But there’s no reason for anything like that in this case. Look at what we know:
We know inBev doesn’t consider brewing overseas and shipping to America to be economical
We know inBev doesn’t consider their own distribution methods sufficient for the American market
We know these things because inBev already has AB do their brewing and distribution in America. Why would they buy AB and then not only move Stella Artois but Budweiser brewing out of America? Give a logical reason why your scenario would happen, why would a company that could but doesn’t ship their product across the ocean change that when the volume of the product that they’d be shipping multiples a thousand fold? It simply does not make sense. WHY would your scenarios happen? Make it make sense.
Would you think a corporation would make decsions that actually destroyed it’s own business and made it vulnerable to government fines, regulation, and intervention? I wouldn’t. You wouldn’t.
You’re make assumptions that may or may not play out. So am I. I’m willing to let it play out and see who is vindicated.
I think we’ve worn this subject out. Thanks for expressing your point of view.