Another Faux Craft Beer from MillerCoors

The only person who has any power at all is the consumer. People can chose to buy or not buy whatever they want.

I wish those statements were true. Alas, they are not.

I'd like to hear how you think those statements are not true. If it's legal and I can afford it.... I can buy (or not buy) whatever I want.

Heck... "legal" and "I can afford it" aren't insurmountable obstacles.

You want a toe? I can get you a toe, believe me. There are ways, Dude. You don't wanna know about it, believe me.

Not to venture off into politics but the recent health care bill makes it clear. You cant buy whatever you want. Of course, you could argue thats because those policies are no longer "legal". But thats the point, things I want to buy are illegal for no good reason.

Yes, there is always the black market, but I think thats kinda the point. Shouldnt have to rely on the black market.

That's an interesting theory. Typically conservatives tout less government and more corporatism while liberals tout more government and less corporatism.

The big government = more corporatism theory would explain Bush Republicanism. Grow government so it can dictate the terms for large business.... fascinating.

I'll have to chew on that one for a while. Thanks.

Like me, I think Steve is libertarian. I would argue both conservatives and liberals favor big government, just in different areas. And both favor corporatism (democratic politicians get a huge amount of money from big corps).

The point Steve is making is that if you dont give the power to do some to government, they cant sell it out. If we dont allow them to regulate X they cant screw X up. To get it back on topic, if the government couldnt regulate alcohol, they couldnt sell the regulations out to the BMC lobbyists.

That's an interesting theory. Typically conservatives tout less government and more corporatism while liberals tout more government and less corporatism.

The big government = more corporatism theory would explain Bush Republicanism. Grow government so it can dictate the terms for large business.... fascinating.

I'll have to chew on that one for a while. Thanks.

Start your chewing by considering that large corporations always align with the party in power, whether Republican or Democrat. Lookup up which party is leading in corporate contributions right now for example.

Also, you might want to think about how commercial and industrial government regulations have the effect of reducing competition for incumbent and large companies in the marketplace, i.e. small and start up businesses have fewer resources to ensure regulatory compliance.

A recent example of this is in the health care reform bill which requires that restaurant chains of more twenty locations must test and publish nutritional information for all menu items. This is tantamount to a McDonald's protection racket! The cost for going from 19 to 20 locations just when up, a lot. And so much for daily, chef's whim specials. These just gotta go. It's for our own good!

I wonder what our local friends at Shiraz, J. Gumbo's, and Home Run Burgers think about this provision?

Like me, I think Steve is libertarian. I would argue both conservatives and liberals favor big government, just in different areas. And both favor corporatism (democratic politicians get a huge amount of money from big corps).

The point Steve is making is that if you dont give the power to do some to government, they cant sell it out. If we dont allow them to regulate X they cant screw X up. To get it back on topic, if the government couldnt regulate alcohol, they couldnt sell the regulations out to the BMC lobbyists.

Yes. You make my point better than I.

FYI, I'm not strictly libertarian, though my point here certainly is. I'm almost ashamed to admit that due to procrastinating my visit to the Courthouse, I remain I registered Democrat.

A recent example of this is in the health care reform bill which requires that restaurant chains of more twenty locations must test and publish nutritional information for all menu items. This is tantamount to a McDonald's protection racket! The cost for going from 19 to 20 locations just when up, a lot. And so much for daily, chef's whim specials. These just gotta go. It's for our own good!

Saw an interview with a pizza chain owner in Minnesota? (I think) He owns 21 places. He considered shutting down 2 to avoid the regs, but only would do it if he had 2 that were borderline profit wise. Its an option but not one he is pursuing. Hypothetically, he has to post every possible pizza combination's calorie count on the board. Realistically, he isnt sure what he is going to have to do. On his website, you can already calculate nutritional information for any pizza combo, but that isnt good enough, nor is having a kiosk to the website on the counter.

A recent example of this is in the health care reform bill which requires that restaurant chains of more twenty locations must test and publish nutritional information for all menu items. This is tantamount to a McDonald's protection racket! The cost for going from 19 to 20 locations just when up, a lot. And so much for daily, chef's whim specials. These just gotta go. It's for our own good!

I wonder what our local friends at Shiraz, J. Gumbo's, and Home Run Burgers think about this provision?

I believe the bill calls for calorie information to be posted, not the entire nutritional facts. It has been discussed on here before that the equipment is not all that expensive to figure out the calories in a meal (I think J Gumbos just bought one).

How many places with 20 locations have a chef's whim special?

I'm not disagreeing that government sticks their nose where it isn't wanted/needed, but something has to be done with all these overweight people. They are costing us all money and the obesity problem is growing.

Edit: isn't vs. is

I'm not disagreeing that government sticks their nose where it is wanted/needed, but something has to be done with all these overweight people. They are costing us all money and the obesity problem is growing.

They are only costing "us" money becuase we arent minding our own business. It should be costing themselves money, which might or might not provide incentive to change, but if it is costing "us" money (and it is) then the problem isnt with the obesity problem, it is with the subsidizing of it. The place to change isnt the menu, but on the end that is costing money.

They are only costing "us" money becuase we arent minding our own business. It should be costing themselves money, which might or might not provide incentive to change, but if it is costing "us" money (and it is) then the problem isnt with the obesity problem, it is with the subsidizing of it. The place to change isnt the menu, but on the end that is costing money.

I don't quite follow.

I think people would tend to eat better if they knew how many calories were in what they were ordering. If given the choice of a 500-calorie item vs. an 800-calorie item, I think people might lean towards to 500-calorie item. Some items will surprise you, a burger is better for you than a fish sandwich at some fast food places. I'm sure there are people out there demolishing fish and salads and not losing weight and can't figure out why. Some of these "healthy" choices are worse for you than the "unhealthy" ones. Nutritional information can only help the obesity problem.

I'm not disagreeing that government sticks their nose where it is wanted/needed, but something has to be done with all these overweight people. They are costing us all money and the obesity problem is growing.

They are only costing "us" money becuase we arent minding our own business. It should be costing themselves money, which might or might not provide incentive to change, but if it is costing "us" money (and it is) then the problem isnt with the obesity problem, it is with the subsidizing of it. The place to change isnt the menu, but on the end that is costing money.

In my mind, the root cause of all of our health care issues are co-pays. They are the worst form of subsidy.

That's an interesting theory. Typically conservatives tout less government and more corporatism while liberals tout more government and less corporatism.

The big government = more corporatism theory would explain Bush Republicanism. Grow government so it can dictate the terms for large business.... fascinating.

I'll have to chew on that one for a while. Thanks.

Like me, I think Steve is libertarian. I would argue both conservatives and liberals favor big government, just in different areas. And both favor corporatism (democratic politicians get a huge amount of money from big corps).

The point Steve is making is that if you dont give the power to do some to government, they cant sell it out. If we dont allow them to regulate X they cant screw X up. To get it back on topic, if the government couldnt regulate alcohol, they couldnt sell the regulations out to the BMC lobbyists.

I don't disagree with what you are saying, except that there is a difference between saying conservative vs. liberal and saying Republican vs. Democrat.

The difference between a true conservative and a true liberal is quite distinct. The difference between a Republican and a Democrat is mostly a matter of semantics.

They are only costing "us" money becuase we arent minding our own business. It should be costing themselves money, which might or might not provide incentive to change, but if it is costing "us" money (and it is) then the problem isnt with the obesity problem, it is with the subsidizing of it. The place to change isnt the menu, but on the end that is costing money.

I don't quite follow.

I think people would tend to eat better if they knew how many calories were in what they were ordering. If given the choice of a 500-calorie item vs. an 800-calorie item, I think people might lean towards to 500-calorie item. Some items will surprise you, a burger is better for you than a fish sandwich at some fast food places. I'm sure there are people out there demolishing fish and salads and not losing weight and can't figure out why. Some of these "healthy" choices are worse for you than the "unhealthy" ones. Nutritional information can only help the obesity problem.

In theory, information can only help, although some studies have shown that it leads to people ordering MORE calories.

But that wasnt my point, my point was that you said we need to do something about the obesity problem because it is costing us money. My point is, that is treating the symptom, not the disease. Fix the point where we are paying for obesity, and that let people decide for themselves whether to pay for their own obesity or to deal with the problem.

That's an interesting theory. Typically conservatives tout less government and more corporatism while liberals tout more government and less corporatism.

The big government = more corporatism theory would explain Bush Republicanism. Grow government so it can dictate the terms for large business.... fascinating.

I'll have to chew on that one for a while. Thanks.

Like me, I think Steve is libertarian. I would argue both conservatives and liberals favor big government, just in different areas. And both favor corporatism (democratic politicians get a huge amount of money from big corps).

The point Steve is making is that if you dont give the power to do some to government, they cant sell it out. If we dont allow them to regulate X they cant screw X up. To get it back on topic, if the government couldnt regulate alcohol, they couldnt sell the regulations out to the BMC lobbyists.

I don't disagree with what you are saying, except that there is a difference between saying conservative vs. liberal and saying Republican vs. Democrat.

The difference between a true conservative and a true liberal is quite distinct. The difference between a Republican and a Democrat is mostly a matter of semantics.

I dont disagree with you, but I meant what I said. There are other options than conservative and liberal. Both of them favor big government, just in different ways.

Here is how the Brewers Association defines a craft brewery:
An American craft brewer is small, independent and traditional.

Small: Annual production of beer less than 2 million barrels. Beer production is attributed to a brewer according to the rules of alternating proprietorships. Flavored malt beverages are not considered beer for purposes of this definition.

Independent: Less than 25% of the craft brewery is owned or controlled (or equivalent economic interest) by an alcoholic beverage industry member who is not themselves a craft brewer.

Traditional: A brewer who has either an all malt flagship (the beer which represents the greatest volume among that brewers brands) or has at least 50% of its volume in either all malt beers or in beers which use adjuncts to enhance rather than lighten flavor.


Based on the generally accepted definition, A.C. Golden is not a craft brewery since it is a subsidiary MillerCoors.

Here is how the Brewers Association defines a craft brewery:
An American craft brewer is small, independent and traditional.

Small: Annual production of beer less than 2 million barrels. Beer production is attributed to a brewer according to the rules of alternating proprietorships. Flavored malt beverages are not considered beer for purposes of this definition.

Independent: Less than 25% of the craft brewery is owned or controlled (or equivalent economic interest) by an alcoholic beverage industry member who is not themselves a craft brewer.

Traditional: A brewer who has either an all malt flagship (the beer which represents the greatest volume among that brewers brands) or has at least 50% of its volume in either all malt beers or in beers which use adjuncts to enhance rather than lighten flavor.



Based on the generally accepted definition, A.C. Golden is not a craft brewery since it is a subsidiary MillerCoors.

this certainly begs a question of the BA's definition of craft. consider the Goose Island situation... Widmer (AB owns 40%) has minority ownership in Goose (who knows how close that is to 25%), this opens up Goose distribution to the wider reaching AB distribution. Without a doubt, Goose's beers are a superior example of craft beer and they have the ability to sell far and away (best of both worlds.. right). Its hard to hold such contempt when the lines are so close. Id say we all need to take that into consideration when damning the 'big boys' for taking a crack at brewing a higher common denominator.

The reason why we have always tried to educate the beer consumer is because we must undo a lifetime of propaganda, whether overt or subliminal, that typically renders this notion of "free choice" rather quaint, to say the least. Anheuser Busch's greatest innovation had nothing to do with either the art or the science of brewing. It was the company's decision in the 1960's to try and expose every American irrespective of age to the word "Budweiser" ten times a day.

In such an atmosphere -- even before the technological breakthroughs of the last two decades -- can anyone posit the existence of genuinely "free" choice and maintain a straight face? By the time a youngster enters school, how many advertising images has he or she been exposed to?

BTW... kudos for educating on the biz... its a duty our segment has not taken serious enough in this part of the country. but id have to disagree with AB's greatest innovation- 1880's....the belief in the technology of refrigerated rail cars- they got the product to market and the market bought it (not a single bud bowl or scantily clad femme ad at that time).

one more note on the definition of craft brewer: as a brewer myself, im much more comfortable claiming the brewer working in an 'R&D/Incubator' brewery as a fellow craftsman, than i am someone who wants to throw together some mess and call it beer (happens to often) . making 'craft' beer is about more than being labeled a 'micro'---the art, science and the brick are what its all about. those brewers manning the helm in an AB-MC-Modelo-whatever it is R&D breweries are solid.

Here is how the Brewers Association defines a craft brewery:
An American craft brewer is small, independent and traditional.

Small: Annual production of beer less than 2 million barrels. Beer production is attributed to a brewer according to the rules of alternating proprietorships. Flavored malt beverages are not considered beer for purposes of this definition.

Independent: Less than 25% of the craft brewery is owned or controlled (or equivalent economic interest) by an alcoholic beverage industry member who is not themselves a craft brewer.

Traditional: A brewer who has either an all malt flagship (the beer which represents the greatest volume among that brewers brands) or has at least 50% of its volume in either all malt beers or in beers which use adjuncts to enhance rather than lighten flavor.


Based on the generally accepted definition, A.C. Golden is not a craft brewery since it is a subsidiary MillerCoors.

The BA's definition is stupid for a number of reasons:

1. If they dont change it, Boston Brewing wont qualify under Small anymore (I've heard rumors they are going to up the number)

2. That Goose Island doesnt qualify because of the Independent part. Yeah Inbev controls slightly more than 25%. I havent noticed a change in their beer.