I should have looked at the beginning of the thread more closely. If most of the whisky is a molasses based rum-like blend with only a small fraction of malt whiskey, than it pretty much has to be domestically produced.
But that comparison to China raises an interesting question; why are the Chinese not hogging of the whiskey supply with their crazy huge number of potential consumers, and when will they do so?
Obviously that question addresses a much more general one: when will China transition to a consumer economy, and what will that look like? But I wonder how much the compatibilty of Chinse culture with whisky specifically matters. You know, how much the whole good ol' freedom-loving American culture accounts for high American whiskey consumption and how that lack of that culture in China accounts for lower whiskey consumption despite the higher population.
China has 10 city's with more than 20 million people in each. And no road system to connect them. Bourbon is expensive to fly. Once the get the infrastructure you won't be able to compare with anyone. India has 2 cities with more than 70 percent of the population. Both have sea ports,
Right. But that lack of infrastructure has general implications to which bourbon is relatively incidental. It is hard to move most consumer products with lack of infrastructure, bourbon only somewhat more so than other products.
But what about the attributes of whisky in particular and its corresponding political, social, and political associations contribute to the low consumption rate? Is it because of government policy and/or the general political climate? etc.
Good points. You also must consider the control of information. They ( China) may well out consume the remainder of the planet. But if the Central Committee doesn't want you to know it, you won't. That's why investing in pure Chinese companies is dangerous. You just don't know.
A lot of people confuse Hong Hong with China. You wouldn't believe the dustys you can find there, but you better be prepared to pay for them. It's a completely different place,
From what I've read, yes, most is domestically produced. The tariffs on imported whiskey are supposedly somewhere around 550%.
Actually they do produce some traditional whisky in India, fortunately I don't have to travel to drink it.
All of this talk about Indian whisky and not a mention of Amrut! I love my bottle of Portonova, kicks the shit out of Balvenie Portwood, which is now owned by Indians as well (United Breweries just bought Whyte and Mackay, along with Dalmore, Jura) Apparently 7 out of the 20 most popular spirits in the world are Indian whiskies: They are Officer's Choice, McDowell's No.1, Bagpiper, Royal Stag, McDowell's No.1, Old Tavern and Original Choice.
Some great names, but they highlight a fact. These whiskies are not named Arjuna's Lament or Krishna's Tears, they have Scottish names. Culturally India was much more influenced by the West than China, same goes for places like Taiwan and Japan, where per capita whiskey consumption is much higher than China. The distribution of wealth is also key, as China's gap between rich and poor is the most extreme in the world, with few middle class drinkers in the middle.
Should be noted that this survey also has an incredible bias towards bottled drink produced at a factory. How does this Bloomberg study account for all the sake rice farmers are making for themselves in the fields of China? And what about a nation like Iran, where alcohol is punishable by death but nearly 1/3 of the population are drinking triple distilled moonshine made from raisins in their homes every night, cause it's the only escape they have. A bottle of molasses whiskey from India smuggled into the country costs 140 US dollars. They put it in a Johnnie Walker bottle. But it aint Johnnie, I promise you. This article and conversation are an interesting start, but there is a lot more depth to this than Bloomberg Business Week is going to tell you.