Craft Beer and the Human Economy


Erik Kain

Erik writes about video games at Forbes and politics at Mother Jones. He's the contributor of The League though he hasn't written much here lately. He can be found occasionally composing 140 character cultural analysis on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

51 Responses

  1. “Yes, I use the term ‘free markets’ here loosely, and perhaps I should just say ‘markets’ so that I don’t have to hear about how they’re not really free if the government gives someone free healthcare.”

    I think just ‘markets’ is definitely proper, because it is a rhetoric that internalizes the philosophical reversal I mentioned in the quoted comment (thanks for the nod, by the way) – that markets cannot be ‘free’; they are always and everywhere a deliberate tool of policy, not the ‘default’ or ‘natural’ position – BUT they are a supremely useful tool when we face the calculation problem that topples traditional/orthodox socialism.

    So if we approach, say, libertarians from that position – if it is made clear that a progressive policy does not mean command-and-control, but market mechanisms meant to achieve explicit social goals – what would they say?

    Can anyone offer a response from a libertarian/classical-liberal perspective?Report

  2. Avatar DarrenG says:

    Wow, that second-to-last paragraph sure turned a corner into somewhere different…

    While I’m thinking about that, I’d like to pick a nit with your claim that “Markets are often spoken about in right-wing terms, or libertarian terms, and many on the left view them with suspicion.”

    I don’t think it’s fair to say that many on the left view markets with suspicion; real Marxism (as opposed to anyone-who-disagrees-with-Grover-Norquist-is-a-Marxist Marxism) is largely inoperable now. The old chestnut about everyone on the left hating capitalism and private enterprise was never really true, and certainly isn’t accurate today.

    Instead, I’d re-cast that as “many on the left are suspicious of right-wing references to markets as potential stalking horses for reverse-Robin-Hood privatization schemes or state-sponsored robber baronies.”Report

    • Avatar E.D. Kain in reply to DarrenG says:

      I am going for the disjointed/ramble theme today.Report

    • Avatar E.D. Kain in reply to DarrenG says:

      Also yes, I don’t mean the left is suspicious of markets, per se, just of markets in the way they’re treated in contemporary discourse given the language being used and the policy implications.Report

    • Avatar Plinko in reply to DarrenG says:

      Unfortunately, I think many, many people on the left are just plain old suspicious/distrustful of markets in general. Some more do so as a reaction to the right and would probably support a lot of ‘free the market’ agendas if it was re-framed in a choice-increasing context without using any perceived right-leaning scare words.Report

    • Avatar Kim in reply to DarrenG says:

      view MARKETS with suspicion? Hah. I view monopolies, oligarchies, and hedge funds with suspicion.Report

  3. Avatar Will H. says:

    Let’s get this straight, Kain:
    The biggest problem with the idiotic Reinheitsgebot was the necessity of an acid rest.
    The brewers were stuck with what water they had on hand, and couldn’t make adjustments.
    There are a wide variety of food-grade acids to affect pH directly.
    They couldn’t use any of them.Report

    • Avatar DarrenG in reply to Will H. says:

      Nevertheless, the Germans managed to produce quite a variety of excellent beers under that regulation, more than any other country in the world with the possible exception of Belgium.Report

      • Avatar Will H. in reply to DarrenG says:

        Not really.
        The English had just as many styles, and better beer.
        It was Gabriel Sedlmayr that brought the use of the thermometer and hydrometer to Munich after touring several British breweries in the early 1800’s.

        I don’t remember the British ever brewing anything as foul as a Dortmunder export.Report

        • Avatar DarrenG in reply to Will H. says:

          I suppose that’s a fair point if you look at the entire time frame of the Reinheitsgebot back to the early 16th century; Britain was a culinary world leader for a long time prior to the 20th century, after all.

          I do think my major point that the Reinheitsgebot didn’t prevent the Germans from making many very nice beers for nearly 500 years is still valid, though. (And yes, there are British beers I’d compare disfavorably with a Dortmunder, but that’s also beside the point — this isn’t about comparing countries’ worst beers, it’s about comparing their best).Report

          • Avatar Will H. in reply to DarrenG says:

            there are British beers I’d compare disfavorably with a Dortmunder

            I had forgotten about the IPA, though McEwan’s makes a nice one.
            Now, while the purity laws didn’t prevent them from making a few decent beers, it certainly didn’t help much.
            Guinness is recognized as a producer of stout not because it is a tasty beer, but rather because the brewery was quick to introduce innovations throughout its history.
            The typical German decoction mash included an acid rest and/or the use of acidulated malt, which translates into time and money. A touch of phosphoric acid, or the old distillers’ trick of adding half a lemon, was out of the question.Report

        • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Will H. says:

          Beer trivia.

          Some fundamental statistics (stuff you learned if you took Stat 101) was invented by a guy named William Sealy Gosset, who worked for the Guinness company. His goal was to minimize the amount of sampling required to verify the quality of the beer.

          Guinness considered this a trade secret and forbade Gosset from publishing his results under his own name, so he used a pseudonym. If you’ve ever applied Student’s T-Test, now you know why it’s called that.Report

  4. Avatar Brandon Berg says:

    A 2006BBC story listed additives typically found in corporate beer, none of which you’ll find in the stuff brewed in Germany: betaglucanase, ammonia caramel, rhoiso-alpha acids, sulphur dioxide, protease, amyloglucosidase, propylene glycol alginate, and silicone. Nor will German beers ever be dumbed down with cheap filler grains like corn and rice, which are part of the reason American brews like Bud and Miller taste so insipid.

    I’m having trouble not reading this as “Stupid rednecks who can’t tell a good beer from donkey piss chose to support companies which produce cheap beer that I don’t like over more expensive beer that I do like.”

    The real problem, it should be obvious in retrospect, isn’t that mass-market breweries were allowed to produce products that Tom Philpott doesn’t like—it’s that niche breweries weren’t allowed to produce products he does like.Report

    • Avatar Brandon Berg in reply to Brandon Berg says:

      Also, “dumbed down?” Is drinking beer now an intellectual pursuit?Report

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Brandon Berg says:

        When I worked at the restaurant, I worked for someone who had been a pastry chef at Epcot France. One of her cakes was the “Triple Chocolate Cake”. This was an understatement. There were, like, lots more things going on than just that… but the name was catchy and probably moved more pieces of cake than a more accurate name would have.

        One night, after dessert, a customer pushed his empty plate away and said “My god. There are people out there who cannot tell the difference between that and a Snickers bar.”

        On one level, he’s right. There was a lot more nuance and stuff working together in that cake than would be going on in a Snickers.

        On another, part of his pleasure from eating the cake seemed to come from knowing how much pleasure he took from eating the cake.Report

      • Avatar b-psycho in reply to Brandon Berg says:

        No. But it, as a mildly mind-altering substance, can serve as a conversational lubricant.Report

      • Avatar Sam MacDonald in reply to Brandon Berg says:


        “I see a less conglomerated market that produces products people actually want…”

        People really, really want Bud Light. We know this because of the fact that when given a choice between Bud Light and a fine mon-brewed Belgian who-er-whatsit, they overwhelmingly choose Bud Light.Report

        • Avatar E.D. Kain in reply to Sam MacDonald says:

          Wow, that’s a simplistic view of things.Report

          • Avatar Sam MacDonald in reply to E.D. Kain says:

            Simple seems to be the watchword here. First we get, “A regulation that simply requires beer to adhere to specific quality standards is pretty benign.” Simply? That’s an interesting turn of phrase. It’s simple if the regulation requires quality standards you like, or doesn’t prohibit something you want to sell or your customers want to buy.

            Then there’s “I would add to that point simply that small brewers tend to provide more options for workers in a more human, less industrialized setting.” Well… not simple at all. Do they tend to offer a more human setting? Says who? Are corporate union jobs inhuman? I am not even sure what that means.

            But the idea that beers you like are the beers “people actually want” really takes the cake. I get it. You like craft beer. You hate Budweiser. That’s fine. Don’t buy it. But trust me here. Really, really trust me. Lots and lots of people want to buy Miller Lite. Lots and lots of peope have tried craft brews and stopped trying them because they don’t like them.

            Maybe these people are wrong. Maybe they are dullards. Maybe they have been conned by the bajillion dollar advertising budgets. But nine of that takes away from the fact that they do want to buy beers you don’t like.Report

        • Avatar Jesse Ewiak in reply to Sam MacDonald says:

          Give that Belgian beer a 50 zillion dollar advertising budget for the next twenty years and get back to me. 🙂Report

          • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Jesse Ewiak says:

            If they legalize pot tomorrow, in 70 years, most folks will be smoking Marlboro Blues and Camel Mellows. You’ll get your odd enthusiast who tells you about Strawberry Cough or Afghan Shag… but, for the most part, it’s easier to buy a pack of pre-rolls that are exactly like the pre-rolls you bought last time.Report

        • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to Sam MacDonald says:

          “[W]hen given a choice between Bud Light and a fine mon-brewed Belgian who-er-whatsit, they overwhelmingly choose Bud Light.”

          Well, when the (insert class-war adjectives) beer is $3.50 for a pint and Bud Light is $4.00 for a pitcher, simple economics drives to you Bud Light, at least if you’re just looking for something to drink socially and in quantity.Report

          • Avatar Kim in reply to DensityDuck says:

            … my Doppelbock is quadruple your Bud Light’s alcohol content. And I’d rather sip than guzzle.Report

          • Avatar Sam M in reply to DensityDuck says:

            But the quality laws quash that kind of variety, don’t they? Let’s get out of beer and get into cars. I don’t care much about mine. I just want it to go. Now, a car guy is going to want massive, four-barrel Weber carbs, independent suspension and all that stuff. These are all great things if you give a crap about cars. They ultimately come down to quality. Ferrari has these things! Of course, Ferrari’s are really expensive. So a car “purity law” that forces all car makers and all car buyers to build to Ferrari’s specifications will in fact raise quality. Hooray!

            Only I don’t care about the Weber carbs. I don’t care about the independent suspension. So I get screwed, and forced to pay for a bunch of crap that I don’t care about.

            Because at the end of a day, a key component of a consumer product is its price. Yes, a pitcher of Milwaukee’s Best costs as much as a thimbleful of some fine Belgian whatever. And that’s part of the draw. If I am not going to enjoy the triple-hopped thrill of an IPA, why should I pay for it?

            But the other key component is that, despite the aficianado’s views, some people really don’t like the Ferrari better. Some people really want a Camry or a minivan. Because they need what it offers, or don’t care about world-class performance and would rather save the money.

            And some people really, really don’t care if their beer is dumbed down with rice. In fact, many people WANT beer dumbed down with rice. I know people who have Budweiser tattoos. Because of the three tier distribution system? No. Because they really like Budweiser.Report

    • Avatar E.D. Kain in reply to Brandon Berg says:

      A lot of it really does boil down to distribution regulations and anti-home-brew regulations.Report

    • Avatar Plinko in reply to Brandon Berg says:

      I really don’t think it’s necessarily a fair statement that current U.S. beer sales reveal true market preferences in a context where federal and state/local regulations of that market have ranged from a low end of fairly extreme to Prohibition.
      Or are you suggesting that heavy government regulation doesn’t actually interfere in markets?Report

  5. Avatar Kolohe says:


    You know what saved the Germans from bad beer?

    The fact they didn’t ban it for 13 years in the 20th century.Report

  6. Avatar wardsmith says:

    Much of the success of a mega beer like Budweiser comes from the nature of supermarkets. Most people think Safeway buys all this product and stocks their shelves and marks it up for a profit. In reality Safeway /leases/ their shelf space to companies who manage everything, including the sales price. Anheuser Busch can afford to (and I’ve personally witnessed this) BUY every beer in their way so they have more room for their own product on the shelves. They don’t play this game with Miller of course, but I’ve seen them knock small players right out of the game. They might have great sales for a month and then wonder why Safeway stopped taking their product (leasing them space).

    In Texas Hold-em this is called “big stacking” the opposition.Report

    • Avatar James Hanley in reply to wardsmith says:

      They might have great sales for a month and then wonder why Safeway stopped taking their product (leasing them space).

      Yes, but obviously many beer drinkers are satisfied enough with Bud that they’re not willing to make an extra stop to get that other beer. In other words, their marginal valuation of that craft beer is very low.Report

      • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to James Hanley says:

        They don’t go out of their easy to look got a beer they’ve never tried because its shelf space got taken away? If that doesn’t prove markets work, I don’t know what does.Report

        • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to Mike Schilling says:

          What he’s saying is that if someone were looking for fancy beer then they should go to a specialty distributor and not the local gas station.Report

          • Avatar Plinko in reply to DensityDuck says:

            The three-tier system is the problem, not the ability of the big boys to buy shelf space. That’s actually how pretty much all grocery and a lot of consumable mass market retail works and yet small companies can emerge and get their products to customers and, if successful, become big and mainstream.

            The issue is the three tier system where states give out monopolies on beer distribution to a very small number of players who are protected from competition. It is illegal in most places for a brewer to sell their products to retail customers, bars/restaurants or through retail stores directly. They must convince one the monopoly holders to buy their product, then that monopoly holder may sell it to retailers who may then sell it to individuals at retail or to bars and restaurants.
            So, it doesn’t matter if a customer wants to buy a particular beer. It actually doesn’t even matter if a retailer wants to buy a beer. Even giant retailers do not get to pick what beverages they may carry, they’re stuck with choosing from among whatever the holder of the local monopoly wants to sell.Report

            • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to Plinko says:

              This is certainly true. In Pennsylvania they have only just recently (as in, less than two years ago) allowed a single building to house sales operations for both food and alcohol–which are still required to be separate operations. The local equivalent of Whole Foods near my parents’ house has wooden railings between the part of the store that sells beer and has a sandwich counter, the part that sells wine and liquor, and the part that sells food. And you aren’t allowed to carry goods from one part to another unless you’ve paid for them. And you aren’t allowed to buy more than two six-packs of beer at any one time (apparently that part of the store is legally defined as a “carry out bar”–that’s why the sandwich counter is there.)

              If you want a case you have to go to a state-licensed beer distributor shop–and you can ONLY buy cases there, no six-packs.Report

        • Mike,

          wardsmith’s argument assumed the craft beer had sold a lot before they got moved out, so by his argument, to which I was responding, it’s wrong to say they had never tried the beer. If they in fact have tried it, and then can’t be bothered to go out of their way to buy it, then they can’t have liked it that much.

          I’m fortunate, I have to pass a liquor store to get to the grocery store, but I would go some distance out of my way for good beer.Report

    • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to wardsmith says:

      I don’t quite get how this works. If you’re selling 100% of your stock every month then…isn’t that great? Even if it’s being dumped in a ditch behind the local InBev distributor plant.

      And if Bud is taking up more shelf space than they paid for, wouldn’t Safeway have something to say about that?Report

  7. Avatar Kim says:

    I hate the taste of hops — so give me a Budweiser or a Honey Blue Moon, or a Doppelbock. Cause I’m consistent.Report