Nice article on how AB InBev is trying to destroy good beer for higher profits

[BrewKnurd]

Where, exactly, did I say "American companies shouldn't feel free to sell themselves to a foreign company"?
If you read the article you should be able to understand what I meant.

You said laws should be more strict to prevent American companies from being gobbled up by foreign companies. How can that happen without also preventing companies from selling themselves to who they choose?

The only way companies get "gobbled up" is by their owners (be those majority, or a number of minority owners) selling their share of the company.

 

[cheezydemon3]

You said laws should be more strict to prevent American companies from being gobbled up by foreign companies. How can that happen without also preventing companies from selling themselves to who they choose?

You are technically correct, he was saying "This aint Fair!"

I agree with both of you.

 

[BrewKnurd]

You are technically correct, he was saying "This aint Fair!"

I agree with both of you.

But how is it not fair? how do you define fair such that "owners selling their company for a mutually agreed upon price" is not fair?

 

[Nightshade]

A mighty slippery slope is suddenly being discussed...mighty slippery.

 

[cheezydemon3]

But how is it not fair? how do you define fair such that "owners selling their company for a mutually agreed upon price" is not fair?

It isn't fair the same way that it isn't fair if a business owner fires all of his long time employees and hires kids at lower wages.

Is it technically legal????YES

Should business owners be able to make business decisions????????YES

Does it still SUCK????YES

It is Ok to say that things should be different without citing specific laws or even thinking it through that far.

Take it easy!

 

[BrewKnurd]

It isn't fair the same way that it isn't fair if a business owner fires all of his long time employees and hires kids at lower wages.

Is it technically legal????YES

Should business owners be able to make business decisions????????YES

Does it still SUCK????YES

It is Ok to say that things should be different without citing specific laws or even thinking it through that far.

Take it easy!

Ah, but saying something sucks is way different from saying something isn't fair. If it isn't fair to fire or lay off someone after 20 years, is it fair for that employee to leave for a different job?

 

[cheezydemon3]

Ah, but saying something sucks is way different from saying something isn't fair. If it isn't fair to fire or lay off someone after 20 years, is it fair for that employee to leave for a different job?

An employee leaving a company doesn't cripple the company, losing a job can be..............






I think you and I are probably on the same page, and I like a good discussion, but I think we are jacking an already good thread!

Where are my torches?

 

[BrewKnurd]

An employee leaving a company doesn't cripple the company, losing a job can be..............



I think you and I are probably on the same page, and I like a good discussion, but I think we are jacking an already good thread!

Where are my torches?

Agreed, but how does that affect the fairness argument? If someone does something other than what is agreed, or promised, or even implied, then sure, that could be unfair. Not seeing how any if this falls into that category.

 

[aubiecat]

You said laws should be more strict to prevent American companies from being gobbled up by foreign companies. How can that happen without also preventing companies from selling themselves to who they choose?

The only way companies get "gobbled up" is by their owners (be those majority, or a number of minority owners) selling their share of the company.

I guess hostile takeovers are a great way to conduct business.

 

[BrewKnurd]

I guess hostile takeovers are a great way to conduct business.

Right, cuz that's exactly what I said.

Hostile takeovers are still nothing more than people selling their shares in a business, and there's no way to prevent them without legislating who people can sell their shares to, which you say you're not in favor of. So what sort of legislation did you have in mind?

 

[Skelator]

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.

 

[BrewKnurd]

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.

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.

 

[Skelator]

stay away from my opinion!!

 

[aubiecat]

 

[ktblunden]

I love xkcd. I also think that pic is better suited for the brewer who doesn't drink beer thread.

 

[iambeer]

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!

 

[iambeer]

As more consumers value quality beer, local, fresh ingredients, supporting local farmers, knowing their brewer, etc, so the industry will change.

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]

MUST WATCH:

Beer Wars

Holy Hell!!!!
Budweiser was completely stinking evil before Inbev (or as I like to call it...THE BLOB) took over.

 

[BigEd]

Good article but it was already posted here a week ago and the thread is on this same page.


Never mind, it appears the mods have merged it.

 

[bergy]

Sure the article seems awful and evil. It's nothing more than capitalism at its finest.

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]

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?

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.

 

[iambeer]

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.

 

[Sir Humpsalot]

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.

 

[eastoak]

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.

i think "rent seeking" is the term.

 

[TyTanium]

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.

???

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]

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.

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]

nothing but money invested

"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]

"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?

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]

It means someone that knows nothing of beer runs the brewery. No sadness there?

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.

 

[eastoak]

???

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.

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?