Asymmetrical Information

Don't forget the Chilean wines. Some are very good.

Anyone know synonym for shadenfreude, I am personally boycotting the use of German words? Thanks.

forgot the c : - (

Hey, every little bit hurts the French economy. Why should we back down? After all, one third of the French citizenry wanted us to lose the war! These vile scum bags are starting to get the message. The real test will be the vacations: how many Americans will decide to visit Poland or our other coalition partners instead of Paris?

I am proud of being an Old European basher. They need to change their ways and cease being the slime of the earth. Americans are forgiving people and the door is not forever closed. It’s all up to them. In the meantime, I strongly urge everyone to stick it to these immoral clowns.

Re: 'schadenfreude'

Hey, that's an English word now! If we were going to drop all French imports from our vocabulary, we'd end up speaking Old English and sounding like characters in Beowolf.

Jim

And if we dropped all the German ones, too, we'd be pretty much reduced to "tor", "whisky", and a handful of Latin. Say...

The high profile of France in the alcohol biz means that using alcohol as one's drug of choice will always kick back benefits to the French regardless of your personal anti-French stance. Better to express your boycott by switching to a non-alcohol drug. Opium helps support many members of our Coalition of the Willing, while nicotine and methamphetamines are home-grown products that show faith in good old American manufacture.

I want to see the public service TV spot where a man on the subway with a bottle of wine is confronted by the ghosts of our inadequately supported and sanctioned troops. But I doubt that I ever will: I don't take enough hallucinogens for that.
--G

Enjoy your visit to scenic Gdansk, David.

"On the up side, it's nice that Americans are finally starting to give Spanish, Italian, and Australian wines their due."

and we do not even get to see the best australian wines over here.

"I am proud of being an Old European basher. They need to change their ways and cease being the slime of the earth. Americans are forgiving people and the door is not forever closed. It’s all up to them. "

david, i assume that there will be significant amounts of grovelling and kow-towing required for the europeans before forgiveness will be granted for opposing the us will?

A report on local radio (WRKO 680AM Boston) said that Spain has replaced France as the top vacation destination for Brits. Spain had been a distant second.

It was a joke :-(

I don't understand why the boycott has to hit the French consumer to be effective. Why is it not sufficient for the boycott to begin noticeably hitting the French producers of these goods, sufficient to cause them to start complaining to French politicians (which has apparently begun to happen, according to yesterday's WaPo)?

Definitely good luck avoiding German-derived words in English, since English is a descendant of German!

Gee thanks.

Oh great, Jane finally gives me to opportunity to make fun of the french and I can't think of anything else to add.

wait until summer when Paris looks like a (relative) ghost town -- tourism is gonna get slaughtered ..

“david, i assume that there will be significant amounts of grovelling and kow-towing required for the europeans before forgiveness will be granted for opposing the us will?”

Yup, you are starting to get the picture. The United States must reward its friends---and punish its enemies. Once again, a third of all French citizens wanted us to lose the war. Therefore, let the groveling and kowtowing begin!

Why did the French think that they could get away with their vileness? My guess is that these jerks listened to the our so called Liberal academic elite. The French pseudo intellectuals intimidate our Leftist useful idiots. The latter shove their tongues up the rear ends of the Jacque Derridas and Michael Foucaults. We must realize that the French are mostly poorly educated individuals who are given far too much credit for their bilingual abilities. They deserve both our pity and contempt.

Don't forget California wines...

Could everyone just go a little easy on the self-righteousness here?

The US has been in bed with plenty of tyrants in the past, including, when it was convenient, Saddam Hussein.

As Jane pointed out in a previous post, nations pursue their self-interest. The French did that. Maybe they were wrong, even about their own interests. But just because it didn't coincide with US interests that doesn't make them our enemies. It doesn't make them slime and scum or whatever other insults David Thomson wants to spew.

French history has shameful and noble moments, as does American history. The bashing is seriously out of hand.

I'm going to go out tonight and buy a bottle of French wine to demonstrate my support of diversity of opinion and legitimate disagreement. I'm also going to buy a bottle of Virginia wine to support my local economy and a bottle of Australian wine to thank the Aussies for being solid partners through thick and thin. I won't buy anything British because they don't make anything worth buying.

They make a few decent beers...

Bernard, I don't want to go out of my way to bash the French (heck, I happen to be working at a French-owned company today), but... It's not that the French were looking out for their own interests, it's that they did this by actively blocking what we saw as our interests.

I think most Americans wouldn't have minded if Chirac kept trying to persuade us to leave Saddam Hussein alone, and said France wouldn't participate in any attack. But he actively put barriers in our way: after getting us to accept Resolution 1441, France threatened to veto any followup resolution with an actual timetable. Chirac lambasted the Eastern European countries for supporting us, and made noises about blocking their entry into the EU. And then blocked Nato from supplying defenses to Turkey (until we went around France, and all the other Nato countries agreed).

Chirac didn't quite do everything in his power to prevent us from attacking Iraq (we did have access to French airspace, and no French troops were sent to fight for the Iraqis), but he came close.

I think it will take more than kowtowing and groveling before most Americans see France as a friendly country, frankly. (BTW, it's not the "europeans", cas, it's the French [and maybe the Germans].) Right now, I think they may end up in a category with China and Russia, sort of the "Axis of Countries We Keep At Arm's Length". And since France is nowhere near as big or important as Russia or China, we'll probably find it easy to avoid doing business (politically, I mean) with them.

This sounds like a rhetorical question, but I don’t mean it to be. I really don’t pay too much attention to foreign policy because most of the reporting that I see (that makes a point of complaining about US perfidy) seems incorrigibly tendentious and I have no alternative bit of expertise against which to validate anything.

That being said, how many times has the US government actively opposed the overthrow of an unambiguously totalitarian dictatorship when the alternative had a realistic chance of improving the lot of the populace? (i.e., 60’s and 70’s style communist rebellions that would leave Soviet puppets don’t count as they presented no realistic hope of improvement for the local population, irrespective of their affect on official US interests.)

David, don't go to Gdansk, it used to be Danzig! I think Warsaw would be a better choice.

That being said, how many times has the US government actively opposed the overthrow of an unambiguously totalitarian dictatorship when the alternative had a realistic chance of improving the lot of the populace? (i.e., 60’s and 70’s style communist rebellions that would leave Soviet puppets don’t count as they presented no realistic hope of improvement for the local population, irrespective of their affect on official US interests.)

The United States sent the 6th fleet to deter India from liberating East Pakistan (Bangladesh) from the genocidal (West) Pakistan. India called our bluff and split the country in two, but was deterred from invading West Pakistan proper. The United States in that war was squarely on the side of the genocidal evil-doers.

Anyway, your paranthetical qualification makes the question to narrow to be really revealing. Just because the Soviets backed one side didn't make their proxies "puppets" or hopelessly Stalinist. The Sandanistas were not Stalinists and were preferrable, however marginally, to the Samoza regime.

Also, there aren't very many Cold War-era examples that I can think of of a foreign army invading another country in order to overthrow a dictatorial regime, other than the India example. There were lots of proxy civil wars, but few out-and-out invasions. But we did back a lot of brutal regimes for purely political purposes, which should kind of take the steam out of our moral righteousness.

Amitava said, "[During the Cold War] we did back a lot of brutal regimes for purely political purposes..." which is true, but his conclusion, "...which should kind of take the steam out of our moral righteousness," doesn't hold. Given the nature of the world during the Cold War, and given the Soviet desire to establish the "dar al-Communism" over the entire planet, we didn't have much choice--either hold our nose and ally with little monsters, or take the moral high ground and allow the great monster of Communism to inflict tens of billions more person-years of oppression by our failure to use proxies to fight it.

Alternatively, Amitava, if calling Communism a "great monster" displeases you (I'm not saying it does, I'm merely addressing the possibility because I don't know), consider World War II, where Stalin was, at the time, the lesser of two evils. Was the US' moral righteousness during WWII tainted because Stalin was our ally?

Raymund:

I actually don't disagree with you. I have no illusions about the threat the Soviets presented, both geopolitically and morally. And I certainly don't object to calling Communism a "great monster" or whatever epithet one wants to apply.

But I also think that as a moral nation, we do have an obligation to maintain a critical eye on our own policies to ensure that they measure up to our own standards and the standards we apply to others. We frequently failed to do so, and the result is that a lot of people are skeptical of our claims to unquestioned moral authority.

I think that the liberation of Bangladesh is a pretty good example. Up to 3 million were systematically killed in about a year. Military men, scholars, and teachers were targeted. (The actual number is difficult to verify, but all estimates are in the millions.) There just can be no question about what should have been more important to us: ending genocide and supporting India's action, not protecting a corrupt and genocidal ally.

French wine is just the beginning. They own half the booze producers you could think of - stuff like Wild Turkey, all kinds of stuff.

Clearly, the answer is to avoid alcohol entirely and switch to certain, um, american-grown plant substances.

Keep your mood altering dollars in america!

Recently, the travel section of the local paper had a good feature about Bratislava, in what is now the
Slovak Republic. There's a big castle outside of town, and the streets look cleaner than those in many major American cities. There's also Vienna and other Eastern European countries where they've managed to scrub off the dirt, both moral and physical, of the Soviet occupation. This thread reminds me of an Oliphant cartoon done when American travel to Europe went down because of (surprise!) terrorism. It depicted French waiters reduced to insulting each other because they had no tourists to degrade. Perhaps that's what will
happen this summer.

"I'm going to go out tonight and buy a bottle of French wine to demonstrate my support of diversity of opinion and legitimate disagreement. I'm also going to buy a bottle of Virginia wine to support my local economy and a bottle of Australian wine"

Amitava, with a shopping list like that,you may want to consider adding a bottle of Bayer aspirin to it. :-)

I think "actively opposing the overthrow," is a bit restrictive. We clearly supported unpleasant regimes. We assisted in the overthrow of Allende and supported the very repressive Pinochet regime, not to mention Marcos, etc. We didn't do much about apartheid until 1985 or so, under great public pressure. (Reagan even claimed, in 1984, that there was no segregation in South Africa).

We aided in the overthrow of Mossadegh, the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran, and helped to install the Shah.

This suggests that there may have been a self-fulfilling prophecy aspect to some of our policies. Popular uprisings get support where they can, and tend not to like the ruler's pals. Would the Iranian revolution have been less anti-American if we had been less thick with the Shah? Were Latin American opposition groups necessarily Marxist, or was this partly a result of American support of despots?

I don't want to indict all of our foreign policies, or sound like one of those people who sees the US as the world's great villain. I do want to point out that it is not without reason that some people find our posturing as the light of the universe a bit much.

Let me make a point about Iraq. I think it is a very good thing that Hussein's regime has been destroyed. But was that our objective? Suppose Hussein had behaved differently, and simply opened up to inspectors, allowing the destruction of whatever WMD were found.
Would we have attacked, and liberated the country? I don't think so. We didn't care a fig what he did to his own people until 1991, and once he left Kuwait we were happy to leave him in power.

So whatever the outcome, I don't think we can realistically claim we were motivated by the desire to free Iraq. Let's not send in the application for national sainthood just yet.

Bernard: Who exactly has been claiming that this war was motivated by the desire to free Iraq? This war is, first and foremost, concerned with our national security. It is a very, very (I can't emphasize this enough) good side effect that we are helping the Iraqi people. But again - it wasn't the primary goal.

The more willing cooperation from North Korea could be listed under those "unintended but nonetheless helpful and good" consequences.

I expect that U.S - France relations will improve rapidly when Chirac is gone. I expect he will be gone soon.

Americans, while imperfect, don't care for perfidy. It causes wine to taste like vinegar and gives cheese an unpleasant aftertaste.

I was going to spend a few weeks in Paris this spring, visiting my sister and her family, but instead, we're going to Poland. It's a lovely country and one with which not many Americans are familiar. I'm told it's a lovely place, and what's better, the people like Americans.

The British have loved Claret and despised the bloody Frogs for centuries. I drink a lot more wines from Spain, Italy, Australia because the prices are better for everyday sorts of wine but I'll continue to drink/collect French wines while abhoring their policies and the despicable moral jellyfish who enact them.

Demosthenes, you really think that the increase in cooperation by Pyongyang is an unintended consequence?

Don't remove German (and French words) from your speech. Instead, use as many as you possible can, but *mispronounce them*. Steal them for the English language, while at the same time deeply irritating fans of the donor language.

My wife, who is from Quebec, becomes deeply irritated whenever she hears someone pronounce "deja vu". I keep telling her it's an english word now, and it's being pronounced correctly - in english. For some reason that only seems to piss her off more.

Anyway, my point is that Thomas Stewart's suggestion above has some merit.

John Brennan wrote: wait until summer when Paris looks like a (relative) ghost town -- tourism is gonna get slaughtered ..

This is actually going to be an interesting summer to watch as far as tourism goes. Where is a lonely American to go if he can't visit much of Europe (for political reasons) or Asia (for health reasons, ie. SARS).

Good thing we now have Baghdad :)

Bernard your comment

French history has shameful and noble moments.

and what exactly are their noble moments, since 1940?

Demosthenes,

I have no substantial disagreement with what you say.

In fact, a big part of my point is that too many are now acting as if our main motive was not self-defense at all, but an altruistic and heroic desire to free the Iraqis from their oppression. And from that retrospective change is emerging what I find to be an unjustifiable sense of superiority.

Bernard, your silence?

may we agree that the last noble cause of france was the belated defense of poland. once the french realize that, we may once again speak of liberty in unison.

"and what exactly are their noble moments, since 1940?"

so, twd asks what have you done for me lately?

i know it is going back a wee bit before 1940 or even 1840 (and so it is outside the parameters you set, but the american war of independence (which helped destroy the french gov't that supported it). but that is a minor thing, i know.

For those thinking of taking their tourist dollars to the more friendly areas of Eastern Europe, I highly recommend the following places:

Czech Republic -- Prague (duh)
Hungary -- Budapest
Poland -- Krakow
Estonia -- Tallinn
Croatia -- coastal cities of Split, Pula, and Dubrovnik

Also, I haven't been there myself, but my coworkers rave about Slovenia -- including Ljubljana, but especially Lake Bled.

Depending on what you're looking for, I think any of these places are great alternatives to Axis of Weasel locations, and your dollars will go a lot farther (except for Prague, which pretty much has Western Europe prices already).

i agree with gary v re poland,
krakow is a beautiful city, with a happening night-life, history, and beautiful churches, hotels,close to amazing underground salt mines, relatively close also to the incredibly sorrowful, humbling, and weighty presence of oswiecim-brzezinka (auschwitz-birkenau), the church of Our Lady of Czhestowa, etc.

i found warsaw to be still recovering from the stalinist architectural monstrosities of the 50s. wroclaw is a great college town. if you get a chance, check out bialowieski national park in the east (i understand it to have the only extant remaining old growth forest in europe), zakopane in the southern mountains, and silena in the south east (lakes and summer resort). gdansk is great to visit to get a sense of the birthplace of solidarity.

cas, that was the kingdom (the king )of france not the republic. notwithstanding, cas you did answer my question in spades.

tmd,
ouch!!

"and what exactly are their noble moments, since 1940?"

depending on what you mean by "noble" would you, could you, consider the failed defence of dien bien phu (1953-54) as a brave but ultimately futile effort (lots of mistakes, etc, but great gesture?). they were outnumbered 8-10:1. etc,

and pj/maryland,
"I think it will take more than kowtowing and groveling before most Americans see France as a friendly country, frankly. (BTW, it's not the "europeans", cas, it's the French [and maybe the Germans].) Right now, I think they may end up in a category with China and Russia, sort of the "Axis of Countries We Keep At Arm's Length". And since France is nowhere near as big or important as Russia or China, we'll probably find it easy to avoid doing business (politically, I mean) with them."

i was reeling from david thomson's denunciation of "old europeanism" .... so i was asking him that question!

as for france's size, some figures i pulled from
uggabugga, http://uggabugga.blogspot.com/

Country gdp $trillions military spending $billions
United States $10.08 $300.0
China $6.00 $55.0
Japan $3.55 $40.7
India $2.66 $12.0
Germany $2.18 $38.8
France $1.54 $46.5
United Kingdom $1.52 $31.7
Italy $1.43 $20.2
Russia $1.27 $50.0
Canada $0.92 $7.8

source CIA World Factbook,& for russia military spending http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mo-budget.htm

france is not that small. but i am happy to report that canada, is only 10% the size of the us economy (so let the boycotts begin!!!)

Bernard: I'm sure there are people who say that. But keep in mind that a lot of us do remember why we're really over there. I am absolutely thrilled that we've been able to help the people over there in many ways - but the first priority, imho, is keeping us safe. If that sounds callous or mean, well - that's just how I feel. I won't apologize for that.

Anony-mouse: Ah, I suppose "unintended" wasn't the best choice of word. It would have been better, perhaps to say that it was a pleasant and forseeable side effect, although not the focus of the operation.

cas, the soldiers may have been noble but the government? so france's nobility is relegated to defending its colonial possessions. and the highlight of that nobility must be the 1956 suez crisis.

hi twd,

"cas, the soldiers may have been noble but the government?"

goodness me, you are so hard to please! anymore after the fact caveats/restrictions you want to place on this question you asked---? so i know what actual final question i am dealing with here? how about "noble deeds on sundays only" for fifty points?

suez: hmm, remind me, was that where the us worked to hold back a planned invasion of egypt by a couple of euro powers, using much of the same rhetoricthat some euros recently used against the us?

cas, in retrospect you are right, there was a nobility at dien bien phu. french solidiers understood the bands of botherhood which war brings. it is nobility shared by all who fight for something other than just themselves.

how could i have been so crass, cas?

What are France's noble moments? What a stupid question. What are Romania's noble moments, or Poland's or Hungary's? We get all the "noble" moments because we were the leaders of the free world. The credit pretty much goes to us, despite all the contributions smaller nations make. France sent troops to both Korea and the Gulf War. Are they less noble for that than the United States? France turned against the apartheid regime before the United States. I guess that doesn't count. The EU under French and German leadership give three times the amount of foreign aid than does the US, by percentage of GDP. How much does France give to treat AIDS abroad? I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if (by percentage of GDP) it would be more than the US.

I guess if you dig around, people all over the world do honorable things. The notion that the French are somehow congenitally deficient in morality and courage is just so stupid, I can fathom anyone smart enough to read Jane Galt would think it.

Oh, and by the way. The French helped us defeat the Soviet Union.

Amitava, the only reason frankenreich can be so generous is that we've been the bulk of their military for 6 decades. They chose social programs. Did you know that 1-2 weeks before the 2/15 march, more french marched to save their pensions? And why do you think we have to pay such high prices for drugs? We're subsidizing that, too.

France might have helped us defeat the USSR, but the way they're going, they're trying to find a way to make communism work.

Demosthenes,

You asked, "Who exactly has been claiming that this war was motivated by the desire to free Iraq? This war is, first and foremost, concerned with our national security."

That last may be true (and I think it is), but I'm sure the phrase 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' rings a bell.

It may well be that, as you say, "the first priority, imho, is keeping us safe," but I don't think you can deny that at some point in the ad campaign, our administration shifted its sales pitch to freeing Iraq.

One would, if one were cynical, wonder about the administration's integrity given such a bald-faced try at feel-good marketeering. That is if one believed that this war was, pure and simple, a matter of national security.

Cheers,

>>Hey, every little bit hurts the French economy. Why should we back down?

Because every little bit hurts the American economy a little bit more. Do they not teach Adam Smith these days?

hi twd,
"there was a nobility at dien bien phu. french solidiers understood the bands of botherhood which war brings. it is nobility shared by all who fight for something other than just themselves. "

that was well spoken. i wish i could have said that. now i can! thanks.

"'>>Hey, every little bit hurts the French economy. Why should we back down?'

Because every little bit hurts the American economy a little bit more. Do they not teach Adam Smith these days?"

That is indeed true. However, this is a price we should gladly pay. The French must suffer for their treachery. They are responsible for the deaths of our troops. French companies were even selling military equipment to Saddam Hussein up to a few months before the war.

Many people are starving to death due to the idiocy of the French. They have been at the forefront of the junk science movement to fight against genetically modified foods. These are truly despicable and childishly immature human beings.

Hey, let's not forget the Canadians. These scum bags have also betrayed us.

I half-heartedly supported the war, but I think the boycott is silly, and I'm going to France for a month.

I agree with Charles, except I don't tend to buy a great number of French products. I prefer California, Australian and Washington State wines (try Chateau St. Michelle. Name may be french but it's all USA). I don't speak french and the one time I was in france they were rude to me.

I have no problem with the ban as long as it economically hurts France, but I have no issue with eating in US french restaurants. We need to make sure if we really do boycott, we boycott the things that hurt France and not the things that hurt us. (I say this because Lespinasse is closing this week.)

Rofe: I won't disagree with what you've said - and I myself am a bit cynical, particularly when it comes to our government. As far as the little catchphrase goes, I have to admit I don't really care what they call it. I suppose that "Operation Iraqi Freedom" has a nicer ring than, say, "Operation Iraqi Disarmament" or some such. Manipulation of public perception is not limited to this war, or to this administration. Propaganda aside, I still believe this is about our security. The additional benefits are great, and in some cases probably absolutely intended, but that doesn't mean they are the focus.

In addition, I'll point out that liberating Iraq *is* in our national security interest. I'm sure you would agree that for us to disarm Iraq while allowing a despotic dictator to continue running the country, would make the entire effort a waste of time.

Sigh. I hate being sucked in to defend Canada. I'm starting to lose the heart for it.

That being said, I'm not sure that you can characterize Canada's actions as a betrayal. We sat on our hands, which I think was cowardly and wrong, but there was no active opposition and no committments broken, at least that I'm aware of.

Among Canadians, support for the war has generally run about equal to opposition for it and recent polls show a large majority who feel Canada should have at least provided moral support to the US. Many of us are disgusted with the Chretien government's stance on this - not just the failure to aid an ally but the entire way it was handled.

If people want to boycott, I can't really say it's entirely unjustified. But we're not France. I like to think of us more like Britain with really crappy leadership.

Demosthenes,

I don't disagree with your latest, either. (Sorry, folks - yawn - maybe I should yell 'troll' to shake things up. But I digress.)

To play devil's advocate, one could make the argument that if we disarmed Iraq "while allowing a despotic dictator to continue running the country", we would have fulfilled the national security mission. End of story. Let the rest of the chips fall where they may. But who could be so cynical to let things go at that ?

What I've begun to worry about, now that the scutty details of nation building lie ahead, is whether this administration is in it for the long haul. From the 'no nation building' campaign rhetoric to the 'no war plans on my desk' fib to the 'national security / WMD / terrorism connection / Iraqi freedom' square dance, there's a lot of dissembling going down. Or at least some of it's dissembling, though I can't tell which.

Funny, but with the war handily won (and sincerest kudos to our military), I find myself trusting this administration even less than I did before the war.

Cheers,

PS - Don't forget South African wines or Italian cheese, if your convictions lie in the direction of boycotting France.

Kate, the French are often rude to everyone--even other French people. Or one could say their definition of politeness is different from ours.

Even among friends they like to argue, so it's quite possible that they just can't see how their foreign policy strikes others as arrogant. On the other hand, those people who feel US foreign policy is arrogant are wrong--right?

Charles,

Touche. Brilliant. Made it worth staying these last fifteen minutes in the office before the Easter holiday !

Cheers,

Sure, Rofe - we could have just disarmed Saddam and left. At which point we could attempt inspections for yet another 12 years while he played more games and developed weapons again.

Like I said before - the whole operation would have been a waste of time. We could have just kept pissing with the UN if we were going to do that. It would have had the same effect.

Boycott away. You're only hurting yourselves. The U.S. is dependent on massive foreign investment to finance its astronomical levels of public and private debt. Since most of the world agrees with France, and not with the U.S., regarding the war with Iraq, perhaps they will retaliate by withdrawing their investments from America, plunging the country into a deeper and more protracted recession. What goes around comes around.

Don P: "... most of the world agrees with France, and not with the U.S., regarding the war with Iraq ..."

Uh, Don, not even most of Europe agrees with France.

Zut:

Uh, Don, not even most of Europe agrees with France.

Uh, yes it does. In only one country other than the U.S. (Israel) did a majority of the population support the war against Iraq. All the rest of the world agreed with France. Even in Britain, the U.S.'s supposed ally, a majority of the population opposed the war.

Actually, Don, the foreign investment picture in the US is nowhere near that simple. Foreigners invest in the US because their money is safer here, and they can (sometimes) make money here. They're certainly not being attracted by our interest rates at the moment, with home mortgages going for 5%.

It certainly wouldn't help the US economy for foreign investors to sell, but they'd have to find someone to sell to, and they'd probably do so at a loss (a massive loss, if everyone tries to sell).

And a logical question would be, why haven't all these anti-war foreign investors already sold? Maybe they have, in which case the market should start picking up any day now?

Then there's the question of where these investors should put their (reduced) capital.

PJ:

Some foreign investors may sell at a loss but that doesn't mean they won't do it, and harm the U.S. economy as a result. And others may not sell but simply stop investing further.

Those proposing an American boycott of French products are proposing that American consumers harm themselves economically by refusing to buy products they want and otherwise would purchase. If you want to provoke a global trade and investment war, go ahead. But you'll end up hurting yourself, and many other people who bear no responsibility for the actions you seek to punish. Since virtually every other country is on the side of France in the dispute over the war, it is America that is likely to suffer the most damage.

By the way, Eugene Volokh has an interesting discussion of boycotts over at the Volokh Conspiracy. He seems to lean to the view that in general boycotts are intolerant and unethical and should therefore be avoided. This is of course independent of the argument that boycotts may harm the party that is doing the boycotting, as well as, and perhaps more than, the party that is being boycotted.

I don't think prof. Volokh is arguing that boycotts are unethical. I believe he is personally torn on the issue of whether or not actively organizing/encouraging others to boycott is unethical. I didn't see anything that indicated he has ethical problems with individuals independently making up their own minds not to buy certain products for whatever reason.

But it is an interesting question and his analysis is worth reading. Here's a link to the most recent post. Scroll down for more.

http://volokh.blogspot.com/2003_04_13_volokh_archive.html#200162839

Sean E:

Well, he says, for example:

"we should ... take seriously ... the arguments that it is indeed unethical and in the long run harmful to try to economically retaliate against people in certain ways based on certain kinds of speech."

"Because every little bit hurts the American economy a little bit more. Do they not teach Adam Smith these days?"

That is indeed true. However, this is a price we should gladly pay. The French must suffer for their treachery."

david, i have to admit that i do not know what to make of this comment. why should we cut off our nose to spite our face? so it won't run at some point in the future. with all due respect, economic variations of this kind of thing, together with reatilatory replies in kind helped lead the world into depression in the 30s (protectionism, competitive devaluation, etc).

as an addendum to the discussion on another scenario of who would be hurt in all this, i draw your attention to an article:

"Now look at the US, as British economist Wynne Godley does in a recent paper for the Levy Economics Institute (quoted by Martin Wolf in The Financial Times). The story of the US in the '90s was remarkably like Australia in the '80s, only more so.

While the Clinton administration built up budget surpluses to run down debt, the private sector went on a borrowing binge in which it swung from saving to borrowing to the tune of an incredible 11 percentage points of the gross domestic product. The result was a steadily widening current account deficit.

But because of the fascination of investors with the new economy and the lack of attractive investment returns elsewhere, particularly after the Asian crash, the US had no trouble financing it with a flood of capital.

But according to Godley's calculations, using conservative assumptions about US growth, interest rates and private borrowing behaviour, this can't go on. As the private sector swings back to saving, even if only modestly, the US is heading for current account and budget deficits of the order of 8 per cent or 9 per cent of GDP, with implied foreign borrowing rising from about 25 per cent of GDP to 60 per cent.

The US may be able to sustain the deterioration for some time if it is seen as the best place to invest, as it may be because of the poor economic performance of Europe and even more so Japan. But it is unlikely to be sustainable politically or in financial markets indefinitely. Investors have already taken a pretty big haircut betting on US share prices and the dollar.

So how to adjust? A huge rise in US exports relative to its imports would do it, but that needs a powerful demand expansion outside the US, and how is that going to come about given the state of the European and Japanese economies? Well, a large depreciation of the US dollar could do the trick, but is likely to be resisted by US trading partners.

Godley's conclusion, which seems all too plausible, is that the US economy will not recovery properly and there will be a long, depressing era of growth recession. Unless, of course, the US can revive the new-economy miracle. Don't hold your breath."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,6283888%255E7583,00.html

or as john quiggin suggested (15 april 2003- http://johnquiggin.blogspot.com/)--that looks a lot like stagflation...

Comments are Closed.