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

Comte De Maistre

[ComtedeMaistre]

As an economist working at a mid-size food processing corporation in the South, I want to offer a suggestion to Freepers that may help Bush's tax cut plan intended to revive the economy to succeed. Our firm does a lot of business with European Union (EU) nations such as Germany, France, Belgium, Holland, etc. But next month, we are giving pink slips to 17 workers, because orders from EU nations have reduced sharply.

America is the leading exporting nation in the world. The European Union is America's largest trading partner. America exports more to the EU nations, than it does to Japan, Mexico, China, or Canada (or numerous combinations of those nations).

Conservatives have to be careful with this boycott talk, because it may unintentionally damage the economy, reducing chances for Bush's re-election in 2004. If there is a counter-boycott in Germany, France and Belgium, in response to attempts by Americans to Boycott those nations, what the hell do you think will happen to the US economy? President Bush has a brilliant plan to revive the economy through tax cuts for industry, which will stimulate more production and job growth. But for that great plan to succeed, EU member nations will need to buy more American goods.

If EU nations were to stage a counter-boycott against America, the greatest losers would be American farmers - those who live in the Red-colored states on the electoral map for 2000. When Belgians and Frenchmen eat their croissants at breakfast, there is a very high chance that the wheat used in the bread was grown by an American farmer. The poultry and canned foods industry cannot survive without EU markets. Even the beef served in the finest European restaurants, is largely produced by American farmers. It is true that the EU rejects hormone-injected beef. But there are thousands of Americans making a living from speciality exports of American-produced non-hormone beef, which fetches a higher price in European markets. 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.

Perhaps the only American industries that may effectively weather a potential EU boycott are some high-tech firms which have a virtual monopoly in their product, such as Microsoft.

Yes, I agree with you that most EU politicians are scum, such as Jacques Chirac and Schroeder. We should denounce them, and freep their UN missions. But we should also work to ensure that the American economy will be roaring in 2004, helping Bush to a landslide victory similar to that of Reagan in 1984, or Nixon in 1972.

[gcruse]

I'm with you. Turning the situation back over to the velvet capitulation of the State Department fritters away the momentum and international political capital gained by the Defense Department. I think it was also a mistake to say we have no intention of any more military action in the foreseeable future. It is wasn't what you say, but what they assume that counts. Let the bad guys assume they need badly to cooperate; don't throw the stick away.

[YoungKentuckyConservative]

If we stop importing stuff from Europe, China as well, and they stop buying from us, we have a net gain in employment since the pig people of Europe and China will be out of work and Americans will go back to work making all that stuff we used to import. In case you were unaware, we have a balance of trade deficit; that means we import more than we export.

Bingo. It's really nothing more than a "re-shuffling" of the world's jobs. As long as there are consumers, some intelligent business man or woman will find a way to help those people consume.

[Bonaparte]

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

They might. But just think of all the welfare bums over there who will riot if they do that. Most Euorpeans don't believe they can survive without socialism and the welfare state. This has been the case since the 1920s. Actually, I hold out more hope for Russia and the countries of the former eastern bloc than I do for west Europe.

[Bonaparte]

"When the President says to forgive and forget..."

When France, Germany and Belgium make major sacrifice on our behalf, going the distance and then some; when France, Germany and Belgium crawl to us on their bellies, kiss our boots and beg our forgiveness; when France, Germany and Belgium are no longer governed by stealth communists -- that's when I will "forgive" but never forget.

[Bonaparte]

"Whether or not Romania will exampt our soldiers from the ICC..."

Thanks for the insightful post, socf. It's just the above statement I don't quite understand. As you're aware, we haven't signed on to the ICC nor are we ever likely to do so. Why would Romania have authority to "exempt" us from what we are not subject to anyway?

[Bonaparte]

"Canada needs to feel the presudr as well."

I agree. But IMO Canada calls for a much more careful approach. They are right on our border and they are our #1 trading partner. They sent troops into Afghanistan with us and are nowhere near the pain in the butt that France is.

[sackofcatfood]

We did sign onto the ICC (or at least Clinton did), although we have not ratified the treaty.

Romania ratified it but seriously annoyed countries like France and Germany when they told the US that they would not turn US soldiers over to the ICC (Romania is one of the potential new members to the EU).

So far, 89 countries have ratified the treaty including many European countries. Countries like Britain might still hand US soldiers over to the ICC, if it's put into effect, despite the fact that we ourselves have not ratified the court.

[Bonaparte]

Why would Britain ever want to turn our soldiers over to the ICC, a "court" we haven't recognized?

[sackofcatfood]

It's not necessarily that they would; but that they could.

There are certainly other countries that would.

[Bonaparte]

From what you've said, it sounds like we'd be considered subject to the ICC whether we ratified or not. So why the fuss over ratification if the outcome is the same?