Foreign Boycotts May be Contributing to Amerikkka's Financial Woes

[Michael Tee]

Blogger Sherwin Ross - - http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/30324 - -  has some interesting things to say about foreign boycotts - - some organized, some unorganized - - that may be responsible to some degree for Amerikkka's declining balance of trade.  Ross relies on some very wide-ranging data from all over.  A survey of Canadians and Europeans for example that finds 20% of respondents were making an effort to avoid purchasing American goods and services.  Indian MP's have called for boycotts.  Middle Eastern groups have as well.  I can't summarize it all here, but the article traces the growth of anti-American feeling and gives many specific examples of boycotts of all sizes, large and organized , small and spontaneous.  Organized or not, I think it's entirely possible that a sharp rise in anti-U.S. feeling will lead to total or partial boycotting of U.S. goods, officially or unofficially.

[Plane]

A crisis of the US economy has direct and immediate global implications. The International Monetary Fund warns that ?risks to domestic demand in western Europe and Japan have now shifted to the downside? as a result of the ?contagion? emanating from the United States. (World Economic Outlook, October 2007, p. 11) Also, the IMF anticipates that ?continuing turbulence in global financial markets could disrupt financial flows to emerging markets and trigger problems in domestic markets... [G]rowth [in Asia and Latin America] would be vulnerable to spillover effects from slower aggregate demand growth in the advanced economies...? [ibid., p. 19]
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jan2008/rept-j11.shtml#top


Yep , bring it on if you like it.

[Michael Tee]

I don't know what "bring it on if you like" really means.  People who are lashing out at the United States have not figured out all the consequences and very few of them have much to lose anyway.  It's not as if they have been living in the lap of luxury.  They've been hearing unfulfilled promises of future prosperity from the IMF and the World Bank for generations now, and gotten precious little to show for it.  So I think they are following their own hearts and not the dictates of the IMF (most of which are along the lines of "stay away from socialism, obey the U.S.A.'s foreign policy, crush your labour unions, arrest all subversives and we will lend you the money you need to pull yourselves out of poverty.")

It all sounds good but they've been hearing that shit for several generations now.  The IMF can make the leaders of those countries multi-millionaires or even billionaires, it can saddle the next ten generations with debt, but in terms of raising the living standards of the people of the country, it can't do jack-shit.  Did you read the linked article?  If people are just deciding on their own, or at grass-roots level, not to buy American, I'd say a more rational response is indicated for your own good.

[Plane]

We have done this before.

When the US looses one everyone elese looses ten.


Check out the prvious recessions that have been caused by hickups in the US or Japanese (number one and two ) ecoinomies.

We will have a hard time , the middle will have an awfull time ,and the third world will have death.

Interdependance is not a game of theft , it is a game with mutual winners in which participants feed each other.

http://www.stjosephs.ch/kofcwinter2007.pdf

Food for thought
A holy man was having a conversation with the Lord one day and said, "Lord, I would like to know what Heaven and Hell are like."
The Lord led the holy man to two doors. He opened one of the doors and the holy man looked in. In the middle of the room was a large round table. In the middle of the table was a large pot of stew which smelled delicious and made the holy man's mouth water. The people sitting around the table were thin and sickly. They appeared to be famished. They were holding spoons with very long handles that were strapped to their arms and each found it possible to reach into the pot of stew and take a spoonful, but because the handle was longer than their arms, they could not get the spoons back into their mouths.
The holy man shuddered at the sight of their misery and suffering. The Lord said, "You have seen Hell."
They went to the next room and opened the door. It was exactly the same as the first one. There was the large round table with the large pot of stew which made the holy man's mouth water. The people were equipped with the same long-handled spoons, but here the people were well nourished and plump, laughing and talking.
The holy man said, "I don't understand."
"It is simple," said the Lord, "it requires but one skill. You see, they have learned to feed each other, while the greedy think only of themselves."
When Jesus died on the cross he was thinking of you! So too must you think of others.
Frank Taylor
Treasurer

[Michael Tee]

Bizarre post, plane, since the world is not kept alive by the U.S., the world will not starve if the U.S. economy goes into a tailspin.  The Chinese, the Indians, the Brazilians, the Arabs and/or the Europeans will do what needs to be done.  Perhaps they will even have to feed the U.S.   

Or if the task is too big for the Chinese, the Indians, etc., the people will continue to starve and die just as they did when the U.S.A. was flush with money. 

[Plane]

Bizarre post, plane, since the world is not kept alive by the U.S., the world will not starve if the U.S. economy goes into a tailspin.  The Chinese, the Indians, the Brazilians, the Arabs and/or the Europeans will do what needs to be done.  Perhaps they will even have to feed the U.S.   

Or if the task is too big for the Chinese, the Indians, etc., the people will continue to starve and die just as they did when the U.S.A. was flush with money. 

I hope they are inclined to feed us as we have been feeding them , but I doubt their ability to do so in the near term. Perhaps after they have had a few more decades of evolution and advancement .

Much of the word has depended on the US sence the era of the first world war, this is not something you hear ,as often as you see.

Herbert Hoover first gained fame when he organised the relief of Europes post war famine . Eurpe has ben eating American grain ever since , even the USSR often was seen t borrow German money and buy American grain. Yo would think that they would borrow German funds and buy German Grain wouldn't you? But this has not been posible.

BTW How dare you argue with the great and wise Fidel Castro? How can you forget that he predicted world famine as a potential of the US makeing much of its feilds grow fuel rather than xport grain? He knows the truth the reat of the world has still got a lot of catchng up to do to match the productivity of the US , which has been selling grain almost too cheaply for nine decades.

BBtw this is one of the props of the Dollar , more so than oil ,which we haven't exported since I was a child.

[Michael Tee]

<<Much of the word has depended on the US sence the era of the first world war, this is not something you hear ,as often as you see.>>

Well they sure as hell haven't had much from the U.S. lately.  I don't even believe the Americans were as generous as you claim they were.  Some facts and figures would be appreciated.

<<Herbert Hoover first gained fame when he organised the relief of Europes post war famine. >>

That's ancient history, plane.

<<Eurpe has ben eating American grain ever since , even the USSR often was seen t borrow German money and buy American grain. Yo would think that they would borrow German funds and buy German Grain wouldn't you? But this has not been posible.>>

Well if Europe was eating American grain ever since, who the hell has been eating Canadian grain?  For that matter, who the hell has been eating Argentinian grain?

I don't know when Fidel said what you claim he said, but I think today there's no danger of that happening.  Besides when anyone, including Fidel, predicts the future, he's got to expect a degree of uncertainty.   If anyone COULD predict the future, it would be Fidel, but I don't beleive anyone can.

[Plane]

<<Much of the word has depended on the US sence the era of the first world war, this is not something you hear ,as often as you see.>>

Well they sure as hell haven't had much from the U.S. lately.  I don't even believe the Americans were as generous as you claim they were.  Some facts and figures would be appreciated.

<<Herbert Hoover first gained fame when he organised the relief of Europes post war famine. >>

That's ancient history, plane.

Not if it never stopped.

<<Eurpe has ben eating American grain ever since , even the USSR often was seen t borrow German money and buy American grain. Yo would think that they would borrow German funds and buy German Grain wouldn't you? But this has not been posible.>>

Well if Europe was eating American grain ever since, who the hell has been eating Canadian grain?  For that matter, who the hell has been eating Argentinian grain?

I don't know when Fidel said what you claim he said, but I think today there's no danger of that happening.  Besides when anyone, including Fidel, predicts the future, he's got to expect a degree of uncertainty.   If anyone COULD predict the future, it would be Fidel, but I don't beleive anyone can.

The USSR bougt all the grain it could when it had some bad crop years in the 70's includeing Canadian and Argentenian &et cetra ,but add them all to gether and compre American production for export , the were forced to borrow from Germany because that is where the money was and buy from the US because that is where the grain was.


http://www.escambray.cu/Eng/Special/Reflections%20by%20Fidel%20Castro/Cfoodstuff0704041245.htm

Fidel has a point , Americans are feeding three billion people who are not Americans , but as usual his understanding of the situation is incomplete.

If we raise fuel crops it will be because we need to ,and not as a matter of choice. Our crops cannot be raised or delivered without fuel so what can he be offering as an alternative idea?

We arn't going to raise and deliver cheap grains with expensive fuel and feterlizer , the means of feeding the world needs to be revamped in some way before the peak oil phenominon makes us helpless to provide the food that has made a liar of Rev. Malthus untill now.

[Michael Tee]

in millions of bushels in 2003
CORN  million bushels
USA         257
CHINA      114
BRAZIL       48
MEXICO      20

WHEAT   million bushels
CHINA         86
INDIA          65
USA            64
RUS. FED.    34

This is confusing because on same page is a little ad from a corn-growing organization that says "USA 9 billion bushels of corn"

http://nue.okstate.edu/Crop_Information/World_Wheat_Production.htm

You know to grow the stuff , you need fuel, fertilizer, equipment, etc.  See how much your dollar will buy when it loses more of its value.

[Plane]

in millions of bushels in 2003
CORN  million bushels
USA         257
CHINA      114
BRAZIL       48
MEXICO      20

WHEAT   million bushels
CHINA         86
INDIA          65
USA            64
RUS. FED.    34

This is confusing because on same page is a little ad from a corn-growing organization that says "USA 9 billion bushels of corn"

http://nue.okstate.edu/Crop_Information/World_Wheat_Production.htm

You know to grow the stuff , you need fuel, fertilizer, equipment, etc.  See how much your dollar will buy when it loses more of its value.

Yes ,with 5% ofthe worlds population we outproduce a country that has 20% of the worlds population , they need every grain they can get , we are probly able to eat somwhat less than our product.

Study your own figures , how are they supposed to prove your point and not mine?

If the dollar lost value, the grain would gain value, against the dollar and against the Euro  , if the Euro becmes the currency of trade we will sell grain for Euros , why shouldn't we?
Of course we will want the fair value , even in Euros.

[Michael Tee]

<<If the dollar lost value, the grain would gain value, against the dollar and against the Euro  , if the Euro becmes the currency of trade we will sell grain for Euros , why shouldn't we?>>

Sure.  You'd in effect become like one of today's third world countries selling their produce on the world market for the U.S. dollar and glad to get some of those dollars.  Only you'll be selling your grain for euros and glad to get those euros.

You missed the main point, plane.  You can't isolate just one export crop when you analyze the costs and benefits of the devalued dollar.  Unless you convert the whole fucking country to grain farming and give everyone a piece of the pie.  You still need to import stuff, and those euros will all vanish into the exporting country where those imports are coming from.  You lost sight of the BALANCE OF TRADE.  For every euro you take in from selling wheat - - or from American girls selling blow jobs in Shanghai brothels - - you'll have to pay two euros out for your imported goods and services.  Your standard of living will go DOWN not up.  That's inevitable.  I'm not aware of a country in history that had a net deficit in balance of trade and improved its living standards by devaluing its currency.  Your solution would be to cut back on imports, but that only turns cheap goods available to the masses into luxury items.

The figures I posted, BTW,  don't benefit my case.  I posted them as a concession to YOU.  The U.S.A. actually exports more wheat and corn than I figured, relative to other nations.  We were taught in elementary school that Canada was one of the world's granaries, along with the U.S.A., Argentina and Russia and I was kind of disappointed to see that although we were in fact exporters of grain, we weren't anywhere near the big shots in those markets that our teachers had led us to believe.

[Plane]

Sure.  You'd in effect become like one of today's third world countries selling their produce on the world market for the U.S. dollar and glad to get some of those dollars.  Only you'll be selling your grain for euros and glad to get those euros.
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]

Of couse , and who will this harm?

Agriculture has been our number one export for three hundred years without a break.
It helped us be viable when no one respected our currency and the word was "not worth a Continntal".

If Euros are the most popular , we will get some , the same way we got Pounds and Spanish dollars when those were the big currencys.

Our Economy did fine during the time that we were not consiered a world power.

Buing and selling in foreign currencys that you have earned works fine.

What doesn't work is forbidding trade in curency and mandateing an unrealistic exchange rate. The government of the USSR harmed theslves by fixing the currency at a laughabley unrealistic exchange rate , as Communists they really were forbidden to understand currency.

[Michael Tee]

I think you are just deluding yourself once again by ignoring the BALANCE of trade and focusing exclusively on selling wheat.


<<If Euros are the most popular , we will get some , the same way we got Pounds and Spanish dollars when those were the big currencys.>>

You got them by buying them.  You still get them by buying them.  What you don't seem to be able to grasp is that you will always be able to buy them, but they will cost you a lot more when the U.S. dollar is no longer the international reserve currency.  You focus insanely on how much wheat you can export.   And you ignore completely how much other stuff you have to import, from oil, dry goods, automobiles, metals and minerals.

If you want to compare the U.S. economy of the 18th century with the 21st century, the first thing you would probably notice was that the U.S. was exporting more than it imported.  Today the reverse is true.  So whatever you export in grain, every dollar earned will go back out to pay for imports, and then there still won't be enough money from grain and all your other exports to pay for all the imports.  So what happens?  You need to sell dollars.  But if the demand for dollars is low, you have to sell more dollars than you sell  now to get those euros.  The more expensive the euros are that the importers have to buy so they can pay for their imports, the more money they have to charge for those imports.  Invariably your standard of living will go down.  Because whatever goods consumers are enjoying now, less will be able to enjoy next year because they won't be able to afford them at their new prices.

You say your economy did fine back in the day.  Sure but you're not back in the day.  Your population expects more in the way of worldly goods than they did back in the day.  What's gonna happen is their standard of living will shrink.  If you're nostalgic for the good old days when Americans lived simple lives down on the farm with little luxury in their lives, get ready for a return to those days.  But don't think the population is going to relish the change.  Gasoline unaffordable.  Holidays and trips unaffordable.  Foreign clothing? unaffordable.  American clothing? pay more, get less.  Make do with less.  Medical care?  costs more.  It's like a thousand little cuts.  It adds up to longer working hours, less to show for it.

[BT]

Everything happens for a reason.

You'd be surprised how much you can do without, when you decide to do without it.

And maybe along the way some people will appreciate what they do have, most of which has little to do with tangibles.

[Plane]

I think you are just deluding yourself once again by ignoring the BALANCE of trade and focusing exclusively on selling wheat.


<<If Euros are the most popular , we will get some , the same way we got Pounds and Spanish dollars when those were the big currencys.>>

You got them by buying them.  You still get them by buying them.  What you don't seem to be able to grasp is that you will always be able to buy them, but they will cost you a lot more when the U.S. dollar is no longer the international reserve currency.  You focus insanely on how much wheat you can export.   And you ignore completely how much other stuff you have to import, from oil, dry goods, automobiles, metals and minerals.

If you want to compare the U.S. economy of the 18th century with the 21st century, the first thing you would probably notice was that the U.S. was exporting more than it imported.  Today the reverse is true.  So whatever you export in grain, every dollar earned will go back out to pay for imports, and then there still won't be enough money from grain and all your other exports to pay for all the imports.  So what happens?  You need to sell dollars.  But if the demand for dollars is low, you have to sell more dollars than you sell  now to get those euros.  The more expensive the euros are that the importers have to buy so they can pay for their imports, the more money they have to charge for those imports.  Invariably your standard of living will go down.  Because whatever goods consumers are enjoying now, less will be able to enjoy next year because they won't be able to afford them at their new prices.

You say your economy did fine back in the day.  Sure but you're not back in the day.  Your population expects more in the way of worldly goods than they did back in the day.  What's gonna happen is their standard of living will shrink.  If you're nostalgic for the good old days when Americans lived simple lives down on the farm with little luxury in their lives, get ready for a return to those days.  But don't think the population is going to relish the change.  Gasoline unaffordable.  Holidays and trips unaffordable.  Foreign clothing? unaffordable.  American clothing? pay more, get less.  Make do with less.  Medical care?  costs more.  It's like a thousand little cuts.  It adds up to longer working hours, less to show for it.

Is that what happened to the French who have been buying oil with Dollars for five decades?
I dont expect you are right.