Give AB InBev the finger and read this article about antitrust and the importance of supply chains.

Beer is not mentioned in this article, but if you're reading it while drinking a Goose Island product, you're probably better off heading back to Thrillist.

What Role for Antitrust in the Era of Rising Inequality? The Importance of Power in Supply Chains, by Marshall Steinbaum (Pro-Market)

Concentration of power in supply chains is a prime mechanism by which dominant companies consolidate power and profits.

The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 was passed almost unanimously and with one goal in mind: to keep the cartels that dominated the nation’s railroad network from shaking down yeoman farmers. If they wanted to sell their goods, farmers had to pay the railroads’ exorbitant prices for freight, and any time demand increased, the railroads increased their prices and so captured the entire windfall. The Sherman Act, along with later U.S. antitrust legislation, aimed to diffuse market power in supply chains. The premise of the act was that individual small-scale producers should be allowed to make a living without paying powerful gatekeepers for the privilege.

For the most part, that has not been the standard applied by regulators and courts in enforcing antitrust law over the last four decades. Instead, they have looked almost exclusively at consumer welfare rather than the relative power of different suppliers to set prices and other trading terms. And policymakers and experts have tended to assume that large suppliers serve consumers’ interest by competing out inefficient producers—meaning that concentrating power in supply chains is, at least most of the time, beneficial to the public. That intellectual trend is reflected in the prioritization of different types of cases by the antitrust enforcement agencies, and also in the judiciary with the Supreme Court’s move to consider vertical price-fixing cases under the Rule of Reason following the 2007 Leegin case.

__

In Kentucky, House Bill 168 should be passed.

The Bluegrass-fueled power of traditional wholesalers, who are afforded monopoly conditions under the three-tier system, is such that Kentucky "craft" brewers know from the start that they'll never be allowed to self-distribute. Consequently, they must choose their poison.

And AB InBev is as poisonous as it comes. Hence, preservation of the three tiers is the priority. It makes sense to me, given the prevailing senselessness.

So, if you live in Kentucky, contact your representative and support House Bill 168. Kindly note that if you're of the solipsistic narcissist persuasion, it might be best to include actual words, and not just a photo of whatever beer you traded so hard to get.

Cheers to clarifying state law on beer sales, an editorial in the Herald-Leader Editorial

It's probably not possible to know now whether Kentucky law governing production and distribution of beer is so confusing by intent or mistake. Regardless, it's time to clear it up.

House Bill 168 promises to do that and protect the interests of beer producers and consumers in Kentucky. It should be passed.

The bill seeks to prevent breweries from owning distributorships in Kentucky. It would enforce a three-tier system of beer production, distribution and sales much like that for wine and spirits. Under this system, adopted in many places after the repeal of Prohibition, the producer of an alcoholic beverage, with few a few exceptions, can only sell it to a wholesaler who sells to retailers.

At Louisville Beer Dot Com: "Three tiers for Anheuser-Busch!"

John King drinks beer, runs, crafts wooden furniture, is one-third of a podcast, serves as Executive Director of the Kentucky Guild of Brewers and might even have time left to work at a day job, although I'm not sure about that one.

And then there is John's column at Louisville Beer Dot Com.

Three tiers for Anheuser-Busch!, by John King (Louisville Beer)

... The Kentucky ABC laws can be described as finicky to those inside and outside of the beer industry. They can possibly be classified as archaic since the first beer was cracked post-Prohibition, but they serve a purpose whether we imbibe by them or not. From a three-tier system requiring breweries to sell their beer to a distributor to not being allowed to give away free samples of beer outside of your taproom, the laws can create some questions amongst beer geeks. Let me explain the latter first.

He does, and then returns to AB InBev's latest bid to thwart the three-tier system.

If Anheuser-Busch starts to acquire self-distribution in Kentucky, expect to see those beers you love replaced with their “crafty” impostors (God, who am I Roger Baylor?)

To the Kentucky Guild of Brewers, it makes no sense why the largest brewery in the world would be able to self distribute and our smaller, in-state operations are not allowed to.

Well, it's about time someone was me. That said, John does a great job explaining the esoteric. If you enjoy better beer and reside in Kentucky, register your view.