There are no mass market American breweries left and that's a good thing.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oerdin: I wonder if you realize how these things work? Remember the AOL & Time Warner deal in 2000? It isn't necessary the case that the company bought out is doing badly.

I mean, InBev was a larger brewer (based on volume) in the world market because of a previous merger where Interbrew and AmBev joined forces. And InBev was willing to spend a ton of money to buy AB.

Do you realize that Anheuser-Busch was the #1 brewer in terms of revenue prior to the merger?!

[DarkCloud]

I'm going to agree with Imran- the culprit really does appear to be currency issues.

[Asher]

It's "Molson".

[DanS]

Even with all of the crappy beer they sell, many of the foreign companies also sell great beer. They can tell the difference between good and bad beer.

I had no confidence that the domestic producers even knew the difference between good and bad beer.

[SlowwHand]

Evidently they did.

[LordShiva]

MICROBREWS

SAN DIEGO!!

[Dinner]

Shiva is channeling Asher.

[Julian Delphiki]

Sierra Nevada Bigfoot.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Oerdin: I wonder if you realize how these things work? Remember the AOL & Time Warner deal in 2000? It isn't necessary the case that the company bought out is doing badly.

I mean, InBev was a larger brewer (based on volume) in the world market because of a previous merger where Interbrew and AmBev joined forces. And InBev was willing to spend a ton of money to buy AB.

Do you realize that Anheuser-Busch was the #1 brewer in terms of revenue prior to the merger?!

Right back at ya, Imran; that's what I was going to say.

Remember, Oerdin, InBev's was a hostile takeover; you don't generally encounter hostile takeovers of failing companies, Other People's Money notwithstanding.

[Dinner]

I'm not saying they were all failures as clearly they had viable businesses which were making money and someone was willing to buy them. I'm saying their beer sucked and maybe the foreigners can do better. Either way as a consumer I'm not sure how this will effect me other then in a good way as companies like South African Breweries bring beers like Castle Lager to the US.

[Japher]

I'm disappointed in foreign companies taking over domestic ones. I feel it is hostile and only a result of a weak dollar and the downturn in the US economy. If it were up to the shareholders or board members there would be no sell. I totally disagree with the buyouts and I hope there is a law suit tied to each one. I did just make a good sum on Roche trying to buy Genentech though, but I would hate to see DNA go.

Still, I think more choices would be nice. And, I really wish Yeungling would come to my area, best American beer

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I'm not saying they were all failures as clearly they had viable businesses which were making money and someone was willing to buy them. I'm saying their beer sucked and maybe the foreigners can do better. Either way as a consumer I'm not sure how this will effect me other then in a good way as companies like South African Breweries bring beers like Castle Lager to the US.

Damn, Oerdin, stop and think, will ya? InBev bought AB because they made the most popular beer in America. Now InBev makes the most popular beer in America. Why on God's earth would they want to change the product? Sure, it's entirely possibly that they might also introduce a good beer under the AB label. But if you think they're going to take an asset with the popularity and inherent good will of Bud and change it, I've got two words for you: New Coke.

Now please pass a hit of whatever you're smoking.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DarkCloud

If Americans want to hold onto their companies, they would do well to reign in their debt-fueled spending so that the Federal Reserve can raise interest rates, tighten the money supply and return the Dollar to the level of a worldwide reserve currency. Then, "foreigners" would be less likely to buy american companies "on the cheap."

You really don't want us to do that. Our debt fueled spending is what keeps the world working.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
Personally, I'll give Obama this- he's right that lowering the Corporate taxes is a better idea than lowering Capital gains and dividends taxes in the sense that the government will gain more tax revenues (laffer curve) and ordinary people will probably be guaranteed more money....

The Laffer Curve only works if you're on the correct side. If you're on the other side, cutting taxes hurts you.

Frankly, I find it difficult to believe that our corporate taxes are the 2nd highest in the world.

[DarkCloud]

Chegitz- actually they are. I thought it was bizarre too, but - http://www.taxfoundation.org/publica...how/22917.html

And I apologize for one incorrect statement- John McCain wants to cut the rate to 25%, not 20%.

More on the data:

"Cut The Corporate Tax Rate From 35 To 25 Percent: A lower corporate tax rate is essential to keeping good jobs in the United States. America was once a low-tax business environment, but as our trade partners lowered their rates, America failed to keep pace. We now have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, making America a less attractive place for companies to do business. American workers deserve the chance to make fine products here and sell them around the globe. " http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/Job...rica/taxes.htm

The OECD stats are here: http://www.oecd.org/document/60/0,33...html#table_II1

I will agree, however that high corporate tax rates alone don't deter a company from investing in the US. There are a lot of different vehicles the US Gvt. can use to attract/ drive away businesses. Thankfully, the US has a few pro-business policies. However, for tax code simplification, it would probably be better for the US to end special subsidies toward businesses, and tax breaks for certain industries and employ more blanket codes... This would hopefully redistribute income in the hands of workers, and make goods cheaper for consumers... since companies wouldn't have to employ tax accountants, and the government wouldn't have to charge companies for massive governmental bureaucratic oversight. Also, the politicians would be less likely "bribed" or "controlled" by special interests in their economic districts (for example: senator X may be less likely to lobby for lower taxes for the lumber industry [which just so happens to have given him a massive injection of campaign cash.])

The capital gains tax reduction (I believe) had a similar pro-growth effect as would lowering corporate tax rates.

However, from a quick look at the data, it appears that cutting the corporate tax rates would probably "give more back" to the common man (blue collar) than mere capital gains tax reductions. However, the middle class (white collar) probably benefits more from the capital gains reductions, since I believe, they would be more likely to hold stocks and "play the market".

Rich people probably also gain more by lowering capital gains.

I am not an economist, so I don't know the details, but I believe I keep up enough on the issues (read the WSJ daily, the Economist weekly, and the NYT about once a week) to argue that the assertions I make in this post are economically sound.