[George Hill]

I've been talking about boycotting goods from countries within the coalition of weasles.
The 3 primary countries are:
France. Germany. Russia.

Boycotting the French is easy. I've never liked anything from France anyway.
Boycotting Germany is a bit harder for me. I like German Cars. I like German Guns. I even like German food.
HK - the font of all tactical firearms. Crap.
And Russia? There goes my VEPR II. It's imported from Russia straight to Utah. Too bad.

Luckily for us gun enthusiasts there are good guns to be had from the Coalition of the Willing.

Guns from Spain and Italy and the Czech Republic.
Stars, Astras, Berettas and CZs....
Plenty of good guns to keep us busy for the next 20 years.

[Correia]

I'm not going to boycot those country's gun companies. I figure that the good folks at Vyantsky Polyanya or Obendorf have about as much to do with their government's policies as I do with ours.

Plus figure that the folks who build guns are probably the GOOD people in those countries. :p

[Soap]

Boycotting based on nationality allows economic ignorance to rear its ugly head yet again.

[Oleg Volk]

Really cute: boycott private enterprises in those countries and give their leaders a chance to campaign on the nationalist/xenophobic platform...and reduce your own options at the same time. Do H&K or Izmash really have much say in the German and Russian foreign policy?

[George Hill]

France. Do you know how much money America spends on importing wine from France? The figure is over 26 Million a year. And that is just Wine alone. Add in a few other million for other items we import from France.
If we vote with our feet then France - Not just the Wine Industry - but France as a whole will feel a very dramatic effect across the board.

Look at everything we import from Germany. Guns. Beer. Cars. And all kinds of sundry... Think of the economic impact.

Economic Impact - that is a MESSAGE, people. A very clear message that America is not happy about the level of loyalty shown when we needed them.

Over there in France and Germany and Russia they have Anti-American parades. They have Anti-American rallies. They have Anti-American parties. They celebrate news when CNN reports a US casualty!
:banghead:

We should send these people a very clear message... Private Interprise is the fuel that drives a nation's economy.

Think about it.

There is nothing cute about it... nothing snide. If they want to be Anti-American and not support us - then they can get by without American Dollars. Sure, the private interprise will be effected... but the whole nation will feel the collective effects. Just look at the effects a few companies has had on our economy. Enron and the Bad Accounting Companies... The economic damage from 9-11... Hey, only two buildings went down in New York - right? Sure. But the Economic Impact accross the country was massive. Massive! They still haven't been able to count it!

To kick a country in the balls - you kick it in the wallet.

You know the old saying "You don't know what you had until you lost it?" Let them feel the impact of what they lost and let's see if the have change in attitude that starts at the bottom. I'll bet you it does. There is nothing xenophibic about it. How Politically Correct can you get?
When the people get together and say "Wow, I didn't know how much we depended on Americans!" Then we will start seeing a change in politics. That's how it works here... it pretty much works the same over there too.

[SodaPop]

I don't know what the statistics are, but France has been getting hit hard by boycotts against their products. I heard that today on the news.

I think the French are an easy target. I'm in the coffee and vending business and just about all of my customers have taped over the "French Vanilla" coffee selection and put "Freedom Vanilla."

Is "French Vanilla" French?



Boycotting Germany is pretty freakin hard.

France is going to pay for this.....:fire:

[CZ-75]

Can I just boycott France three times? :D

[Jesse H]

What happens to hard working Americans whose business is in fine wines?

[Lexter]

I'm with George Hill!!!! Boycott the French, Germans and Russians.

I've always been a firm believer in the practice of "voting with your wallet!!"


Lexter

[Soap]

Look at everything we import from Germany. Guns. Beer. Cars. And all kinds of sundry... Think of the economic impact.

Guns: American dealers/wholesalers/importers of said German guns will feel the "economic impact."

Beer: American dealers/wholesalers/importers will feel the "economic impact."

Cars: American dealers/wholesalers/importers will feel the economic impact. Just to illustrate my point, let's say that we get a negative economic impact on Daimler-Chrystler. Will you feel great when Chrystler decides to lay off 5000 American workers because they're losing money with the Daimler division? Or how about all of the American banks/capital budgets/regular stock owners will feel if D-C's stock plummets? Or perhaps mom's minivan now costs $40K because they need to make some sort of margin to keep D-C's American operations afloat. Then D-C could perhaps withdraw operations in America leaving Americans without jobs and American investors with another reason to jump off a bridge. Unintended consequences anyone?

Economic Impact - that is a MESSAGE, people. A very clear message that America is not happy about the level of loyalty shown when we needed them.

Why don't we send a message by stop sending the Euros financial aid or military support? This might actually have a negative impact on the foreign country, with little economic impact in the U.S.

We should send these people a very clear message... Private Interprise is the fuel that drives a nation's economy.

Yes, and your actions would screw American enterprise.

To kick a country in the balls - you kick it in the wallet.

And that kick will come around and whack your balls too if you really think about it.

[Selfdfenz]

Who are the coalition members?

According to the Bush administration and press reports, they are: Afghanistan, Albania, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Spain, Turkey, Uganda, and Uzbekistan. Noticeably absent are major powers--France, for example--that were members of the coalition that overturned Iraq's occupation of Kuwait in 1991.

Are all the members "willing?"

No. Officials in some of the countries have distanced themselves from participating in the war. For example, the Czech president, Vaclav Klaus, has sharply criticized the attacks on Iraq, and the government of the Netherlands has assured its citizens that Dutch forces won't enter combat.

Other countries have not been named publicly but are likely members of the coalition. They include Israel, as well as several Arab states that are providing bases or other assistance to the war: Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Jordan, Oman, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Egypt.

So who knows. I have heard there are 50 participants.

I boycott Smith and Weasel, and Glock and Ruger because of the damage they have done to the RKBA. Do I have a problem making the list longer? Absolutely not.


Will I boycott the products of Germany, the Former Soviet Union and France?
Absolutely.
Companies in pain will make it known to their leaders. Leaders can loose elections over such things. Is it just me or aren't the French boycotting the US for all they are worth??

But the issue with any foreign comapny or their employees suffering I could care less about.

The French, Russians and Germans all sold technology to Saddam and they knew some of it was illegal. In so doing they made the world a much more dangerous place. I think Saddam helped terrorists directly and indirectly and would (may have) supplied them with WMD that may have been produced with the aid of technology these countries provided. No wonder these three countries worked so had to see US forces never made it to Iraq (UN fiasco) so we could polk around and find all this equipment and the Iraqis that halped get it into Iraq and know the deals that were made and with whom.

I send a message to politicians in this country by voting for some and not others.
I see no conflict in not sending my dollars to counties that place a low value on what the United States has done for them in the past and little or no value on the lifes of people Saddam and his terrorist proxy warriors would like to target.

I will not tell anyone what to buy or not buy. I'll admit the idea that someone wants to send their dollars to a nation like France is something I find illogical and disappointing considering the position their government and frankly far too many Frenchmen have take regarding the United States.

I can't un-buy the products I have that came from any of these countries but in the future, I'm with George.
And we're not wrong, or alone!

S-

I also proudly boycott Mexico and China every chance I get.

[Stinger]

To those concerned about the possible effects a French/German/Russian boycott would have on the US of A:

Don't fret. Funny thing about economics, the market will shift, and where once French wine was dominant, another type will fill its void. German cars will be replaced by others as well. And caviar, well...darnit, I guess we can't have it all, now can we?

If you consider a boycott of S&W, or some other American company okay, but not boycotting companies from another country, you, my friend, are practicing in the art of hypocrisy. Those American companies you are boycotting have American employees.

Vote with your mind, vote with your heart, and vote with your CHA-CHING! Let those socialist Europeans learn the power of American Capitalism!

:scrutiny:

Stinger

ps. I am very sad to find out that my favorite yogurt is French (Yoplait). :cuss:

[othermarc]

Best of luck on your boycott... it's not nearly as easy as avoiding BMW, Puegot, and HK. For Example:

Jameson Irish Whiskey (or Bushmills) is Irish, right? WRONG. they are French owned. See for yourself. (http://www.maltadvocate.com/irish/story_3/)

Channel surfing and see a good ole American flick like "Delta Force" on USA network or Star Trek on SciFi.... sorry! That's French owned, too. Makes me wanna puke. (http://www.vivendiuniversal.com/vu2/en/what_we_do/factsheet_tvfilm.cfm) :barf:

And let's not forget- Jeep and Dodge are as American as they get, right? Wrong again, German owned- Daimler Chrysler. Aww shucks... Jeep just came out with the "Freedom Edition" Jeep Grand Cherokee.

These are just a few of the examples so do your research and good luck!:rolleyes:

[Soap]

othermarc- Good points!

Stinger- Wanna argue econ? Let's rock! :D

Funny thing about economics, the market will shift, and where once French wine was dominant, another type will fill its void.

Good idea! Maybe one day the market will shift where Asia is the dominant economic force and America is a third rate nation. But at least the market shifted! My point is that the market can bear ANYTHING. But what it has to bear, may not necessarily be good for Americans.

If you consider a boycott of S&W, or some other American company okay, but not boycotting companies from another country, you, my friend, are practicing in the art of hypocrisy. Those American companies you are boycotting have American employees.

At what point did Mercedes-Benz sell out and crap on my natural rights? Boycotting in objection to a company's practices is one thing, boycotting based on location is another. What does a private company have to do with a government's decision? When the Patriot Act was passed, or the '94 Crime Bill, did you boycott all American goods to influence the USG? Didn't think so.

Vote with your mind, vote with your heart, and vote with your CHA-CHING! Let those socialist Europeans learn the power of American Capitalism!

You're advocating something that is ignorant and ill-informed. The power of American Capitalism will only be felt if the capitalists are well-informed and can make sound economic choices. Boycotting based on geography isn't one of them.

ps. I am very sad to find out that my favorite yogurt is French (Yoplait).

Yoplait is a division of General Mills. General Mills does $10.8 billion of sales. Some of the brands they have are Pillsbury, Bisquick, Totino's pizza, Betty Crocker, Green Giant vegetables, Old El Paso, Fruit Roll Ups, Pop Secret, Yoplait, and not to mention a ton of cereals. They have about 1,370,000 shares of stock in the market. It was founded in 1866 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The headquarters is still there to this day. They employ 29,859 people. I would venture to say the majority of these people are Americans. Now ask yourself, do you really want to try and screw the people who have invested their lives and their dollars into this company just because you want to feel like you're doing something? I sure don't. Now where are my damn Lucky Charms :cool:

[Zundfolge]

Groupthink is the essence of collectivism.

[Mike Irwin]

I'm actually having a new set of Freedom Doors put in my house, between the dining room and the kitchen.

I'll eat my Freedom Toast on my dining room table, which is finished with a Freedom polish.

Afterwards I'll get dressed for work, wearing the dress shirt with the Freedom Cuffs.

On the way home, I'll stop at the "adults" shop to get a Freedom Tickler to share with my significant other, who will be waiting for me in her Freedom Maid's outfit.

After a Freedom Kiss, we'll have some dinner, kick back with a movie, probably The Freedom Connection with Gene Hackman, and then catch Third Rock From the Sun, which stars one of our favorite comics, Freedom Stewart...

[Mike Irwin]

Dan,

I think you'll find that Yoplait is actually LICENSED to General Mills for manufacture and distribution in the United States.

The owner of the brand marque is a Freedom company.


Wild Turkey and Grey Goose are also owned by a Freedom country...

[Soap]

Mike- I was aware of that, and as such, boycotting the yogurt in this country will have a direct effect on the people who make it, distribute it, or make any sort of profit from it. IIRC the brand name itself originates from France correct?

I suppose the company could rename it and drop the license. But re-marketing a new product to fill the void of a product that is already good surely isn't cheap. For example, it would be a bad idea if Frito-Lay were to drop Dorito's and market a new product that is exactly the same but with a different name/package.

[zastros]

Here's a lovely bit from James Lileks:
http://www.startribune.com/stories/804/3783024.html

"We rarely break news here in Variety, since we're printed six months in advance, but I've just been handed this bulletin from the French's Mustard Company. They're apparently worried some people believe "French's Mustard" is the handiwork of perfidious Gauls -- hence the yellow hue, drawn from spines of the soldiers themselves. Not so! It's made in New Joisey! Home of Tony Soprano! Who kills people with a gun! Here's how the press release begins:

"Recently there has been some confusion as to the origin of French's Mustard."

Not in my house. Not in my social circle. Never comes up. Perhaps in the bustling offices of Retail Mustard Journal (incorporating American Mustard Magazine) there's been a flurry of phone calls on the matter -- You there! Johnson! Run down this tip that French's is made by cloned Nazi collaborators from the Vichy regime! But where I sit, it's a non-issue. We continue:

"For the record, French's would like to say, there is nothing more American than French's Mustard."

At this point, I hear the voice of Jacques Chirac assuring us that he loves America, with its roc et roll, its Elvis of Presley, its bisboll. But let's give them the benefit of le doubt, and read on:

"Born in New York by the R. T. French company, French's Cream Salad Mustard made its debut in 1904 at the St. Louis World's Fair along with its sidekick, the hot dog. Both were an instant success!

"Throughout the years, consumers have professed their lifelong love of America's number one mustard. For many Americans, French's Mustard IS Americana. 'It's all about baseball, hot dogs, family and fun,' says Elliot Penner, president of French's Mustard."

I've seen this movie: They uncover a spy, and he tries to insist he's really a Yank. Don't shoot! I am an American! I love Bing Crosby! World Series great! Chicago! Al Capone!

But I'll believe them. The headline of the press release is a good reminder of these odd times: "The only thing French about French's Mustard is its name!" That would have made no sense a few years ago. Now we all know exactly what they're worried about.

Now if we could just get a word of reassurance from Iraqi Bratwurst, or the Glorious Saddam, Leader of the Arab Peoples premade cole-slaw company, I'd feel better about supper. "

[trooper]

Over there in France and Germany and Russia they have Anti-American parades. They have Anti-American rallies. They have Anti-American parties.

You have all those things in the US, too (that is, if you count antiwar protests as Anti-American). Now go ahead and boycott American products as well.

Will you guys please refrain from starting yet another "Boycott-XYZ-Country"-thread every other day? It gets tiring. And nothing new is ever said in these threads.


Regards,

Trooper

[Augustwest]

I have no great love for France, but I'm embarrassed by the way many of my countrymen are acting toward them. Here's a couple of things to consider:

- One excuse I've heard ad naseum on talk radio and elsewhere for our current France bashing is that we bailed them out of WWII, so they have to agree with us. Following that logic, if it weren't for French assistance in the American Revolution, we'd still be speaking English in the U.S., so we should automatically act as France dictates.

- September 12, 2001 - NATO invokes Article 5 of their charter, and French ships and planes assist in Operation Enduring Freedom. When we were attacked, they came to our aid.

I'll reiterate - there's plenty I dislike about France, but all this yapping about how bad a country is for exercising sovereign rights is really tedious.

[trooper]

Augustwest,
I have to agree with this.

Furthermore, French-bashing might be funny to some extent but the constant repetition of "all french are cowardly losers who'd gladly surrender to about anyone" doesn't make it any truer.

While France WAS overrun in WWII and had to be saved by the US and the UK, French troops fought valiantly and courageously (if not always victoriously) at numerous times and places.

Think Dien Bien Phu, think Algeria, think of the heroic deeds of the Resistance movement, just to mention a few.

Napoleon ruled at one point all of Europe except Great Britain.


Regards,

Trooper

[Mike Irwin]

I've been running through a LOT of what I buy, and have discovered that it would largely be impossible for me to boycott things made in France, Germany, and Russia because I already purchase virtually nothing that is either made in, or has roots in, those nations....

[MicroBalrog]

Really cute: boycott private enterprises in those countries and give their leaders a chance to campaign on the nationalist/xenophobic platform...and reduce your own options at the same time. Do H&K or Izmash really have much say in the German and Russian foreign policy?
Oleg, Izhmash is AFAIK property of the Russian government, and H&K is AFAIK at least partially owned by Royal Ordnance. Anybody with more info about who owns these places?

[trooper]

HK used to belong to the British Aerospace group but was recently bought by some of its ex-employees. While now being a German company again, it has no ties to the German or any other government (other than that HK supplies a great part of German military's and law-enforcement's weapons).


Regards,

Harald

[George Hill]

Hmmm... this is a most interesting debate.
Renaming something "Freedom" is a nice gesture. I think it's funny.

So to those that are not in "Agreeance" with boycotting...
What is your suggestion to slap those countries down?

Do you even think they deserve a hand slap?
http://www.madogre.com/images/reasons.jpg
http://www.madogre.com/images/Pro_Protest.jpg

[Soap]

George- To paraphrase Hank Hill I would like to "Take the long hairs on their head, tie them to the small hairs on their ***, and kick them down the stairs."

My initial solution would be twofold. First I would stop sending ANY sort of USG monetary aid. Second, I would hint that if France or Germany were to get into trouble militarily, that the U.S. might not necessarily have their back.

Private enterprise wouldn't be hindered in the slightest sense. Let the kings fight the kings.

[George Hill]

I'm with you on all counts... but one. To influence Kings, sometimes you have to light the fire under them.

[King]

I say.....Boycott 'em. Let their countrymen bring pressure to bear on their leaders. If they don't want to back us up, then they don't need our money.

Same goes for Mexico and Canada, those that we thought were our good neigbors.

[Soap]

One time a guy with Texas plates cuz me off, I couldn't really do anything about it so I found the next Texan I could find and then I beat the hell outta him with an ASP. Boy did I feel better! :rolleyes:

Anyway, I'd much rather fight governments than private enterprise. In fighting private enterprise, one is essentially fighting themselves and their countrymen without even realizing it. I would agree George that we have to light a fire somewhere, but the shotgun spray approach of boycotting may not get the results you are looking for. Instead, I would prefer to allow the world to know how big of a wussy nation France is. If the widespread public opinion is that France is a joke, then that will be quite a brushfire. Or if France stops getting that welfare check signed by Uncle Sam Sugar, maybe that will light a fire. Maybe if we say, do what you will as a sovereign nation, but don't expect us to watch your back or do your dirty work, that might send a message. If you light a fire through economic boycott, eventually that fire will spread and burn you.

[Stinger]

Anyway, I'd much rather fight governments than private enterprise.

That's super. Unfortunately, you don't have the power to influence their government in any way other than with dollars. You are not a citizen, you have no vote. The way I look at it, you've got two choices to influence French policy. You can let your representatives know how you feel about the French situation and let them handle their end, and you can let their businesses know with your dollars.

What does a private company have to do with a government's decision?

Where do you think nations get their tax dollars? Business and employees of that business pay the salaries of their politicians and for their policies.

I'll reiterate - there's plenty I dislike about France, but all this yapping about how bad a country is for exercising sovereign rights is really tedious.


Wasn't France yapping about how WE are exercising our sovereign rights??????? :confused:


So it's okay for Pierre, but not for John Q?


Stinger

[Soap]

Stinger- It is convenient that you've dodged the fact that you are actually hurting Americans...

That's super. Unfortunately, you don't have the power to influence their government in any way other than with dollars. You are not a citizen, you have no vote. The way I look at it, you've got two choices to influence French policy. You can let your representatives know how you feel about the French situation and let them handle their end, and you can let their businesses know with your dollars.

Do I have to speak slower here? You are hurting American workers and investors.

Where do you think nations get their tax dollars? Business and employees of that business pay the salaries of their politicians and for their policies.

I'll reiterate: When the Patriot Act was passed, or the '94 Crime Bill, did you boycott all American goods to influence the USG? Didn't think so.

[George Hill]

:scrutiny:
Why are you so against hurting innocent frenchmen economically?
They hate us. They celebrate everytime one of our servicemen is killed!

Top to bottom... Scorched Earth.

They freaking built Saddam a Reactor for crying out loud! SCORCH'M!

Germany is starting to lean our way... we should be pressuring them. Hard.

Russia? Where do I start with Russia? Putin is a ******** **** **** **** **** **** ****... and a total Jerkhead. They were selling Iraq weapons and equipment! The only lower you can get, is by being French... or even worse... A French Soccer Fan!

I'm not xenophobic, I'm just not happy with these countries. I'm sorry if that isn't politically correct. But these guys don't deserve our money.

[Mike Irwin]

You know, Daniel, that your "You're hurting Americans!" argument is nothing but a thin, and hazy, smokescreen, don't you?

Consider this...

Say George decides not to purchase a French wine because of the current political situation.

By your argument, he supposedly just hurt Americans who get their livlihood from the importation of those wines.

But your entire premise labors under the assumption that George is going to stop drinking wine altogether.

He likely won't.

He'll pick another brand.

In other words, he'll switch from supporting the people employed by the companies that import French wines to supporting people who import, say, Chilean, or perhaps even Australian wines. In that sense, his boycotting French products would have a null effect on Americans (collective). There could be an impact on Americans (individuals) who work for the importers, etc., but we do that every time we choose one product brand over another...

Buy Campbell's soup, for example, and hurt the people whose livlihood depends on, say, Progresso soups.

If, on the other hand, George decides to purchase a domestic wine, doesn't he then HELP more Americans than he's hurt? By purchasing domestic, he helps the grower, an American, who employs Americans to work the vinyards, Americans who make the bottles, Americans who print the labels, Americans who make the boxes that the wine is shipped in, etc.

Please don't labor under the assumption that boycotting the products of one nation means withdrawing that money from the economy totally.

It's a bad assumption.

In my situation?

One of the only French products that I buy is Rocquofort cheese. I've stopped buying Rocquofort cheese because it comes from France.

Oh my God, I've hurt Americans!

Ok, I'm now buying English Stilton cheese. Why? Because I still want to eat cheese. I'm not going to stop eating cheese simply because I'm not going to buy French cheese.

So what happens when I buy English instead of French?

Oh my God, now I'm helping Americans!

It's a null, and as an argument, while it tugs at the heart strings, it simply doesn't wash.

[joeislove]

I think the whole idea of boycotting the products from a certain country, because you disagree with the stance of the government, is a little silly.

There isn't really any such thing as a "German-made" car any more than there is an "American-made" car. There's a big ol' BMW plant in South Carolina, a few hundred miles from me. Fords contain parts made in Mexico, Taiwan, China, etc.

"The whole idea of nations is pretty much public relations theory at this point." -- Martin Blank (John Cusack), "Grosse Point Blank"

[Master Blaster]

Unfortunately I use a product produced by a French company every day and I have NO CHOICE,

My water company, a utility called United Water is owned by a French giant in the water filtration and purification industry.
United Water along with dozens of smaller water cos in the US were bought out by this french conglomerate in recent years.

The good news is that I can take a Big Crap on their product every day, right before I flush. I renamed the activity in their honor. I take at least One CHIRAC every day.

Crap = CHIRAC, I think I'll go take a Chirac right now.:p

[Soap]

Mike- Good retort! I had thought of this earlier and I was trying to reconcile it in my mind. The problem I ran into is that many European goods are indeed substitutable with nearly the same cost and the same benefits. I have to run to class but hopefully I can give a good response later this afternoon.

[XLMiguel]

Boycott's work both ways, be careful what you wish for. It is far better (and more satisfying) to raise hell with the politicians directly.

[George Hill]

Spanish wines are reported to be most excellent... But I wouldn't know.

Mike has a good point about German Cars... Many are assembled in part here in the US. Mercedes are still made all in the Fatherland from what I understand. Up against a Merc, I would suggest an Infinity or Lexus. The big V-8 models are very nice... very smooth.
Porshe has that Cayenne... Incredible machine. Infinity has one that is very close, and much much easier on the wallet.

Mike makes the point that was made earlier... by Stinger:
Don't fret. Funny thing about economics, the market will shift, and where once French wine was dominant, another type will fill its void. German cars will be replaced by others as well. And caviar, well...darnit, I guess we can't have it all, now can we?
That's the joy of this kind of thing... by not supporting those you are against you can in turn support those that you do. And Stinger, you should try some Japanese caviar... excellent.

Trooper - If I see a company that is Anti-American or Anti-Gun OF COURSE I AM GOING TO AVOID THEM AS MCUH AS POSSIBLE!!! Heck, I still avoid S&W and Ruger!

[Mike Irwin]

OK, we need to set some parameters here, folks.

Cars are complex systems that by their very nature require a large network of "linkages." A "linkage" is an economic association between two groups, two industries, two companies, etc., that revolves around the manufacture of a product or the delivery of a service. Generally, the more complex a system, the greater the number of linkages.

Cars, being complex systems, create a vast number of linkages. Joeislove is correct. If you buy a Chevy, depending on the model, you've got parts in there from conceivably 10 or more different national economies, from Canadian to British to Mexican to Brazilian.

Other products, which are less technology based, create fewer linkages.

Among these would be food products produced in a particular nation, such as cheese or wine. The linkages developed by those industries are generally limited, and largely closed, meaning that the linkages exist within a relatively small geographic area.

Because of the limited number of linkages, a boycott of a food product is easier, and often more effective, than the boycott of a technologically complex product like a car.

[Mike Irwin]

"I think the whole idea of boycotting the products from a certain country, because you disagree with the stance of the government, is a little silly."


Why, Joe?

For the average consumer, economic action, which is what a boycott is, is the only way to send a definitive message that you're unhappy with the stance of a particular company, or in this case country.

Granted, it requires a two step process, hurting the producers of the boycotted goods, who hopefully will feel the pinch and then yelp at their government.

But what realistic alternatives are there to that sort of action?

Would it be, for example, silly for Americans to boycott an American company if the President of the company were to go on the nightly news and profess his adherence to a belief that most Americans don't hold?

Or should they continue to purchase goods/services from that company even though doing so would be counter to their own beliefs?

What, then, ARE the alternatives for making an effective statement?

Quite frankly, the only effective statement that any business recognizes is an economic one.

For a protest in the United States, we can protest a company by boycotting their products.

If we disagree with the government, we protest to our elected representatives.

But when dealing with a foreign nation, we can protest to their government, but to what effect? Voters here have no sway on the government there, so it's easy for them to dismiss the protests.

That's where an economic boycott comes into play. It's harder for their government to ignore our protest when it is affecting their people and bottom line.

[hops]

Don't forget to boycott their inventions too. I see some major life changes is we are really serious about boycotting foreign things.

[Mike Irwin]

"Don't forget to boycott their inventions too. I see some major life changes is we are really serious about boycotting foreign things."

:rolleyes:

To what end, Hops?

What's so hard to understand about a boycott being an ECONOMIC protest?

If the target of the boycott is still deriving financial gain from the invented product, that's one thing...

But to boycott canning because the process was invented by a Frenchman 200 years ago?

Or paper because the Fourdrinier was invented, in part, by a Frenchman?

Try to stick with us in the realistic plane, not tumble off the edge onto the ludicrous plane...

[Soap]

Mike- After thinking about it some more I suppose you've put me in a quandry. I was thinking solely along Microeconomic effects, whereas you gave an excellent Macroeconomic retort. Part of the learning process I suppose is to get spanked every now and then. I concede to your arguement.

Stinger- Now that Mike has really stuck it to me and I reread my post, I would apologize for being so snappy in my last reply to you.

[Augustwest]

Interesting article on the front page of today's Wall Street Journal about the possible effects of such a boycott.

Michelin alone has something like 17 tire plants in the U.S.

Foreign owned companies spend more than $300 Billion on payrolls in the U.S. each year. They're not just French, German and Russian compnaies, but still...

Seems to me that widespread boycotts of a big chunk of the EU stands to hurt Americans as much as it hurts Europeans.

A side note of my own - foreign investment has helped keep our economy afloat for a while now; do we really want to get into a peeing contest with Europe and drive that investment money to Asia or elsewhere?

[hops]

You just made my point , Mike. In today's interconnected global economy, a boycott of a certain nation is indeed ludircus.

If you're going to boycott, let's do it right. Tangible goods and intangible goods.

here is the WJS article, augustwest talks about - as I just found it myself before his post.

----


Multinational Firms Take Steps
To Avert Boycotts Over War

By GLENN R. SIMPSON
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

As diplomatic tensions over Iraq peaked at the United Nations in late February and U.S. patriotic fervor swelled, the South Carolina state legislature took up a resolution calling for a boycott of French products.

By vowing to block a U.S.-backed measure on disarming Iraq at the U.N. Security Council, France gave "aid and comfort" to Saddam Hussein, the measure asserted. Under the circumstances, "it makes no sense to buy French products, goods and services." The resolution passed the state House, 90-9. The overwhelming vote in favor of a boycott wasn't surprising: South Carolina is a famously protectionist and patriotic bastion of American manufacturing.

If such a boycott gained consumer support, one of the biggest losers could have been Group Michelin SA. But then something most unexpected happened: Instead of deflating the French firm's famous Michelin Man, lawmakers abruptly backed down. The state Senate never took up the measure. Many of the Michelin tires sold in the U.S., it turned out, are made in factories across South Carolina.
WAR IN IRAQ
? Day by Day1: Map of battle developments

? Receive breaking news alerts2 and daily roundups of the latest developments.

? Question of the Day3: Is it appropriate for retired military commanders to discuss the U.S. strategy in Iraq on television?

? For continuing coverage, see War in Iraq4.


"The global economy is so interconnected today, you'd be shooting yourself in the foot," said South Carolina Commerce Secretary Bob Faith. "You might be putting your neighbor out of work."

Around the world, noisy boycotts and protests are targeting many multinational companies in the wake of the invasion of Iraq. In the U.S., those protests are aimed at the French and Germans, while opponents of the war are focusing on American companies.

In the Indian city of Calcutta, antiwar protesters attacked a shop owned by Nike Inc., while in Argentina, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. outlets are being picketed. In Bologna, Italy, police this week defused a bomb outside an office of International Business Machines Corp. One of the most concerted attacks has been against Coca-Cola Co., whose competitors in parts of the Arab world are seeking to paint Coke as the soft-drink of the infidel.

For all the noise, though, most companies and trade associations say the protests have yet to bring any significant dent in sales. The brief life of South Carolina's anti-French boycott is a potent example of how multinationals are working to keep a lid on the threat. Michelin produced a set of responses for its U.S. employees and managers, and other firms have quietly begun to mobilize lobbyists, pollsters and public-relations specialists. Multinational companies also are employing services that monitor the Internet for new attacks so they can be countered quickly.

More broadly, these companies are being aided by the new realities of globalization, which have reshaped the politics of consumer boycotts. Japanese and German auto manufacturers make cars in the U.S., employing thousands of workers. France's Sodexho supplies meal rations -- made in Maryland -- to the U.S. military. And even as firms on both sides of the Atlantic fear that politically motivated boycotts will spread, they are discovering that consumer support for them is shallow.

In a recent survey of American voters conducted for a group of foreign multinationals, Washington pollster Neil Newhouse found that nearly a third of boycott supporters said they would abandon their plans to spurn some "foreign" goods if they knew that those products were made by Americans in the U.S. Nudged a bit further, some 60% of those who said they were inclined toward boycotts agreed that "because many French and German products sold in the U.S. are made in this country by U.S. workers, the U.S. economy would suffer if Americans stopped buying these products."

In the new politics of boycotts, "a little information goes a long way in changing behavior," Mr. Newhouse said. "When you link this to jobs, given the state of the economy, it's a very powerful motivator."

In the U.S., Europe and Asia, there have been huge increases in foreign investment over the past two decades. In the late 1980s, multinationals greatly stepped up their efforts to buy or build manufacturing and sales facilities in foreign target markets. By 2000, foreign firms, excluding banks, employed 6.4 million U.S. workers with a payroll of some $330 billion, the Commerce Department says. Some 45% of all U.S. private investment abroad goes to the European Union, and the EU invests an equal proportion in the U.S. At the same time, sales by U.S. affiliates in 2000 totaled $236 billion in Germany and $137.5 billion in France, a Johns Hopkins study found.

In South Carolina, Michelin has invested more than $2 billion in factories and offices, employing 6,000. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG of Germany is another major South Carolina employer.

If political passion overwhelms reasoned appeals to economic self-interest, one U.S.-based fast-food giant is using an old-fashioned tactic: a big sale. In Indonesia, where KFC Corp. is under siege by Muslim students protesting the Iraq war, the firm has responded by adding deeply discounted chicken balls to its menu.

"No matter what, at the end of the day, customers here look at price," said Mario Ledres, general manager of finance at PT Fastfood Indonesia, the local franchisee of KFC, itself a unit of Yum Brands Inc. of Louisville, Ky.

Like other American fast-food chains in Asia, KFC has always strived to highlight its local ties. It has long served rice with its meals, which Indonesians prefer to mashed potatoes, and all of its food is prepared according to strict Islamic dietary laws.

Wal-Mart has seen antiwar activities at its stores in numerous countries, including Germany, Argentina and Mexico. At some outlets, protestors plaster leaflets on cars in parking lots saying: "Don't Buy American." In Germany, activists have taken the idea of a walkout a step further. They fill shopping carts with merchandise, stand in line and then once a cashier scans the items, they walk out, leaving the products behind and chanting antiwar slogans.

Wal-Mart hasn't taken any steps to counter such tactics, a spokesman said. And despite the disruptions, the demonstrations haven't hurt sales, the retailer said. "It's antiwar sentiments, not anti-Wal-Mart," said John Menzer, chief executive of Wal-Mart International.

Multinational companies also are banding together to protect themselves. The chief trade association in Washington for foreign firms, the Organization for International Investment, is working to assemble an antiboycott coalition with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and other U.S. business groups, and it recently commissioned Mr. Newhouse's political research firm, Public Opinion Strategies, to track consumer sentiment.

Todd Malan, the foreign multinational group's executive director, said that Americans' anger toward the French is understandable, but punishing French companies simply isn't effective.

U.S. executives are just as worried as their European counterparts. "They are aghast that the economic waters are being roiled by some political actions that clearly haven't been thought through," said Willard Workman, an international-trade specialist at the U.S. Chamber. Mr. Workman has distributed "talking points" that help U.S. firms seeking to calm angry war opponents by disavowing any influence over President Bush. Boycotts targeted at foreign companies, the chamber says, "historically have never changed their governments' policies."

Michelin's experience suggests such a message may work. After the firm began to be targeted by angry politicians and consumers in February, it quickly drew up a response. "A boycott of Michelin products in the U.S. wouldn't be a boycott of French products," the firm's North America division told inquiring consumers. "It would be a boycott against American products, made in 17 U.S. factories, located in seven states."

[Master Blaster]

After all that stimulating Intellectual /economic theory:

I feel the Urge to take another Chirac.

:cool: :D :neener:

[Augustwest]

... by adding deeply discounted chicken balls to its menu.

Remind me never to eat at an Indonesian restaurant. :D

[Mike Irwin]

"Seems to me that widespread boycotts of a big chunk of the EU stands to hurt Americans as much as it hurts Europeans."


August,

Please go back and read my long explanation about how the concept of boycotting say, French cheese IS NOT the same as boycotting ALL cheese products!

The money you with hold from a French company, and it's American agents, isn't stuffed into a pillow somewhere, not to be seen in the market. That WOULD truly hurt a lot of Americans.

The money that would be spent on those products is directed to OTHER companies that make COMPARABLE products.

French or German wines?

The Australians, Canadians, Chileans, and AMERICANS all make wine, too.

Michelin tires?

Hey, Goodyear, B.F. Goodrich, Bridgestone, Firestone, Yokahama are all owned by JAPANESE companies. There's also Pirelli, which I believe is still Italian owned, by I may be wrong about that.

Cheese? Chocolate? Mustard? Lord knows that no AMERICAN companies make these products.

I know this is a tought concept to grasp for people who are wrapped up in the concept that "IT WILL HURT AMERICANS!"

As I explained to Daniel (and he actually got it), REDIRECTING your money from the products of one foreign-owned company to the products of another foreign-owned company hurts some Americans, and helps others. It's really a no loss, no gain type of situation.

If, however, you switch your affiliation from products of a foreign-woend company to an American-owned company, you actually HELP more Americans than you hurt, because you help support not only that company, but all of the ancilliary American companies that rely on the American company for business.

But, if you choose the products of a foreign-owned company over the products of a domestic company, then you truly ARE hurting Americans. You're sending hard-earned dollars off-shore, contributing to the trade gap, and NOT supporting the domestic work force.

Just what kind of American are you, then? One who gives lip service to the concept of "helping" American workers while actually hurting them by investing in foreign-owned companies?

Great patriotic move...

[Mike Irwin]

"You just made my point , Mike. In today's interconnected global economy, a boycott of a certain nation is indeed ludircus."


Actually, Hops, you don't have a point. You threw out what is essentially a canard -- that to "truly" boycott something means going back to the very beginning to boycott the intellectual properties.

Quite frankly, that's stupid.

In my example above, canning...

Developed by Nicholas Aper, who used champagne bottles.

It then hopped the English Channel, where a Briton came up with the concept for putting the food in metal cans.

Fast forward a couple of centuries, and now you have a huge American industry that no only makes the cans, but grows the food, processes the food, cans the food with the cans, prints the labels, trucks it to stores, and sells it.

That's all American, supporting hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans.

The French or Germans aren't supplying the cans.

They're not printing the labels.

They're not stocking the shelves.

Your "technology" boycott is patently stupid, because the technology no longer resembles that developed by N. Aper -- putting food in champagne bottles.

Then there's the concept that Msse Aper never applied for either English OR American patents, only French. So, in the days before international copyright and trademark conventions, the concept, even if used here within a few years of the invention of the process, wouldn't have required payment of royalties.

Finally, and what really drives a can opener into the heart of your "theory"? The fact that even HAD there been a valid patent on the canning process, it would have expired over 150 years ago.

The process is in the public domain. Canning, as a method of preserving food, belongs to the world.


You also fail to recognize what I explained above, that varying types of industry have wildly varying degrees of linkages -- in other words, globalization isn't the same for all products.

Automobiles? VERY HIGH globalization.

Food products? Generally very LOW globalization.

French wines, French cheeses, French clothing, etc. have very few linkages that extend outside of France. The only overt linkages are those that involve importation and sales.

On the other hand, American wines, cheeses, clothing, etc., while also having relatively few linkages, to a larger degree keep those linkages IN the United States.

[gino]

California makes some pretty good wines. Why spend money on French wines now? It'd tickle me pink if the French wine producers took a big hit!

[DaveB]

What happens when 'they' start to boycot our stuff?

Trade deficit? What's that?

Just for fun, go to http://www.tradealert.org/ticker_home.asp

db

[Augustwest]

It's really a no loss, no gain type of situation.

I'll preface this by saying that I prefer to make most of my purchases from producers and sellers located in this order : local, Connecticut, New England, the U.S., then outside of the U.S. (and I avoid Chinese goods when I can). It's not always practical, but I do it when I can.

As far as your notion that this boycott is a zero-sum proposal, we can't know that without a lot more information, but using the example of Michelin I believe it would work out this way:

It's the extreme, but assume that not another Michelin tire is sold in the U.S. (and car manufacturers must switch brands as well).

-Retailers and auto manufacturers lose out, as they are stuck with inventory they can't sell.

- 6000 employees in South Carolina alone lose their jobs, so they lose out. They for a time collect unemployment, so taxpayers lose out. Some of them can't pay their mortgages - their banks lose out (more layoffs). Michelin stops paying property, income, and other taxes. The taxpayers lose out again, as someone has to take up the slack.

- Demand for other manufacturers tires increases, so the price of tires increases, and tire buyers lose out. The tire sellers and auto manufacturers end up paying more to replace the inventory they already got stuck with once. Hopefully those manufacturers have enough excess factory capacity (or can buy Michelin's) to meet demand - if not, for a time there won't be enough tires to meet demand, so auto manufacturers have to slow or stop assembly lines (and lay off more workers). Some Americans end up driving unsafe cars because they can't replace their tires when they need to.

Ultimately everything works out ok, as it always does, because things will come back into equilibrium - workers get retrained and find jobs, tire factories build sufficient capacity to meet demand, assembly lines roll again.

But a lot of people will have been through unnecessary hardship just so that we can spank the French, or Germans, or whomever. Sorry, but it just doesn't make sense to me.

[Gewehr98]

These darned things:

http://www.firstworldwar.com/weaponry/graphics/chauchat.jpg

[Azrael256]

Wait... so by not buying michelins (I have Firestones at the moment), I put somebody in a South Carolina factory out of work. Because I buy a Napa Valley wine, a wine importer can't feed his family. Switching from zig-zags to rizlas for my cigarettes means that somebody in the french cigarette paper importing industry loses their job... ok, wait just a minute, this is all getting my head spinning in circles.

So all those ads that have said "Buy American" are actually hurting us because there are so many foreign-owned companies operating in the US that employ Americans? ...but the money that would go to the foreign companies now goes to the American companies so they can hire more workers to keep up with the increased demand... here comes the migraine...

Simplify this whole "boycott" thing. Just buy American and let the invisible hand deal with it.

[Selfdfenz]

"Do I have to speak slower here? You are hurting American workers and investors. "

You need not speak slower, nor with insults.

When terrorists struck the WTC American workers and investors were also hurt would you not agree? Call me biased but I think the anthrax releases were via terrorists. That had a negative spin for American workers and investors. HLS has had something of a negative impact on many workers and investors IIHO.

If you asked an American worker if he or she would prefer to be challenged in the workplace, or optionally, incinerated or killed by anthrax or a car bomb, I think most will vote for "employment adjustments".

Many posting here, and the President, believe SH supported terrorism directly and indirectly in many ways. The French, German and Russian boycott of the US position in the UN vs Saddam assisted him both directly and indirectly. Their position was also one based on self/national interest(s) at what many of us see as being at the expense of our national security.
It was also contrary to long standing support of resolutions all three voted for in the affirmative in the past.

Saddam will soon be removed from his seat of power. I think that will make the World a safer place for American workers and investors if only slightly and as a first step.
I can only speak for myself but I would rather have the French, Germans and Russians supporting our position to fight terrorism. Perhaps boycotting their products will do that, prehaps not but it's a low impact way to show our displeasure.
If the unintended consequence is that some American workers and investors are disadvantaged I believe it will be less so than those that were in the WTC the day they were struck or a similiar misadventure in the furure.

From many of your posts you seem to believe that we can walk a thin line and minimize the loss of jobs and investment value by holding to no account these nations that that have in turn coddled a supporter of terrorists. If no pressure is exerted to modify these behaviors on the part of the F,Gs and Rs they will not be changed and they will possibly support other BGs or oppose US efforts to deminish the threat terrorist represent as long as F,G and R face no consequences.
Opposing terrorism and the people and nations the support or accomodate it is in the best interests of the US and its people. No one said it would be easy or without some costs.

S-

[Mike Irwin]

OK, Augustwest...

You've painted the bad, or what appears to be bad, so let's look at it step by step....

First off, your basic premise is fatally flawed when you state that everyone suddenly stops purchasing Michellins, and no more are sold. A 100% decline in market is unrealistic. There are fleet and manufacturer contracts that must be fulfilled by both parties. There are people who will never stop purchasing Michelins. And there are replacements.

"Retailers and auto manufacturers lose out, as they are stuck with inventory they can't sell."

The inventory would move, but more slowly. The Michelins that would be sold at cost, or at a loss, would more than be made up for in value by increased sales of other brands. Hit with a sudden popularity in other brands, prices rise across the board (or, conversely, there's a price decrease. See step 3).

"6000 employees in South Carolina alone lose their jobs, so they lose out. They for a time collect unemployment, so taxpayers lose out. Some of them can't pay their mortgages - their banks lose out (more layoffs). Michelin stops paying property, income, and other taxes. The taxpayers lose out again, as someone has to take up the slack."

Conversely, production increases at other tire plants around the nation. As production increases, work forces increase. Some of those former Michelin employees (who paid into the unemployement program in the first place) move, taking their skills and know how to new plants.

As production increases for other manufacturers, they new more production space, which can't be met at current plants. The solution? Purchase the former Michelin plant, and hire the lion's share of its work force.

(Also, quite bluntly and as an aside, no one ever said that anyone in this country was guaranteed a job. EVERYONE in the United States works at the whim and the will of someone else -- even the most powerful man in the nation, the President. If we ever do collectively come to the point where we believe that everyone is GUARANTEED a job, no matter what the market, economic, social, or political conditions are, well then smack our asses and call us Socialists.)


"Demand for other manufacturers tires increases, so the price of tires increases, and tire buyers lose out. The tire sellers and auto manufacturers end up paying more to replace the inventory they already got stuck with once. Hopefully those manufacturers have enough excess factory capacity (or can buy Michelin's) to meet demand - if not, for a time there won't be enough tires to meet demand, so auto manufacturers have to slow or stop assembly lines (and lay off more workers). Some Americans end up driving unsafe cars because they can't replace their tires when they need to."

Or, conversely, other manufacturers become engaged in a price war to pick up Michelin's bones. Prices drop, consumers buy tires likely they're going out of style, and everyone propsers (don't think that can happen? This is how the new auto market largely works). Transient shortages of one brand in one area are more than made up for by increased production of other brands.

[hops]

Too simple Mike. South Carolina would lose tax revenues. Will other states who gain share with South Carolina? Do not think so.

Why honour contracts? We're boycotting. Patriotism First.

Best case you can argue for is selective boycotting to make us feel good. A total boycott is nearly impossible.
As far as boycotting inventions? Why not. I well understand your points. I'm talking about the final product. The diesel engine is an example. I could even say automobile based upon the gas and diesel engine. The europeans would have to abandon the airplane if they were serious about boycotting.

I just feel that my view is as moronic as yours on the boycotting of goods and services.

Boycotting will hurt us. Certain segments of our economy will be hurt and American firms may pick up the supplying of goods lost slack, but that does not translate in to picking up all the jobs lost, nor the tax revenues lost by those states affected. Also, expect certain American products to get more expensive due to the laws of supply and demand. Boycott French wine and American wine may increase in price. Profits before patriotism. Just look at all the jobs lost to China and India (blue collar in one case and white collar in the other).

I doubt you'll drink an extra 2 cokes per day and eat an extra 2 hamburgers per day, if Mac Donalds looses that level of business in Germany and France. Then you need to pcik up the slack for other losses to American companies too.

Trade wars and boycotts are painful ways in trying to make a point which is futile.

edited to add:

Mike, I loved your map of France before the mods locked it up. I'd like to get a copy.....

[Soap]

Selfdfenz-

You need not speak slower, nor with insults.

I stated:

Stinger- Now that Mike has really stuck it to me and I reread my post, I would apologize for being so snappy in my last reply to you.




Furthermore, I don't doubt that the German, French, and Russian governments are supporting Saddam through their inaction.

From many of your posts you seem to believe that we can walk a thin line and minimize the loss of jobs and investment value by holding to no account these nations that that have in turn coddled a supporter of terrorists. If no pressure is exerted to modify these behaviors on the part of the F,Gs and Rs they will not be changed and they will possibly support other BGs or oppose US efforts to deminish the threat terrorist represent as long as F,G and R face no consequences.

As a member of private enterprise and a consumer of goods, this would be the ideal. I simply don't equate boycotting private business to influence government with the smartest first strike against said government. I would prefer our government to have the gall to say, if you don't stand with us, we will not watch your backs. Plus, I would like to see our government stop sending any sort of aid to these governments. That should be the first response, shotgun approach boycotting should be at most the second response.

[Stinger]

Stinger- Now that Mike has really stuck it to me and I reread my post, I would apologize for being so snappy in my last reply to you.

Just because I talk slow doesn't mean I listen slow :D

No harm, no foul.

Stinger

[othermarc]

all this talk about foreign owned factories in the US makes me think just one thing- somewhere along the line enough people stopped buying American allowing for a foreign company to come in and produce here. How is that the concern of people wishing to Boycott? To me, that argument sounds a lot like "well, the US has gotten 'used to' the gun control laws, so changing that law would only hurt us." Yep, it might hurt America, but the temporary pain should be outweighed by the positives of the long term solution.

By "used to" I mean that certain folk that are not accustomed to the liberty of owning pistols, rifle, or even automatic weapons and the responsibility that goes along with that freedom. They would undoubtedly go too far and needlessly harm others until they learned to live with such responsibilty. Innocent folk would be hurt and killed. But in the long term, we would have secured liberty for the nation.

And again, anyone wishing to boycott, do your research. You might be buying French products and not even know it.

[Augustwest]

Mike-

It's pretty clear to me that we're not going to agree on this, so I have a couple of comments, and then I'll let you have the last word.

- I stated that the premise of Michelin ceasing to sell anything was extreme, but I don't have the time to pull Michelin's financial statements and figure out what a 50, or 25, or 10% drop in sales would do to them. I would venture to guess, however, that the contract and fleet sales you argue would bolster Michelin's business are among the lowest margin sales they make.

- I also stated that eventually things would come back into equilibrium - that's the nature of economics. You basically argue the same thing, but seem to candy-coat the difficulty that the pendulum swinging can cause.

- Your "aside" is not news to me. No one in the U.S. is guaranteed a job, nor they should be. If you're somehow implying that I have socialist leanings because I don't want to see already difficult economic conditions worsened because you're angry with France, you couldn't more wrong. But screwing with people's livelyhoods out of spite over who employs them is bad policy.

I remain grateful that I live in a country that allows us to buy or not buy as we choose, and that allows me to think for myself and hold my own opinions whether or not they're in line with the flock.

Tim Peterson

[George Hill]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33986-2003Apr15.html


U.S. Boycott Being Felt, French Say
Wine Sales Off Sharply; Other Products Affected
By Robert J. McCartney
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, April 16, 2003; Page A32


PARIS, April 15 -- An American backlash against French products and businesses has started to bite, dashing hopes here that appeals in the United States to punish France economically for opposing the war in Iraq would go unheeded.

American importers of French wine are reporting sharp drops in sales in the past two months, and other French products also have been affected. The Federation of Wine Exporters has called a meeting Thursday to discuss how to respond.

The nation's principal business federation took the unusual step of publicly acknowledging the problem, conceding today that sales, recruitment and business contacts have been hurt. It appealed to consumers and businesses to keep political differences from affecting commerce.

"Certain French enterprises are suffering today from the differences that have arisen among states over the Iraqi question," the Movement of French Enterprises (Medef) said. "It is necessary to say to those who are unhappy with the positions of French diplomacy that they are free to criticize, but they must keep products and services of our enterprises outside their quarrel."

Medef President Ernest-Antoine Seilliere said at a news conference that the effects were "measured" but that contracts had been lost because of anti-French feeling in the United States. He declined to identify the companies affected.

The business federation provided no figures on the effect on French exports to the United States, which last year were valued at $28.4 billion.

The French government and business community had hoped that U.S. "francophobia" would dissipate quickly without hurting trade. Both fear that French companies will be excluded from contracts in rebuilding Iraq.

The widespread view in Paris had been that calls in the U.S. media and from some politicians for commercial retaliation against the French were having little or no effect.

The news that the boycott is significant will also increase pressure on President Jacques Chirac from business and some members of his party to mend relations with Washington. Chirac's government has toned down its antiwar talk, and French officials have emphasized the need for pragmatism and moderation regarding sensitive issues such as how postwar Iraq is to be governed.

Chirac telephoned President Bush yesterday. The leaders, speaking for the first time in two months, had what U.S. aides characterized as a "businesslike" conversation.

The French Foreign Ministry today declined to comment on the French business federation's statement, saying the government didn't respond to private declarations. French officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, reiterated their previous position that they didn't expect any significant reduction of business with the United States. They noted that while American tourism in France is down by about 20 percent, it had dropped even more in Britain, whose troops also fought in Iraq.

The American backlash apparently is having little or no impact on business with Germany, the other major European country that actively opposed the war. A survey by the Association of German Chambers of Commerce and Industry of more than 300 German companies doing business in the United States found no effect.

"It could be that France's position is considered to be fundamental, and ours is considered to be more or less an accident, in connection with the elections we had last autumn," said Michael Rogowski, president of the Federation of German Industries in Berlin. He referred to Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's exploitation of antiwar sentiment to win reelection in September.

German business groups and the German Embassy in the United States have scheduled a meeting in Washington next month with U.S. businesses and politicians to try to make sure that no difficulties arise in U.S.-German trade.

U.S. importers of French products said the effect has been significant. Guillaume Touton, a Frenchman who is president of wine distributor Monsieur Touton Selection Ltd. in New York, said anti-French feeling cost him $500,000 in sales last month. French wines usually account for two-thirds of his business, but now his customers, mostly retail stores, want something else.

"Typically, the guy says, 'No, I don't want French wine. Give me Spanish wine, Italian wine,' " said Touton, who has an office in Capitol Heights, Md.

W.J. Deutsch & Sons Ltd. of White Plains, N.Y. -- the No. 1 U.S. importer of French wines, as measured by cases shipped -- said its sales dropped 10 percent in the past two months. Bill Deutsch, its president, wouldn't divulge specific figures but said his sales were down by hundreds of thousands of dollars.

"We have seen French wines decreasing," Deutsch said. "We've seen stores take French wines off the floor of their store. We've seen major chains stop the advertising of French wines in their weekly ads." He reported substantial increases in sales of Italian, Australian and Spanish wines.

Patricia Carreras, president of IC&A Inc., a home-decor business in New York that imports exclusively French products, said sales have been down 40 to 50 percent since February. Her small firm, with four employees, sells Limoges porcelain, hand-painted candles picturing Parisian scenes, and other French-oriented products to big mail-order houses and other large U.S. companies.

"It's a very, very deep reaction," said Carreras, who is French. "We would never have expected something so lasting. I think it has been accelerating even in the last four weeks."

The importers, angry and frustrated, said the government in Paris did not comprehend the effect of its war position on French businesses.

Touton has tried to fight the trend by pledging to give $1 for every case of wine he sells to the USO to help U.S. troops in Iraq. He has done it for two weeks but it hasn't helped much. He said he thinks that business will pick up only when Chirac stops making anti-U.S. statements.

"We want to send the message to the French side to please do something. Or, if you don't want to do anything, then please shut up," Touton said.


© 2003 The Washington Post Company

HA!!!!
IT'S WORKING

[CZ-75]

The American backlash apparently is having little or no impact on business with Germany, the other major European country that actively opposed the war. A survey by the Association of German Chambers of Commerce and Industry of more than 300 German companies doing business in the United States found no effect.

Probably because they actually sell stuff we want. Champagne is nice, but too expensive to be more than a luxury and certainly something I can do without, or substitute some other sparkling wine for. Pretty much the same for other wines. Same for cheese. That's about it for French products I've actually bought or am likely to buy. Au revoir et a tout a l'heure, mes amis.

[PATH]

Chirac went to great lengths to frustrate the U.S.. The Russians and the Germans were not as virulently anti-American!

Remember the over flight refusal when we went to pay our Libyan friends a visit. It cost us pilots!

The French can go to HELL! If it says "Made in France" I shall not buy it! Economics be damned!!! It is one thing to not support someone, it is quite another to actively subvert someones actions as France did!

My message to Chirac and his countrymen...DROP DEAD!!!