & Gamble (later Smuckers took over Folgers), Sara Lee.

Now, I don't know about you guys, but I have about 1000 choices when I go to the store for coffee. There's a coffee shop IN the grocery store. There are tons of whole beans I can grind right there! All sorts of little foil pouches full of specialty stuff. And this is at pretty much every store. And in the end, people go with the simple, cheap, accessible brands. Folgers. Maxwell House. Yuban.

The exact same thing happens in beer, and while the big guys do some shady stuff and aren't exactly welcoming the competition, the fact is, if people want your beer, they're going to buy it. Most people want BMC, and so that's what they buy. The notion that the country is just full of people going "oooo, shiny!" and buying whatever they saw a commercial for is silly. You'd be hard pressed to get a light lager buyer to change brands, let alone change beer styles. They like what they like.

One more thought!

Beer Wars. It was an interesting documentary. But take for example, Moonshot, the beer that like 1/3 of the movie is about. Was it failing because BMC was pushing it out of the market? Or the fact that it was a crappy light lager with a caffeine gimmick lifted from the Drew Carey show?

 

[doctorRobert]

Wasnt the 3 tier system put in place to increase competition? So that the big guys cant own the liquor stores? Self distribute? Making it the only channel?

 

[cimirie]

Your rebuttal is beyond flaccid. Mine was in response to context condemning a product line solely on business practice alone, to which MY argument is voluptuous as Aunt Bertha's bosom. Fact is fact. Practically every successful product line (cars, shoes, beverages, sanitary napkins, pharmeceuticals) are that due to competitive marketing tactics.

No, your argument was that you can't cry over BMC's business practices unless you cry over Coke's. I say that argument falls flat because it assumes I care about other industries. Sure, they fall into the same type of business practices, but since my passion isn't soda, I could care less about how Pepsi muscles Jones Soda or its distributors. It doesn't make it right, but I don't care.

And if your argument holds true that these product giants are dominant because of successful competitive MARKETING tactics, you have distanced them from BMC. They don't dominate because of marketing (although they do make too much noise to compete with effectively). They dominate because of a sanctioned (albeit illegal) manipulation of what a customer is allowed to be exposed to. The dominate because they can destroy distributors that want to do things their own way. And they dominate because they pay off those in power to ensure this corrupt mandatory 3 - tier system stays in place.

So, is it "just business practices" that turn me off to them? Yes it is. If it doesn't turn you off to even a small extent, I feel bad for you. And yes, a lot does fall onto the heads of politicians. But they go where the "donations" go. Again, not right, but that in no way mitigates the corporate behavior.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

Wasnt the 3 tier system put in place to increase competition? So that the big guys cant own the liquor stores? Self distribute? Making it the only channel?

Yes but, loosely interpreted, developed and operated by connected members of prohibition-era manufacturers. While it did/does satisfy the letter of the law it is still controlled by a single interest entity.

I may be wrong but that is how I understand it. Much like how "Big Beer" is branding some "Craft" products. Separate on paper but borne of the same Mother.

 

[Pilgarlic]

To exploit an opportunity that secures a relatively guaranteed majority share in competitive market just makes perfect business sense.

Sure it does. It's rational. And so long as the market remains competitive, it's good. At the point where any individual buyer or seller is able to exert market power it needs to be regulated. Not because it's evil. Not because they should be punished for their success. Not because we feel sorry for the little guys. Not because we don't like their beer. Because once you have one or more buyers or sellers with the ability to exert market power, you no longer have an efficient (defined term) market. Once that happens, it has long been government's established and codified role in our mixed economy (free but reasonably regulated markets) to prevent those buyers or sellers from exerting market power and distorting markets.

So, you think that if a big guy is able to get big enough to call the shots in the marketplace he should be allowed to do so. To the victor should go the spoils. I think oligopolies and monopolies shouldn't be allowed to exert market power for reasons of both equity and efficiency. They deny competitors opportunity and they distort market outcomes.

I'm happy to grant that we disagreee and that I have no interest in attempting further to persuade you.

 

[cimirie]

...but I cannot condemn an industry for attaining a position successfull enough to be capable of imposing an influence on a corrupt political system.

Why not? Bribing elected officials to further promote your cause is illegal. I absolutely understand that that is pretty much the basis for how things get done in Washington, or Sacramento, or Lansing, or Tallahassee, but it is still illegal. That is what these large corporations are doing to secure their position. They don't have to impose an influence on a corrupt political system, but they could operate inside the confines of the law. Because you're right, they're not gonna change the system.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

I'm happy to grant that we disagreee and that I have no interest in attempting further to persuade you.

Ugg. Persuade me? I agree with you on all points save one,

So, you think that if a big guy is able to get big enough to call the shots in the marketplace he should be allowed to do so. To the victor should go the spoils. I think oligopolies and monopolies shouldn't be allowed to exert market power for reasons of both equity and efficiency. They deny competitors opportunity and they distort market outcomes.

in that you cannot blame the Big Guy for taking advantage of an opportunity afforded him only because he is the Big Guy. Never did I claim that said Big Guy should be allowed the opportunity only that the blame falls completely on the failure of the political system meant to regulate the big guy.

Again, condemn the guardian not the child.

 

[NorCalAngler]

I have to throw some support for Gila's thinking here. In the words of many famous entrepreneurs, "Don't hate the player, hate the game."

In a regulated environment there are rules of the game just like sports. Do you condemn the superstar basketball player for taking three steps when the rules clearly only allow two? No, you cry at the ref for not calling the travel. That player should take three steps every time until they finally clamp down on him because his number one goal is to help win the game for his team using any advantage he can get. The rookie on the other team will probably get called for it every time. Is it fair? Nope, but until the refs are willing to clamp down on the NBA elite (who fill the seats, btw), nothing will change.

I agree with Gila, the problem is the regulators, not the big players using their advantages. The players have one goal and one goal only, maximize profits or returns for shareholders.

 

[Pilgarlic]

I agree with Gila, the problem is the regulators, not the big players using their advantages. .

I agree with this, as I have said. They're acting rationally, so long as they believe they'll get away with it. I don't expect anything different from them. What we may disagree about is, Gila seems to believe that government shouldn't use ITS power to neutralize a monopolist's or oligopolist's market power. I believe they should (in fact, current federal law requires the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice to do so).

 

[Hugh_Jass]

I agree with this, as I have said. They're acting rationally, so long as they believe they'll get away with it. I don't expect anything different from them. What we may disagree about is, Gila seems to believe that government shouldn't use ITS power to neutralize a monopolist's or oligopolist's market power. I believe they should (in fact, current federal law requires the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice to do so).

Really?

Never did I claim that said Big Guy should be allowed the opportunity only that the blame falls completely on the failure of the political system meant to regulate the big guy.

Again, condemn the guardian not the child.

As I read it, he is advocating for government regulation. He's suggesting the blame is misplaced if you're condemning A/B (the child) rather then the regulatory institution (the guardian)

 

[NorCalAngler]

I agree with this, as I have said. They're acting rationally, so long as they believe they'll get away with it. I don't expect anything different from them. What we may disagree about is, Gila seems to believe that government shouldn't use ITS power to neutralize a monopolist's or oligopolist's market power. I believe they should (in fact, current federal law requires the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice to do so).

It's a sad state of affairs when the government has to step in and punish the corporation because a government regulatory agency failed to do its job.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

I agree with this, as I have said. They're acting rationally, so long as they believe they'll get away with it. I don't expect anything different from them. What we may disagree about is, Gila seems to believe that government shouldn't use ITS power to neutralize a monopolist's or oligopolist's market power. I believe they should (in fact, current federal law requires the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice to do so).

No, No, NO.

Never once did I claim that Government shouldn't use it's power to neutralize market power. Quite the opposite. I have always been saying that the fact the Government has been allowing what is obvious bribery disguised as lobbyism is what should be condemned and corrected.

If the system weren't broken then the Big Guy wouldn't have the opportunity to influence it. And if he tried, it would be convicted as such rather than "laundered" in mixed color load of political jargon.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

It's a sad state of affairs when the government is expected to punish the corporation because a government regulatory agency failed to do its job.

Fixed for Truth.

 

[Pilgarlic]

Correcting corruption isn't enough. Preventing influence peddling isn't enough. Even in the absence of each of those (presumably this is what you mean by the system being broken?) corps can and do wield market power. Gila, if a company has grown "fairly and squarely", and out competed everyone else by driving down costs and smart marketing, with such great success that it comes to a position that it wields market power, does that call for government intervention? Let's not confuse the issue with corruption (which certainly exists in the beer markets). Does market power in and of itself call for regulation in your opinion?