I am a bigtime believer in efficiencies, and wouldn't balk at the takeover of Bud, per se, just because the bidder isn't American.

But the article doesn't necessarily support (or even really argue) that InBev will do a better job running the product. If the point is that Bud has problems exporting beer because of strong local competition outside the US, how does that problem get resolved when it's owned by a brand that owns that competition? Why would InBev want to cannibalize its own brands?

Instead it seems that the argument must be that an international consortium understands the US market better than August Busch and can extend the reach of the Bud brand beyond a hefty 50% of the market. On its face, that seems a little dubious though InBev is undoubtedly a fearsome competitor. (And, given the crap that passes for US beer these days, it may actually provide a better product).

Or maybe its just that InBev can lower costs by shipping production facilities to cheaper locations, like, Mexico. In that case, a reasonable bunch of US jobs are, again, gone for the benefit of a relatively few number of shareholders. If you have BUD in your mutual fund portfolio, InBev's success might net you an extra $10 a year. At that rate, I'd prefer that the profits such as they are stay with a U.S. company paying U.S. taxes and employing U.S. workers.