I made no economic analysis. None. I said simply this:
There are more important things than economics. You appear to agree with that statement in the middle of each of your posts but by the end of each post you come around to your uninspiring conclusion that boycotts are unsound economics.
For the record: Boycotts worked against South Africa and would work against France if more people participated.
If Americans completely stopped visiting France, it would hurt their economy. You say it would also hurt American tourists. Because they'd be making something other than a "sound economic decision". But the desire to tour France is not an "economic decision" in the first place, but a life-style/quality-of-life decision. Pure economics would mean you only go to work, home, school, grocery store, etc. No pleasure travel at all.
So let's stop talking about "pure economics", ok? There's no such thing. Not with free people in a free country. We do things we like to do because we feel like doing them and that's the way we act all the time. Economics is involved, but in some cases only peripherally, as in the case of tourism. (We try to get a good travel deal to our destination, but we don't choose our destination based on price alone. Otherwise, we'd only visit Iowa.)
So if you post on this subject again, please don't end your post with a little lecture-byte on personal economics.
The fact is, none of us have to visit France ever again. Our household budgets will survive such a decision. There are thousands of other cool places on the planet to go.
If we all stuck together on this, not only would the French suffer (economically), but we'd all be doing the right thing.