You can't call American brewers incompetent based on the tastes of a few large brands. American brewers, notably the microbrews, are creating some of the most interesting beers IN THE WORLD. They are winning awards again, internationally.

Before Prohibition, most beer was brewed locally because it was more difficult to ship.   Refrigeration, canning, and bottling improved along with the Repeal and it became possible for beer to be shipped greater distance. The brewers realized that "local tastes" would not be the same from region to region and the recipe for the product altered to make it more appealing to greater numbers.   As the larger brewers began to sell their product the tastebuds changed.   Local brewers would be forced to change their product to compete.   Soon, most beers began to taste the same.   By the 1980's, there were far fewer local brewers but the microbrew renaissance began.

Terry K mentions session drinking, and the note seems to perpetuate a stereotype that drinkers brag about getting drunk. Fans of good beer do not drink to get drunk, they enjoy the taste and the pleasant glow. They may not finish 4 beers in an hour, but I will bet that one beer will be remembered far longer.

It is a chicken vs. egg scenario when trying to determine who changed the taste - the brewers or the tastebuds of consumers. If it did not sell, people would not buy it.

There is still a snobbish appeal to beer. Blue collar consumers will stick with the blander beer, mainly because it is cheaper. Also, it is easier to get a quick buzz on a sixpack of Bud or Miller. Because it is bland and cold, it goes down easy and fast.   The tastier beers take longer to enjoy.   You won't chug a Sam Adams.    I've never seen anyone make a beer bong using Belgian Ale.