Boycotting things French German and Russian
- Thread starter George Hill
- Start date
- Status
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
Trade deficit? What's that?
Just for fun, go to http://www.tradealert.org/ticker_home.asp
db
Augustwest
Member
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.
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.
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
Member
Daniel
"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-
"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
Member
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.
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
Member
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.....
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.....
Last edited:
Selfdfenz-
I stated:
Furthermore, I don't doubt that the German, French, and Russian governments are supporting Saddam through their inaction.
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.
I stated:
Furthermore, I don't doubt that the German, French, and Russian governments are supporting Saddam through their inaction.
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.
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.
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
Member
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
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
Member
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
Member
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!!!
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!!!
- Status