As a native St. Louisan who always feels some sort of odd civic pride whenever those clever beer commercials end with a dude intoning 'Anheuser-Busch, St. Louis, Missouri,' I know I'm supposed to be upset about the recent acquisition by Belgium-based InBev. Yet I can't muster any passion over the loss of the historic brewer and one of my hometown's few remaining independent corporate behemoths (TWA, McDonnell Douglass, Ralston Purina all bit the dust long ago).

I mean, I know what's eventually going to happen, and it's not going to be pretty for St. Louis.  The brands will stay and the distribution network will remain mostly in place, because that's the value in A-B, but nothing else will be sacred. Oh, InBev is saying all the right things about keeping the breweries open and the U.S. headquarters in St. Louis and all the jobs secure, but at some point the cost cuts will come, and then they'll come again and again. At first, it will be easy targets like those Anheuser company perks (e.g. free cases of beer for employees) but eventually many jobs will be lost.

Cost-cutting, outsourcing, consolidation, restructurings: They're all just part and parcel of the global economy nowadays, a competitive necessity. Of course, this means a lot of hard-working Americans are left in a lurch through no fault of their own, a fact which not surprisingly attracts a lot of attention from politicians in the midst of an election season (and a slumping economy, to boot).

Even less surprisingly, the politicians' overall response to the situation has been woeful. You have short-sighted initiatives like fiscal stimulus checks and oil drilling hype. You have even more damaging scapegoating, with calls for increased protectionism and prosecution of short-sellers.

The best thing in Washington may just be the unending partisan bickering, which isn't helpful but at least results in some good ol' fashioned gridlock.

Alas, it's going to get worse as the presidential candidates find success in appealing to the lowest common denominator. When the economy is weak, populism sells better than sex. But it won't really solve anything.

You can't force capitalism to be compassionate, especially when national borders no longer serve as a major barrier to economic development. Raise taxes or limit executive compensation or increase labor protections and businesses move overseas.

Even worse is when the government tries to get into the business of capitalism, as the result is bound to be a disaster like the sickening developments with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, government-sponsored mortgage lenders that will eventually require billions of dollars in a taxpayer-funded bailout.

I wish I had better answers, but this is not an easy dilemma to solve. How do you enjoy the productivity benefits of capitalism and open borders and yet maintain a desired level of societal stability and income equality (or at least not obscene disparity)?

My advice: Focus and invest a lot of money on education (and re-education of displaced workers).  Create tax incentives to encourage 'good' corporate behavior, like investment in local factories and workforces, as well as development of new technologies that could solve some of the nation's problems (e.g alternative energy).

And perhaps most controversially, spend some money on programs designed to convince Americans that the lowest possible price isn't the only thing to consider when making a purchase. The emerging 'green' industry has shown that consumers are willing to pay more if they think their dollars are making a difference so maybe, just maybe, compassion and capitalism can mix ... as long as it's not forced.