Posted by Rojas @ 9:04 pm on July 30th 2009

Tears for beers

In yet another example of the entitlement mentality gone awry, US beer manufacturers are crying like babies over the fact that Obama’s imbecilic “beer summit” with Gates and Crowley will not feature American lagers.

We will set aside, for the moment, Obama’s pitiful swipe at red-state cred by seeking this photo-op “resolution” of the situation. We will leave alone the question of why it takes an Ivy League professor as victim to provoke Obama’s interest in police treatment of minorities, or the rather more relevant question of whether resolution of this particular incident is a wise investment of the time of the President of the United States. No; the real villains here are the lackwit brewers who seem to feel that obesiance should be paid to them at any beer-related government event.

Just for starters: the participants were asked, in the invitation to the event, which beer they’d like to consume. Is it the responsibility of the President to overrule their preferences and limit the menu?

Good freaking God. I am more than tired of the “buy America” corporate shills informing me that it’s my obligation to consume American products regardless of price or quality. Over the past couple of years we’ve gotten a good look at the mechanics of the corporate system that’s propped up by such self-abdegnation by consumers.

My most frequently-purchased staple beer is Anchor Steam, brewed in San Francisco by a presumed consortium of hippies, homosexuals, and attendees at Santa Cruz City Council meetings. I could care less; it’s magnificently flavorful and bears a delightful color that suggests you could trap insects in it and clone dinosaurs from them millions of years later. I drink Boulevard not because it’s brewed in my hometown but because it’s a good beer. Others choose Red Stripe (mild thumbs up), Blue Moon (sideways thumb), or Bud Light (two thumbs down and a swift kick in the Presidential jewels). More power to them. If the American brewing industry doesn’t like it, then they ought to bitch less and innovate more.


  1. Today’s appropriate xkcd:

    Comment by Cameron — 7/31/2009 @ 10:05 am

  2. Do you agree, that in a semi-solsialist democratic society there are rational economic reasons to by domestically rather than foreign?

    For example, if foreign nationals go unemployed it is not my responsibility to support them nor do those foriegn nations have any ability to force me to do so.

    However, under current law, if fellow citizens go unemployed the general public, including myself, must pay for their support either through unemployment benefits or possibly welfare or other social programs.

    And those same unemployeed people can vote for more social programs and or benefits at my expense.

    This does not even include the domestic companies that can also lobby for bail-outs and other hand-outs at my expense.

    So, in general, out of fear of political power if nothing else, I should prefer domestic companies and employers over foreign companies for my own benefit.

    Comment by daveg — 7/31/2009 @ 12:06 pm

  3. Speaking for myself, no.

    It always makes the most sense to buy the best good money can buy. There are no circumstances where I would feel compelled to buy an identical good at a higher price simply because it was produced domestically. Such a purchase needlessly costs me additional money and rewards inefficient production. The increased price of inferior domestic goods can be thought of as a tax…why pay 5 dollars for a trinket made in the USA when I could pay 4 dollars for the same trinket made in Brazil? The poorer value domestic alternative is being rewarded with business (or government help) for no other reason than they’re American. That reward reduces the incentive to change and increase efficiency, perpetuating the cycle.

    I’m essentially taxing myself one dollar to subsidize my fellow citizens. The government it already taxing me to do the same; why should I increase my tax burden? While there is a fear of government wealth redistribution, I don’t have much control over how much the government taxes me. However, I can easily make what money I have go further by buying smartly and globally. I can’t stop the government from pigheadedly bailing out failing businesses or consumers. I can buy the best products available rather than wasting my money attempting to prop-up domestic businesses who aren’t able produce the goods as efficiently.

    While I do fear the wrath of business and citizens harmed by their inefficiency, I think the way to combat them is politically. Consider that buying domestically may be putting cash into the war-chests of the very special interest groups who will run to the government for help. Uncompetitive workers and businesses will always turn to the government money spigot so long as there is a spigot. They will turn to it in good times as well as bad, and will attempt to craft legislation enriching themselves at the expense of society at large. I don’t wish to reward their uncompetitiveness more than I already am.

    I must confess that I share a similar logic regarding globalization. I relish the thought of deep international economic integration because I think such integration will cause the costs of future world wars to vastly exceed any benefits. If we can create a world where we are deeply integrated internationally, with money and business and labor flowing freely across boarders, I think that the economic costs of large scale war will simply be too great. If nations are no longer self-sufficient or even regionally sufficient, there can be no way to fight total war. That’s a good thing.

    Comment by Cameron — 7/31/2009 @ 1:21 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.