Help President Bush Revive the Economy - Go Easy on Talk of Boycotting EU Nations (Important!)

Almost a nice try, but wheat is a major agricultural export of France, as are cereals, sugar beets, potatoes, wine grapes, beef, dairy products, and fish.

According to: The CIA World Factbook.

Hop on over to DU, they might actually buy into your crap, but then, I doubt many of them are boycotting frog products.

>>>I think you are missing the point, we are giving the French a little poke in the ribs and making them aware of how much they need our support.<<<

As I said earlier, I supported "a little poke in the ribs", when American soldiers were fighting.

But now that the war is over, and Iraq is liberated, I support President Bush's new attention on the economy.

"What the? Seems to me they should be handing out an 18th pink slip."

LOL

We're not boycotting all the EU nations -- just France, Germany and Belgium. What percentage of total US trade do these 3 countries represent? Probably not even 10%. Our largest trading partners are Canada, Mexico, Japan, China.

"But if all foreigners who hate American policy were to organize anti-American economic boycotts, to retaliate against US boycotts, what do you think would happen to Bush in 2004?"

And what do you think would happen to Chirac and to Schroeder and to all their cronies? Even with our recession, our economy is in far better shape than theirs. I'm betting that they will blink first. Moreover, we are more adaptable economically than they are, due to all the crippling socialist controls they place on business and the labor market.

"I support President Bush's new attention on the economy."

Say, is it true what I've heard -- that the Bush administration is cutting France out of lucrative contracts, not only here in America but in Iraq? Doesn't he realize this will crash our economy? I think you better tell him before it's too late.

Compari is Italian

just watch where that vermouth in your negroni's coming from and you'll be fine

Oh, yeah -- one more thing. Both France and Germany send us twice as much goods (in billions of dollars) as we send to them. You could look it up.

Considering that we're running a trade deficit with Europe, what you propose is penny-wise and pound-foolish.

Better that your company refocus its efforts on selling its goods to American consumers than rely on the EU for your future.

And as an aside, the EU nations have opted to boycott American products, so I suggest you take your plea to them. Don't expect a warm reception, though. Anti-Americanism over there long predates the Iraq conflict.

-Jay

If you're truly an Economist, you would know that you could stuff 5 Economists in a room and get 5 different opinions. As someone with a degree in Economics, I know this. Throwing around terms like "economic illiteracy" give the impression that it's you who may be illiterate.

When the President says to forgive and forget I "might" consider it, otherwise, it's on.

I heard that on Brit Hume's show.... I stand corrected.

"...in the way of your celebration."

Oh, well, I can dream, can't I?

"Moreover, we are more adaptable economically than they are, due to all the crippling socialist controls they place on business and the labor market. "

Maybe we should let them go bankrupt, then maybe they will repeal socialism in Europe, and start over.

"If Europeans were to hit back economically, they would buy more wheat from Brazil and Australia instead, and import more of their beef from Argentina."
Why is it that you recognize international market alternatives for European countries, but not for America?

A few things:

1.The German economy is in serious trouble; it has been for a while (you can thank Schroeder). There's absolutely no way Germany is going to be executing any sort of economic blackmail on America. If they get into a trade war with us, they're finished. Especially if we vacate our installations there. You'l have to shorten your list to France and Belgium if you want it to be reasonable. Not that they're doing exceptionally hot right now either, but they're certainly kicking it better than Germany. :)

2. Things like wheat (and to a lesser extent, beef) are NOT subject to consumer boycott. That's because the sources of these products are hidden. You don't go to the store and buy a bag of wheat. You buy flour, or muffins, or pastries, or a loaf of bread, most all of which will be produced by French manufacturers if you live in France.

French citizens aren't going to stop buying American "wheat", simply because they *don't know* when they're buying it that it came from America. It would have to be manufacturers that stop buying American goods. BUT, manufacturers can't do this without consumer support. These products from Brazil and Argentina are less desirable than American products for one reason or another, usually price (otherwise they'd already be buying from these countries). Buying from America is not some kind of "economic favor"--we give them the best deal. If some French manufacturers switch markets, they're going to be run over by other French manufacturers that don't and can therefore offer a better deal to their customers.

So, in conclusion, agricultural products are more or less *immune* from the effects of a retributive boycott (tariffs are another story, but again remember that this is a consumer boycott). If anything, it's the manufactured products that say "Made in USA" that are going to take a hit, not stuff that comes out of the ground.

3. I want to let you on a little secret: the idea that exports are better than imports is a myth created by exporters. :p

Exports are *how we pay for imports.* Imagine if we could krank up imports to 100% of our trade. No exports, just imports. That would be marvelous. We would give mound of green paper of countries like China and Japan and in return they would give us TV, cars, stereo systems, all sorts of nifty things (just for a bunch of green paper!). The reason we can't do this is because no one wants this special paper unless they can trade it in for cooler stuff. So, what we have to do in order to get countries to accept our currency is let them use it buy back other neat things from us, and in turn they do the same. The country with the *most* imports to exports is the big winner. The exception to this is that you still want to have your own industrial infrastructure capitalizing on markets where you're more effective than other countries (the rest of the world doesn't even have the capacity to support modern day America). The reason is that if you're a passive player you're gonna get ripped off sooner or later. So you got to stay in the game so you excercize control over how its played. (*NOTE: something i didn't mentio which is a consequence of all this is that shelling out too much cash for imports will devalue your currency)

The reason you have this myth that exports are worth more is because if you're an exporter getting good deals, it's basically like printing money.

4. It makes good strategic sense to structure our trade dependencies to our international relations. You don't want, for example, to be entirely dependent on oil from Saudi Arabia and then seriously PO Saudi Arabia. Also, when you give aid to friendly nations (like, for example, Uganda) established trade will pump that money back into your economy.

There's something you need to understand about the European Union--it's a *hostile trading block.* It's designed to structure trade to kill off competing foreign markets and insert domestic markets in their place both at home and abroad. Furthermore, members like France and Germany bring their anti-American sentiments to every session. Mr. Buchanan, although he doesn't understand free trade very well, does accurately depict underhanded tactics by the EU to control international trade.

It is our interest at (A) marginalize France and Germany in the EU and (B) structure trade to favor more benevolent nations wherever possible. Personally, I think we should focus on developing Latin American economies (which can in turn provide the cheap labor which America desperately needs) and expanding free trade with Asia. If Latin America keeps tottering dangerously close to despotism, however, that might not be such a wonderful idea. :-/

Allies such as Britain and Australia are should definitely be key in future trade agreements.

5. The economy is not as important as shaping global politics. Perhaps you don't understand quite how important it is to marginalize or proseltyze countries such as France while elevating the status of our allies.

Whether or not Russia auctions nukes off to terrorists and dictators depends on America's global political capital. Whether or not Romania will exampt our soldiers from the ICC depends on America's global political capital. Who our allies will be in the next war depends on America's global political capital.

The price of free trade is that America is no longer an isolated country and must participate in global affairs to secure her own survival.

I would rate it as worth even severe economic costs to show down France; to make her regret crossing America and to caution other nations about betraying America in the future.

You have good arguments, and if this were a government sponsored tariff I'd be on your side in a heartbeat. But the way it is, you re overlooking many important factors. My advice to you is do not be concerned about the boycott, concentrate on maximizing its advantages, minimizing its disadvantages, and perhaps even contributing to its effectiveness. :)

I posted this because I don't want GWB to face the same fate as his Daddy.

I have to hand it to you, that's a clever (albeit difficult) argument which you have attempted to tailor towards Republican conservatives. However, you face an serious underlying problem with that approach, as indicated below.

[NOTE: The following are broad generalities which nonetheless have a significant degree of validity.]

Many of the very strong conservatives here on Free Republic are not free-traders. Often they are protectionists a la Pat Buchanan (even if they don't support Pat personally). Others are not well-informed about or sympathetic to the comparative advantage theory of trade, nor do they fully appreciate the fallacies inherent in the "trade deficit" numbers. In other words, they see reduced trade with Europe as either unimportant or a positive benefit.

The above category of Republican conservatives are strongly disposed to do whatever it takes to re-elect Bush in 2004, but they will be highly skeptical that a boycott will sink the U.S. economy. Hence they will tend to reject your alarmist theories.

A different group here on Free Republic consists of libertarians or libertarian-leaning Republicans. They are much more in tune to the advantages of free trade among nations, and they'll weigh seriously your argument that a boycott would harm the U.S. economy. But they won't be nearly as concerned if a faltering economy should damage Bush's re-election prospects. Either they intend to vote for the Libertarian Party candidate, or they will vote for Bush while pinching at least one of their nostrils. Bush has been pretty good about pushing for tax cuts, but he's allowed federal spending and deficits to explode. He signed on to the $200 billion farm subsidy bill last year, and he imposed tariffs on steel imports.

All in all, Bush is a mixed-economy type of President, not a principled free market advocate. So your repeated expressions of fear that Bush could lose the 2004 election are not going to have the resonance with this category of Freepers that you'd like.

In any case, your argument is a huge stretch from the get-go. As others have pointed out, consumer anger in the U.S. is focused on France, not the entire EU, with some modest spillover onto Germany. No one wants to boycott Britain or Spain or Italy or Poland, etc. And it's doubtful that EU countries outside of France (and to a much lesser extent a handful of others like Germany and Greece) would have any interest in boycotting the U.S. So we're talking about a minimal impact on the enormous U.S. economy even under worst-case scenarios.

But the economics are not symmetrical. France's much smaller (and exceedingly weak) economy will be significantly affected by an American consumer boycott. In other words, we can hurt them badly, and they can in turn hurt us only slightly.

I'm generally not a fan of boycotts (I'm in the libertarian category described above). But as long as the boycott is not a government-imposed action, I have no problem with consumers expressing their anger and their preferences by refusing to purchase goods from a hostile nation. That's what liberty is all about. If it mildly impacts the U.S. economy, oh well. If it mildly reduces Bush's odds of winning re-election, oh well. If it punishes Chirac and the heavily socialistic country he rules, very well.

Okay newbie, this forum is NOT about protecting your company/job. Got that ? If not, at least don't post a vanity ever again.

We are HELPING President Bush, by boycotting French products and France. Canada needs to feel the presudr as well.

Want to REALLY help President Bush get re-elected and help the economy ? Snail mail and call everyone in the Senate and get Presdent Bush's tax cut plans passed...IN FULL, as well as lean on them about his jude nominations.

You need to go back to school and get a real degree. You've been cheated.
It would help if you learned reading comprehension as well.

Hey Jacque,

at least you could have used a southern name like Bubba or such instead of a French one. Man you st... Love watching French gravel and beg!!!

Do some research on the web, and find out how much trade the US does with the EU. Compare that to trade with Canada, Japan and China.

Do some research on the web yourself and find out how much food we import. Seems to me that just plain stopping the sugar imports alone would be of great benefit to our farmers. The heck with the Euroweenies.