Regulation

Trump's War on Whisky Is a Dram Shame

Whisky has become collateral damage in a long-running spat between the U.S. and the E.U. over subsidies to airplane manufacturers.

|

While the Trump administration's tariffs on steel, aluminum, and Chinese-made goods have earned most of the headlines, another more obscure set of Trump-backed import duties are hitting Americans squarely in the booze.

Since October, the U.S. has charged a new 25 percent tariff on single malt Scotch whisky, part of a broader set of levies targeting hundreds of European cultural items, including Italian pasta, German ham, and English wool. The 25 percent tariff is expected to cause scotch exports to the United States to drop by 20 percent over a year, according to the Scotch Whisky Association. "Consumer choice will diminish and Scotch whisky companies will start to lose market share," says Karen Betts, the trade group's executive director.

Practically, the tariff means that what used to be a $40 bottle of scotch is now going to set you back more than $50. Smaller distilleries will be particularly hard hit because the tariff specifically targets single malt Scotch whisky; blended varieties like those ones sold by most major brands are exempt, so those prices will remain the same. Some small-batch producers, like Fife-based Kingsbarns Distillery, are delaying plans to tap into the lucrative (and growing) U.S. market because of the new tariffs, according to Whisky Advocate, an industry publication.

Trump has repeatedly reached for tariffs—which are nothing more than taxes paid by American importers and consumers—in a misguided attempt to force other countries to negotiate trade deals with the U.S. But the scotch tariffs are somewhat separate from the current administration's myriad trade wars.

Whisky has become collateral damage in a long-running spat between the U.S. and the European Union (E.U.) over subsidies to airplane manufacturers. The World Trade Organization gave the U.S. permission to impose tariffs on some E.U. exports last year after the U.S. claimed Airbus was being unfairly subsidized by the French government. The main rival of Airbus is, of course, Washington-based Boeing, a heavy hitter in American politics that's also the recipient of generous corporate welfare.

The whole episode demonstrates the foolishness of tariffs. American consumers of whisky, wine, and wool are not subsidizing Airbus. Yet people and businesses on both sides of the Atlantic are being punished simply for trying to amicably trade what they have for what they want.

Whiskey distillers have always had to account for the "angel's share"—small amounts lost to evaporation during aging. Thanks to the Trump administration, now they have to plan for the taxman's cut too.

Advertisement

NEXT: Brickbat: Not Drunk

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. If the endgame if a freer-trade agreement, I can see the usefulness of a trade war.

    If it’s protectionism for its own sake, I’m not so hot for it.

    Whiskey river, don’t run dry
    You’re all I’ve got, take care of me

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k9SjMpAxRM

    1. Boehm is a hack. Trump offered Free Trade to our trading partners at the G-7 Summit and they refused.

      Our trading partners have and will continue to lower their trade restrictions.

      1. The article is just more Boehm bullshit.

        1. So says the Master of Space, Time, Dimension, and Protectionism… Take it from Shitsy Shitler, who Knows and Sees All!

        2. Seriously.

          collateral damage in a long-running spat between the U.S. and the E.U. over subsidies to airplane manufacturers.

          becomes;

          Trump’s War on Whisky!!!

          I mean fuck off Boehm you dishonest hack. How stupid and naive do you think we are (excluding Sqrls), to try and pull a bullshit take like this.

    2. Trump said just today in the news conference he prefers open trade, but he feels he has to utilize retaliatory tariffs to get to that state. He mentioned some specific industries like the motorcycle industry in India. He has mentioned specific tariffs in almost every one of the tariffs he has responded with.

      I dont know why I have to keep saying it, but game theory has been openly embraced by economists for almost 70 years at this point. Yet bumper sticker economists keep insisting game theory, such as tit for tat, is more market corruption than open bad actors in the current system.

      1. If trade wars are good, every one of the 50 states in the USA should declare trade wars on every other state… And then county on county, city on city, and finally, SQRLSY One’s household should trade with NO ONE… Good jobs ONLY for residents of SQRLSY One’s household!!! No one else DESERVES to trade with me!!! I will do my own iron ore mining, smelting, tool manufacture, food growing, cloth weaving, home dentistry, you name it… It is actually a straight-line ticket to utter poverty!!!

        1. The Constitution forbids it.

          1. And as a result, free trade between states, and relative prosperity for the united USA! 50 states give up state sovereignty a wee tad, and the result is relative nation-wide prosperity!

            By extension, then, the USA needs to give up a wee tad of USA sovereignty to world-wide trade authorities, and we can gave more world-wide prosperity! What works for 50 states, works for 150 some nations, or, at least, to all who will willingly take part! What does NOT work here, is Trump (or other POTUS) unilaterally throwing protectionist hissy fits!

  2. An odd take considering that Scotch is one of the most fiercely government protected and regulated products in the world. We can make Scotch in the states …. if only ….

    1. There are plenty of single malt whiskies made by various hipsters and the like. Some are even smokey. They’re often as high or higher priced than the Scotch equivalent though. And while, for my taste, the best Cognac style brandy is made in California, there isn’t a Lagavulin-equivalent I’ve found yet in the States. Or anywhere else. Japan’s whiskies are even sillier priced.

      Further, it’s hard to make 12 year old Scotch without waiting 12 years, which a lot of these little producers can’t do. To be fair, the big boys in Scotch have figured this out also, which is why you see way more branded styles under a label than you used to. With no mention of the age of the spirit at all.

      Finally, why is the attitude of these articles so angry at the US for instituting a reciprocal tariff, and never, I mean never, questioning the EU (or Japan, or China…) about the EU getting rid of its protective tariff? At least the 100 percent tariff appears to be shelved for the time being.

      1. I’m not saying making Scotch is easy, but it can be done. My comment was in accordance with the sentiment you expressed in your last paragraph. Reason staff and many libertarians seem to genuinely believe that the world is rife with Brooklyn style hipsters looking to export their unique, entirely unregulated products made in absolutely free markets … if only it wasn’t for the orange man.

        It’s delusional. There is no free market “out there.”

        1. It’s delusional. There is no free market “out there.”

          So what? You’re justifying bad policy with more bad policy. Just because trade isn’t completely free doesn’t mean we should add more tariffs and restrictions here in the US.

          1. It means you don’t bring a knife to a gun fight. Sometimes you have to bring a gun to convince everyone else that knives would be better for all, and then no weapons at all.

            “So what?”

            That’s so what. This is exactly the attitude I talk about that I describe as “delusional.”

            1. Often the attitude here is: I am a consumer, and absolutely nothing else matters to me except that the price I pay be as little as possible. Anything that raises the price I have to pay for a good—from increased worker protections and higher wages, to tariffs, any restrictions on the labor I can employ—is per se immoral and wrong.

              Viewed that way, a lot of the stances here become consistent.

              1. Sure. But that is an insane way to view the world. It is not realistic. When staunch libertarians are accused of living entirely in their heads, this kind of logic is the reason.

                When it comes to global free trade, your average libertarian is not unlike the sucker at the poker table who can’t figure out he’s getting played.

                1. When it comes to global free trade, your average libertarian is not unlike the sucker at the poker table who can’t figure out he’s getting played.

                  Trade is not a competition. That’s the point that conservatives miss. It’s not Us vs Them. Trade doesn’t have losers. Well, those who can’t compete can lose, but when they do the consumer wins. The point of production is consumption. It isn’t jobs. If jobs were what mattered then we should dig ditches with spoons. Everyone would be employed. But you can agree that that’s absurd.

                  Ultimately all trade is between individuals, not countries.

                  1. Right now Americans deal with oppressive regimes that have command economies. Hence a national trade policy.

                    1. Good point. Because we trade with individuals who live under oppressive regimes, our government must oppress those of us who buy stuff from those repressive regimes with punitive tariffs. It’s just not fair that the other guy is oppressed while we are not. We must be oppressed too. To make it fair.

                  2. “Trade is not a competition.”

                    In a perfectly free market, where everyone plays by the same rules, it is not a competition.

                    But that perfectly free market does exist now, has never existed in human history, and is extremely unlikely to ever exist in the future. So long as sovereign states with sovereign governments with conflicting interests exist, trade will always be competition. In the real world, trade *is* competition almost by definition. Since producing goods is always a matter of competition at the individual level (i.e. “Who can produce the superior products and under what circumstances?”) so too is trade at the national level.

                    The point that libertarians persistently miss is that the world is a complex network of competing interests where individual liberties, even the liberties of those with the best intentions, are subject to being subverted by hostile state actors and other individuals.

                    If one side engages in free trade, while everyone else cheats, the side that plays fair will almost always lose in the long run. Internalizing the costs of international protectionism by foreign governments is a losing proposition.

                    Pie in the sky idealism does not work.

                    1. Protectionism is what does not work!

                      Meanwhile in the real world…
                      https://reason.com/2019/04/22/trumps-washing-machine-tariffs-cleaned-out-consumers/
                      Trump’s Washing Machine Tariffs Cleaned Out Consumers
                      A new report finds the tariffs raised $82 million for the U.S. Treasury but ended up increasing costs for consumers by about $1.2 billion.

                      PROTECTIONISM DOESN’T WORK!!! DUH!!!

                      Protect American washing-machine makers from Chinese competition? The FIRST thing that American washing-machine makers do, is jack UP their prices… AND the prices of dryers to boot, too! To SOAK the hell out of all of us consumers!!!
                      From the above-linked Reason article about washing machines…
                      “All told, those tariffs raised about $82 million for the U.S. Treasury but ended up increasing costs for consumers by about $1.2 billion during 2018 … (deleted). Although the trade policy did cause some manufacturers to shift production from overseas to the United States in an effort to avoid the new tariffs, the 1,800 jobs created by Trump’s washing machine tariffs cost consumers an estimated $820,000 per job.”
                      Summary: Nickels and dimes to the USA treasury; boatloads of pain for consumers. USA jobs created? Yes, at GREAT expense! Putting these 1.8 K workers on a super-generous welfare program would have been WAY better for all the rest of us! Plus, you know the WORKERS don’t make super-huge bucks (no $820,000 per job for THEM); the goodies flow to the EXECUTIVES at the top of the washing-machine companies! The same ones who play golf with The Donald, and join him for gang-banging Stormy Daniels! Essentially at our expense!

                    2. Meth, ladies and gentlemen.

                    3. What, you mean, in addition to golf junkets and sharing Stormy Daniels, and executives making campaign contributions to The Donald, to reward The Donald for his trade (protectionism) favors… They ALSO share METH parties? I wasn’t aware of that… Thanks Much for the scoop!

                    4. If one side engages in free trade, while everyone else cheats, the side that plays fair will almost always lose in the long run.

                      Define cheating.

                      Does it mean subsidizing goods and giving consumers a lower price? Cool. I’m fine with that.

                      Does it mean manipulating currency to make goods cheaper for consumers? Cool. I’m fine with that.

                      Now if I was a producer I’d be apeshit. But that’s the whole point of free trade. Producers lose. Consumers win.

                    5. Thought experiment.

                      Nation Y engages in free trade. Unilateral if need be.

                      Nation Y trades with nations A, B and C, all of which have heavy tariffs.

                      Nation Y produces products, with tariffs being included into the comparative advantage equation.

                      Nation Y lets people import stuff without penalty.

                      A, B and C punish those who import stuff and subsidizes things that politicians approve of.

                      Who will be wealthier in the end?

            2. It is more shallow inspection than anything. They dont want to have ti think too hard or deal with reality.

              1. It’s called sticking to principle, numbnuts.

                1. What insight. It’s too bad you don’t real grasp all of this.

                2. It is easy to stick to principles … on a comment board. It doesn’t work in the real world, so … you and your principles are worth about as much as monopoly money.

          2. Retaliatory tariffs are valid game theory. Just because you think it is okay that other people act badly doesnt make it bad policy.

            Quick question. If the mob opened up a store front to sell stolen goods, do you think there is a governmental responsibility to shut it down. They are openly violating market principles through theft. So do you agree that is preferred in our current system than closing that shop down?

            1. Good question.

            2. Because theft is bad, we must allow JesseSPAZ and other collectivist authoritarians to STEAL (thieve) away from us, our freedoms to freely chose who to buy and sell from.

              OK! Theft is bad, except when JesseSPAZ approves of it!

              1. Stop pretending that you drink Scotch. This tariff isn’t hitting you even half as hard as you’re hitting that meth pipe.

                1. Wow! Authoritarian “logic” really IS authoritative! Original, incisive, well researched, with undisputable knowledge!

                  1. I can’t think of any reason aside from meth for your poop eating fetish.

        2. there’s no free market. therefore we need moar tariffs to ensure there will never be a free market. orange man win we all win.

          1. Correction: There’s no free market, so let’s go on pretending there is without changing anyone’s behavior.

            When you’re getting fucked in the ass, it’s okay to say “stop.”

            1. There is no perfect free market, so let’s make it less free! Woo hoo! Trump 2020!

              1. It’s too bad you’re this stupid. Maybe you should go away so those of us who aren’t subnormal can have substantive discussions.

                1. I’m not going away. These comments should have at least one libertarian voice.

                  1. Shitsy Shitler calls real freedom lovers (libertarians) “stupid”, and expects that to be the end of the “discussion”!

                    Authoritarians are as authoritarians dictate!

                    1. I’m trying to back off on calling people names other than abbreviations. I have no hope of changing their minds, but plenty of lurkers read these comments. So for them I’m trying to be civil, even when those who I argue with are not. You don’t need to call them names. Just stick to your principles and be one of the few libertarian voices in this wilderness. That is enough.

                  2. Libertarian hear voices a lot, I’m sure.

                    1. I hear the sweet voices of reason, rationality, reasonableness, and even benevolence, in my head. Concern for the public good. That’s why I have donated more than 100 gallons of blood so far.

                      Authoritarians, on the other hand, seemingly hear VERY little in their heads, other than the voices of unreasonable bossiness and self-righteousness.

                  3. Thank you, sarcasmic.

                    To you others, what is the theory of comparative advantage, why is it not called competitive advantage, and why does math decree that the theory of comparative advantage must be part of the truth? Then explain why game theory has more weight than the combined weight of public choice theory and the theory of comparative advantage.

        1. Have you tried any of these spirits that attempt to accelerate aging? I’ve had the misfortune of trying a few, though not any that used processes cited in your article.

          The ones I’ve tried have been uniformly awful. Complete dogshit. And popular with many people, so de gustibus. If I find any that use the process you cite, I’ll try them, but I don’t have much faith.

          I wouldn’t be surprised to see some of those processes involved in no age statement Scotch or other spirits, in much the same way recent enzymatically-enhanced fermentation and aging has taken a giant, potpurri-scented shit all over American Pinot Noir.

    2. The complaint is about Americans being unreasonably taxed. Whether Scotch is produced in a totally free market is not relevant.

  3. Jesus christ, we live in America. Drink bourbon. I find it has a wider variety of qualities and taste and can be acquired for a far more reasonable price relative to quality than scotch.

    1. Seriously. Bourbon is far superior than that Scottish swill.

      1. Try New Rifff Distillery if you haven’t had it yet. They’re a younger distillery in Newport Kentucky. Right across from Cincinnati. They’re operation is young but therye turning out some excellent bourbon. Their single barrels are quite nice. They run tours at their facility and have a nice little bar inside making good mixed drinks.

    2. You don’t necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country.

      – Bernie Sanders.

      1. Here’s the thing if Bernie was talking about Whiskey, and said all wee need is bourbon he’d be right.

      2. I’m not advocating that Trumps tariffs are necessarily good, I’m just pointing that we have a strong tradition of alcohol production here in the u.s. that turns out some rather excellent products. If you dont like bourbon that’s fine, drink something else, the tariff doesn’t affect blended whiskeys. I do like some blue label. But is Boehm railing against trump because its trump or because he considers American production inferior. I could guess being he works at reason that maybe american isnt good enough for him. Because I’m fairly certain we produce most if not all of the products being affected. Why not buy american?

        1. Tariffs are bad, Bourbon is good.

        2. With unreason, just assume it’s TDS. You’d be correct 100% of the time.

        3. To each his own, I don’t limit my alcohol to one type; I love all kinds of liquor for all different occasions. Just having a smile at the similarity between the Burn.

          1. Bernie tells you you’ll drink it, I suggest you drink it. Drink whatever you please. Big difference in my world.

    3. “You shouldn’t protest against government interference in markets. Just make the same product choices that I do, and stop complaining.”

      How very socialist of you.

      1. how very tasteless of you. Bourbon slays.

      2. Did I tell you that you have to drink it? Then fuck off. And why dont you want to support Americans over a country closer to socialism than america.

        1. “Did I tell you that you have to drink it?”

          Let’s have a look. Here’s what you said:

          Jesus christ, we live in America. Drink bourbon.

          Make of that what you will. Personally, I don’t like bourbon OR scotch. I was somehow born with taste buds that have no particular inclination towards these falvors.

          My point is that your argument could, over the years, have been applied to just about anything that is, or ever has been, subject to tariffs, especially the stupid nationalist “This is America” part.

          This is America! Buy Fords and Chevrolets, not Hondas and Toyotas!
          This is America! Buy GE and not Sony!
          This is America! Buy Red Wing and not Doc Martens!

          I’m not arguing that American products are inferior. I’m simply noting that appealing to the notion that we should “support Americans” in our product choices is precisely the sort of justifications that people like both Trump and Sanders have been offering for tariffs and other trade restrictions. The fact that YOU believe that bourbon offers “wider variety of qualities and taste” doesn’t change the fact that some people prefer scotch. The libertarian argument is precisely that these are personal choices based on individual preferences, and that some people like scotch better than they like bourbon. And the people buying scotch are not doing it to support “a country closer to socialism than america”; they’re doing it because they like the product and believe that it improves their life in some way.

          1. And yet I’ll never force anybody to buy bourbon. If you want to drink scotch go ahead. Nobody is stopping anybody from buying scotch. Boehm is butthurt because of 10 dollars more. If you want to argue that banning the sale of scotch is wrong fine, but paying 10 dollars more on a luxury item is hardly liberty threatening. I’d rather support another American when I can.

      3. Well that is an impressive strawman, did you import it from Ireland?

    4. Bourbon is the only hard liquor I drink, and in my opinion it is certainly the best. On the rocks the best way to drink it, sipping.
      By law Bourbon can only be made in the United States.
      All bourbons are sour mash, but not all sour mash is bourbon (think Jack Daniels).

      1. Jeffersons not bad, and I found one out of north Chicago, oppidan makes some good stuff as well.

    5. “…[Bourbon]can be acquired for a far more reasonable price relative to quality than scotch…” Agree. Though that’s changing as the large distillers deplete their titanic amounts of older stock. Elijah Craig, to pick on them, no longer states it’s a 12 year old Bourbon. They can’t guarantee the age and still maintain that 25-35 dollar/750ml price. I far prefer 20-30 dollar Bourbon to the same price in Scotch. Weller Special, if you like wheaties, is much cheaper and still very good. There are some decent blends around that point though, pre-tariff, like Black Bottle.

      “I find it has a wider variety of qualities and taste…” And disagree. Scotch has tremendous diversity in taste, from heather and honey Lowlands like Rosebank and Auchentoshan, to classic Speysides like Glenlivet, flavoured Highlands like the various wooded Glenmorangies, to the smoke and iodine-filled Islays. A 21 year Glenfarclas resembles a hypothetical child of Armagnac and a rye-dominated very old Bourbon, and is wonderful to contemplate. There’s Macallan, for those people who can’t get enough Sherry in their whisky.

      Much more diversity than Bourbon, and I love Bourbon.

      1. I guess my palate has found scotch to be more similar in flavor than bourbon. Though like I menti ok ned above I do have a liking for blue label walker. I do drink a wide variety but have found a preference for some of the smaller “craft” distilleries. They offer a superior product at an equal price to the big ones.

        1. I’d again argue that you just haven’t tried enough different Scotch if you think that is the case. But Bourbon is also excellent and generally costs less, so I can’t fault you. And taste is taste.
          There are getting to be more American malt whiskeys, but they are still pretty pricey hipster products as far as I’ve seen and not very mature.

          1. Haven’t had a lot of the 1000 bottle stuff, but I do enjoy lagavulin 16. Goes nicely with an acid toast. Just prefer most bourbon to scotch. Palate differences.

    6. And there are plenty of good domestic whiskey distilleries in the US.

    7. All of the world’s great whisky traditions are marvelous things. You probably have a point on price, but if you don’t like Scotch, you haven’t tried enough different ones. Not that it’s anything to me whether you do or not.

  4. I’ve been drinking Canadian whiskey since the 1980s and have never looked back. And with the USMCA trade agreement getting inked, I can continue to look forward to getting $15 handles of Black Velvet that can last me all week.

  5. Not that big a deal – the UK will be outside the EU by the end of the year, and our governments are negotiating a trade deal with the UK already. The subsidy arguments are with the EU, not the UK.

  6. …another more obscure set of Trump-backed import duties are hitting Americans squarely in the booze.

    Poor Boehm. Hey, why don’t you list all the trade restrictions to booze that are pre-Trump.

    1. I want an explanation for why the same bottle of Talisker costs $60 in Queens but $85 in Manhattan. I’m fairly certain punitive tariffs have fuck all to do with it. And, frankly, when the price fluctuations in the “free market” are as wild as they are, +/- $10 dollars because of the orange man is hardly something to complain about.

      Scotch, for those that enjoy it, is a luxury. Those that can afford it are not going to be dissuaded by carrying the tariff burden. Hardly the hill for Reason to die on, but – alas – here we are.

      1. Often, it’s a tax on people not wanting to be caught dead in a lower social classes area. The rent is probably a damned sight higher in Manhattan than in Queens.

        Or—and this is often the case for higher-end grocery stores—it’s a surcharge for the ease of one stop shopping.

        It can also be because the rubes don’t know any better. For awhile in Texas—it has since gotten better—ordering wine in a restaurant was like that. 350 percent markup over retail, for the highest end of your list, and it’s not something insanely rare you picked up at an auction? That’s obscene. Fuck you. I’m having water with the meal.

      2. +/- $10 dollars because of the orange man is hardly something to complain about.

        Good point. If you can’t afford to pay the tariff then you can’t afford the booze. Heck, why 25%? That’s a pussy tariff. Let’s make it 100%! 200%! As you said it’s a luxury! Only people who can afford it should be able to drink it! If someone can’t pay $100 a bottle then they, unlike you, aren’t worthy! They don’t enjoy it the way you do! Fuck them! Muahahahaha!

        1. //If you can’t afford to pay the tariff then you can’t afford the booze. Heck, why 25%? That’s a pussy tariff. Let’s make it 100%! 200%! As you said it’s a luxury! Only people who can afford it should be able to drink it!//

          It is usually the case that if you can’t afford something, you don’t get to have it.

          Fucking crazy, I know.

          1. Who are you to praise making things more expensive?

            You an elitist?

            1. Alcohol is cheap, if you don’t drink. Choices, choices.

  7. At the risk of being wished into the cornfield, I would say Trump’s taxes are a very strongly and powerfully bad thing becau AAAGH!!!

  8. Reason is obviously a leftist, anarchist publication run by Hillary voters. Why else would they criticize Trump? Trump is God on Earth! He cannot make mistakes! He is smarter than everyone! If you question him then you don’t know anything about economics, politics, game theory, or anything else! Praise Him! Lift his name to the Heavens! All Hail Trump! All Hail Trump! All Hail Trump!

    1. Trying to be a retarded OBL? Nice!

      1. I was imagining what lc and JAz’s love child would say.

      2. unreason has been stepping up their game with sock trolls to boost web traffic.

        1. You flatter yourself if you think this site would gin up socks to mock you. Most of the people you call socks are actual libertarians who were here long before you and your conservative brigade starting shitting all over the place.

          1. “…gin up socks…”

            Nice. Golf clap and Sensible Chuckle.

          2. The conservative brigade didn’t just show up. I would wager the conservatives “shitting all over the place” are former libertarians who grew the fuck up rather than clinging like retarded children to oversimplified diatribes about the libertarian cure for everything that isn’t real, doesn’t work, and will never produce a shred of sensible policy in the near or distant future.

            1. Goes to show that sarcasmic is one of unreason pets.

              The new sock trolls try add “1789” so the coders can keep track of which sock is supposed to say what. It’s like the sock trolls knew that I would signup for this rag on the downhill slide.

            2. You may be right. But by your own statement you’re saying you’re not a libertarian and your brigade is not libertarian. So you’re actually agreeing with me.

              1. You wouldn’t know a libertarian even if they came up and smacked your pussyhat off your head making you drop your well-worn copy of Dreams from My Father.

  9. Ok, now Trump is gone and done it. I will not stand by and let my beloved Macallan 18 yo be hijacked in the name of politics!!!

    Just kidding. Not a big fan of the tariffs, but if you can’t afford to spend a little extra for a good single-malt, than stick to Dewar’s or Johnny Walker (fucking swill).

    And by the way to some of my fellow commenters, I don’t care what these American distilleries think,
    Whisky is not spelled with an ‘e’, and the only grain the gods saw fit to provide to us for fermentation and distillation into delicious beverages is BARLEY!!

    1. Why can’t we love all of God’s fermented children? (You can keep kombucha though.) There is room in my liquor cabinet for American corn mash whiskeys, as well as the smokiest of Islay whisky. Though balance it with iodine, seaweed, salt; I’m not a big fan of Octomore, though I won’t refuse it if offered.

      I hope both sides see reason, and both lower their tariffs. GATT’s head was in the right place.

  10. There is no war on Whiskey. Will Scotch get more expensive. Sure. But it is not like it is cheap to begin with. As Grey points out above, it is artificially expensive to begin with because of the protectionism and regulation of the UK.

    In the end, if your biggest bitch about Trump’s evil trade war is people with enough disposable income to buy scotch either have to pay more or (gasp) drink an American or Canadian Whiskey, you really don’t have much of a case.

    “Oh noes, Laphroaig 10 year is up to $50 a bottle. My God Megan, we might have to drink Buffalo Trace or something”. It is like reason tries to live down to every negative stereotype of the hipster doofus elitist.

    1. Not everyone has a lawyer’s income.

      1. No they don’t. And if they don’t, they are not drinking scotch to begin with. That is my point.

        1. Believe it or not, but we peons actually like the good stuff now and again. But because we are peons, not part of the 1%, that ten dollars actually matters.

          1. If ten dollars really matters you probably shouldn’t be spending your money on alcohol.

            1. It’s called budgeting, dude.

              1. Stop fucking trolling. If ten dollars is the difference for you between a bottle of Scotch and not eating dinner, then tariffs are the least of your fucking problems.

                Budgeting my ass. In the time you spent trolling around here with your autistic comments you could have collected more than enough cans and bottles to redeem for three or four bottles of some halfway decent Scotch.

                Everyone knows the only thing you budget is the allowance your parents cut you every week, and even then you probably manage to waste it all on shit weed that you spill all over the filthy couch you sleep on in your mom’s basement.

                1. sarcasmic wont ever bitch about all the trade restrictions that ran up prices on his homeless swill, pre-Trump.

                2. Funny. Pure assumption and completely false, but still funny. I’ve made similar comments at people to try to draw them out and give details in defense of unfounded assumptions. Sometimes is works. Sometimes it doesn’t .

                  In this case it won’t work.

                  1. I can afford the 25% on scotch, I can afford the sales tax, I can afford my income tax.

                    Should I have to pay these things at the rate they are?

                    Must I also object in the moment to all previous infringements when complaining about a new one?

                    1. //Must I also object in the moment to all previous infringements when complaining about a new one?//

                      If consistency is your goal, it would help.

    2. Well said, sir.

      Sarcasmic *is* that doofus.

  11. This tariff gives me mixed emotions. To insure I don’t get derogatory replies, by mixed I know you’d never do that to a single malt. Anyway to thwart this affrontery to haggis consumers, I think getting a champion to confront Trump publicly is the best way to go. Someone prominent, who is knowingly antagonistic to orangeman. Is Mitt the man…? I guess the derogatory replies are now justified!

    1. Totally justified. It’s ensure, not insure.

    2. “…by mixed I know you’d never do that to a single malt.”

      Drink whatever you want, however you want. It’s your money, your tongue and body. I’ve watched a Laphroaig executive trying to show a bunch of restaurant people how to make a variety of cocktails with Laphroaig 10 year. Whatever. Some of them weren’t half bad, and it probably earned higher sales per unit of alcohol, or faster turnover of limited bar space, than selling the stuff straight.

      If you want to mix Chateau Lafite Rothschild and Sprite, to show what a baller you are, and prove you can get red faced on one drink, go ahead. It’s your money.

      If instead you want to ask questions about a particular beverage, substitutes, cheaper alternatives, food that goes well with it, service options: that’s fine too.

      Sending a champion to duke it out with Trump is always amusing. The guy thrives on conflict, and as one of you put it in another thread, Trump lives by Tit for Tat. You’re just giving the pig more mud to wallow in. I’d love watching Mitt try to debate Trump. Especially as part of that idiotic 3rd party ticket idea The Bulwark proposed with Romney and Bloomberg.

  12. Isn’t the UK not the EU anymore?

    The US should just invade Scotland to protect the whisky from the wimpy, socialist Scots.

  13. The entire concept of tariffs is economically stupid. The only thing they do is end up costing the consumer here more to buy the things they want. The US should completely drop all protectionist tariffs across the board, stop subsidizing private businesses in the US with taxpayer dollars, it’s not helping anyone and it’s only making things worse. Once we drop tariffs, we can work on our trading partners to do the same.

    1. Hi.

    2. Fat Mike! Got any drugs?

  14. Oh well. I got my own.

  15. I think this is one of the vital information for me. And i’m glad reading this. pressure washing

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.