southsidepride wrote:" In other words, vote a Republican with an MBA into our mayoral office."
Yeah, because our current Republican President with an MBA has done wonders for the national economy
Presidents can't do anything that does "wonders for the national economy" within their term, short of massive amounts of government spending, which, of course, usually does more harm than good. They can't do much to harm the economy, either. To date, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have had little, if any, effect on the economy of the United States. If you don't understand that, you don't understand economics.
We are spending BILLIONS IN THE MIDDLE EAST (that could be spent at home), how does that not affect the economy. Please Explain economist.
alright one more post about politics and then I'll quit. But one could make the argument that the weak dollar made AB a takeover target and there was little Francis Slay or any other mayor could have done to stop it. Why is our dollar weak? Surely record high deficits caused by borrowing billions from the Chinese to fund a war in Iraq didn't have anything to do with it did it?
goat314 wrote:When has a republican ever helped the poor?.
When has a Democrat?
goat314 wrote:What have those out state republicans, who constantly bash and discriminate against St. Louis done. The last thing we need is them running sh*t in our city limits. Good thing this would never happen ,.
Who said anything about out state Republicans?
goat314 wrote:but I do agree we should get rid of the city earnings tax.
Wait, so we shouldn't tax the rich to the benefit of the poor?
Allow me to expand my boiled-down example using Rudy Giuliani's mayoralty. 1990's New York city, while having a better public transit infrastructure, suffered from many of the same issues St. Louis faces today; namely crime and lack of big business to provide tax base.
Giuliani aggressively (and systematically) attacked crime in NYC lowering criminal acts and undoubtedly making NYC instantly more appealing to both business and would-be residents.
Rud-dog also took a stab at urban reconstruction by actively enticing large companies, as well as large retail outlets. This left Bloomberg to tackle public schools and the ongoing issue of immigration.
Both of these individuals were Democrats-turned-Republican with, at the very least, Conservative ideals with the latter having a strong business background.
I find comparing the issues of St. Louis to the issues of renaissance-era New York under Giuliani to be quite viable. Comparing current NYC and STL is still viable in that both are cities (albeit one larger than the other) that deserve to be ran like businesses with residents in the place of stakeholders/shareholders.
goat314 wrote:When has a republican ever helped the poor?.
When has a Democrat?
goat314 wrote:What have those out state republicans, who constantly bash and discriminate against St. Louis done. The last thing we need is them running sh*t in our city limits. Good thing this would never happen ,.
Who said anything about out state Republicans?
goat314 wrote:but I do agree we should get rid of the city earnings tax.
Wait, so we shouldn't tax the rich to the benefit of the poor?
Now I'm confused. And so, apparently, are you.
1) Democrats consistently support social programs that help the poor, Republicans don't.
2) If the average Missourian Republican is pro-actively anti-St. Louis, what makes you think that a Republican would do the city good? Obviously cronyism and corruption runs rampant in St. Louis, but that is partly due to outdated laws and policies that require the Alderman to vote against their own personally interests. What makes you think a Republican wouldn't use the same corruption and cronyism to serve their own interests, when elected? Basically what could a Republican administration do in the city, that a Democrat cant?
3) I'm not confused, I know what I stand for. Who said we should tax the rich and give to the part. I just think everyone should pay their due. I'm personally against any earnings tax, because I feel like it does stagnant economic growth. I'm especially against a earnings tax that doesn't apply to the rich and puts the burden on the working class and poor (which consists of 95% of us).
ttricamo wrote:I think you could clearly make a solid argument that the current political environment in the city of St. Louis has had a largely negative impact on our ability to lure and sustain business in the city.
Politics aside, I think that's a very valid point. There is a serious leadership void in the City of St. Louis and the surrounding region.
I hope they will view the AB/InBev union as an opportunity rather than a threat and plan their next steps accordingly.
Allow me to expand my boiled-down example using Rudy Giuliani's mayoralty. 1990's New York city, while having a better public transit infrastructure, suffered from many of the same issues St. Louis faces today; namely crime and lack of big business to provide tax base.
Giuliani aggressively (and systematically) attacked crime in NYC lowering criminal acts and undoubtedly making NYC instantly more appealing to both business and would-be residents.
Rud-dog also took a stab at urban reconstruction by actively enticing large companies, as well as large retail outlets. This left Bloomberg to tackle public schools and the ongoing issue of immigration.
Both of these individuals were Democrats-turned-Republican with, at the very least, Conservative ideals with the latter having a strong business background.
I find comparing the issues of St. Louis to the issues of renaissance-era New York under Giuliani to be quite viable. Comparing current NYC and STL is still viable in that both are cities (albeit one larger than the other) that deserve to be ran like businesses with residents in the place of stakeholders/shareholders.
I think someone was right, when they said comparing St. Louis to NYC is apples and oranges. NYC is 6-7 times bigger than St. Louis and St. Louis County put together and doesn't suffer from the fractured bureaucracy, social conservatism, small mindedness, lack of resources and anti-urban state govt. that St. Louis suffers from. What no one wants to realize because of prior reasoning is that the only true hope of St. Louis being a 1st rate city again is consolidation of govt, basically merger of the city and county and all of the social services. The city and county are scrapped for money, because the govt. runs inefficient, just imagine how smoothly things would run if there was just one organized police dept. There are just way to many politicians here and that makes it impossible for anything to get done, unless its demolishing a building.
I wonder if they can start making some of INBEV's products here in the US? Is that possible? Think how much they would save on shipping to the East Coast, not to mention better freshness!
Don't misunderstand me, as I realize Missouri is far from being a progressive state in many ways, but I think we place too much of the blame for our overall lack of progress there.
There are certain things Missouri ought to do to improve the quality of life and economic development in its two major cities, especially in terms of infrastructure improvement and mass transit. I also don't understand why surrendering control over the SLMPD is such a non-starter in Jefferson City. Finally, there should be a realization among outstate legislators that St. Louis and Kansas City represent the state's economic engine. If one city sneezes, the state may catch a cold or something worse.
However, I think the lack of leadership is primarily at the local and regional level. There are simply too many chefs in the kitchen on both sides of Skinker Boulevard, and while I guess there are things Jefferson City could do to make cooperation between our region's entitites easier, there doesn't seem to be much initiative from within the region to work together in meaningful ways. Meanwhile, areas like Columbia and southwest Missouri are doing rather well overall, even in these uncertain economic times.
Nevertheless, I hold out hope that our region's leaders will come together to make the most of the inevitable A-B/InBev union. We're talking about a company which transcends all others in loyalty and civic identity, so if there was ever a time for the region to pull together and rally, now is the time.
InBev And A-B Agree To Combine With Budweiser As Its Flagship Brand
beeradvocate.com
InBev CEO Carlos Brito will be chief executive officer of the combined company. The Board of Directors of the combined company will be comprised of the existing directors of the InBev Board, Anheuser-Busch President and CEO August Busch IV and one other current or former director from the Anheuser-Busch Board. In addition, the combined company's management team will draw from key members of both InBev's and Anheuser-Busch's current leadership. Anheuser-Busch will become a wholly owned subsidiary of InBev upon the completion of this transaction.
The expanded company will be geographically diversified, with leading positions in the world's top five markets - China, U.S., Russia, Brazil and Germany - and balanced exposure to developed and developing markets. A combination of Anheuser-Busch and InBev will result in significant growth opportunities from leveraging the companies' combined brand portfolio, including the global flagship Budweiser brand and international market leaders such as Stella Artois and Beck's, maximizing the combination's unparalleled global distribution network and applying best practices across the new organization. Budweiser and Bud Light are the largest selling beers in the world, and the combined company will have an unmatched portfolio of imports, local premiums and local core brands.
Carlos Brito, CEO of InBev, said, "We are very pleased to announce this historic transaction today, bringing together two great companies that share a rich history of brewing traditions. We are extremely excited about the opportunities that this combination will create for consumers worldwide, as well as our shareholders, employees, business partners and wholesalers. Together, Anheuser-Busch and InBev will be able to accomplish much more than each can on its own. We have been successful business partners for quite some time, and this is the natural next step for us in an increasingly competitive global environment.
This combination will create a stronger, more competitive global company with an unrivaled worldwide brand portfolio and distribution network, with great potential for growth all over the world." August Busch IV, Anheuser-Busch President and CEO, stated, "Today's announcement brings new opportunities for Anheuser-Busch and its business, brands and employees. This agreement provides additional and certain value for Anheuser-Busch shareholders, while enhancing global market access for Budweiser, one of America's true iconic brands. We will leverage our collective strengths to create a truly diversified, global company to sustain long-term growth and profitability. In the United States and Canada, both InBev and Anheuser-Busch have seen significant benefits from our existing relationship and we look forward to replicating this success in other parts of the world."
Question: Outside of the $70 per share, why did Busch IV flip so fast? He went from "not on my watch" to an enormously long and positive statement in one week. I think there is a chance for the global HQ's to relocate to St. Louis. The infrastructure is solid over Busch Place.
I wonder if they can start making some of INBEV's products here in the US? Is that possible? Think how much they would save on shipping to the East Coast, not to mention better freshness!
Becks, made in the USA
I certainly think that is a predictable outcome. And they will brew Bud/Mich/Etc on Europe and elsewhere for local markets.
Arch City wrote:Question: Outside of the $70 per share, why did Busch IV flip so fast? He went from "not on my watch" to an enormously long and positive statement in one week. I think there is a chance for the global HQ's to relocate to St. Louis. The infrastructure is solid over Busch Place.
When people say that they will boycott ABI I think they know that this will be rough on the city in terms of employment. But I think many of those people think that it is inevitable that jobs be lossed and believe that at some point or another all the jobs are going to be loss. I can see where they would make an arguement that they are putting the country first before the city so a message is sent about the acquisition of domesitc businesses by foreign investors so perhaps the same thing won't happen to the Boston Brewing Company and Sam Adams (for example) down the road. It makes sense.
And just to clarify, I don't think the majority of outstaters are necessarilly anti-City like everyone seems to think. I think they are more pro-rural or wherever they live, which usually contradicts the interests of the city. And isn't Kit Bond a republican that was at the forefront of trying to save AB for St. Louis?
This may be a good thing for St. Louis in the long term. I think that there is some significance to the international interest in AB. I especially think that St. Louis as the continental headquarters for a global conglomerate will have some positive effects on the city.
"The expanded company will be geographically diversified, with leading positions in the world's top five markets - China, U.S., Russia, Brazil and Germany " source1
Regarding China and Brazil...
"Chinese Vice Premier Wang Qishan today became the highest Chinese government official yet to visit St. Louis in connection with the proposal to create an air cargo hub and commercial center here to facilitate trade between China and the United States." source2
"We're in the process of building relationships and putting together routes and assembling enough cargo to make routes happen," Kern said. "Our goal is to put MidAmerica in the middle and create the hub between China and South America." source3
Shimmy wrote:When people say that they will boycott ABI I think they know that this will be rough on the city in terms of employment. But I think many of those people think that it is inevitable that jobs be lossed and believe that at some point or another all the jobs are going to be loss. I can see where they would make an arguement that they are putting the country first before the city so a message is sent about the acquisition of domesitc businesses by foreign investors so perhaps the same thing won't happen to the Boston Brewing Company and Sam Adams (for example) down the road. It makes sense.
Shimmy wrote:When people say that they will boycott ABI I think they know that this will be rough on the city in terms of employment. But I think many of those people think that it is inevitable that jobs be lossed and believe that at some point or another all the jobs are going to be loss. I can see where they would make an arguement that they are putting the country first before the city so a message is sent about the acquisition of domesitc businesses by foreign investors so perhaps the same thing won't happen to the Boston Brewing Company and Sam Adams (for example) down the road. It makes sense.
Or, in other words, they're stupid.
Perhaps. But I can't blame anyone for having principles.
Shimmy wrote:Perhaps. But I can't blame anyone for having principles.
These people should know, however, that standing up for their principles may do more harm to the St. Louis economy than Carlos Brito ever thought of doing.
^Well, yeah. But again, maybe they're thinking more of the national economy. I don't really know, I couldn't boycott a beer if I wanted to because I can't purchase it, but I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Shimmy wrote:Perhaps. But I can't blame anyone for having principles.
These people should know, however, that standing up for their principles may do more harm to the St. Louis economy than Carlos Brito ever thought of doing.
Maybe. Maybe not. The answer to that question is whether Brito and InBev are competent enough to make Bud an international brand and whether they simply use the AB distribution network to supplant AB products with European and Latin American imports.
zas wrote:"Chinese Vice Premier Wang Qishan today became the highest Chinese government official yet to visit St. Louis in connection with the proposal to create an air cargo hub and commercial center here to facilitate trade between China and the United States." source2
"We're in the process of building relationships and putting together routes and assembling enough cargo to make routes happen," Kern said. "Our goal is to put MidAmerica in the middle and create the hub between China and South America." source3
St. Louis is positioned well.
It seems that you're suggesting that A-B-I would ship beer to China from St. Louis? They wouldn't. It's much cheaper for A-B-I to make it there.
Shimmy wrote:^Well, yeah. But again, maybe they're thinking more of the national economy.
Yes, because that will help the national economy by foregoing a product that employs many thousands of Americans at 12 breweries nationwide. Not.
,.
