>Message #63396 from dybdahl at Nov 26, 2001 3:21 PM
It is always the question, "who started". A good example is beef produced with hormones. Every time some politicians are talking about letting U.S. hormone beef in, we almost have a popular uprising. So it's not trade tactics, it's a consumer demand.
A good example of how it works the other way around: The insurance-based consumer protection system in the U.S. often makes it almost possible for European companies to do business in the U.S., but since the U.S. voters have decided on that system, we don't complain much about it.
The government ownership of companies in Europe may not be subsidized. This is why the state owned, belgian plane company Sabena just went bankrupt. Half of it was owned by the Swiss air carrier, and half was owned by the state of Belgium. But since Belgium was not allowed to put money into Sabena, only Swissair could save Sabena. For several reasons, Swissair didn't do that, so down it went. Many European governments have been fined by Mario Monte for helping companies, government owned or not. It is true, that this is happening, but you really cannot use this as an argument for anything but that Europe fights against limitations in competition, and that Mario Monte is the good guy.
There is no doubt, that a full scale trade war would be expensive for both parts, but I am also very sure, that Europe can live without the U.S. market, which gets less important day by day. German car makers and companies like Nokia and Ericsson could easily survive a full scale trade war. Maybe except Daimler-Chrysler, if all Americans stopped buying Chrysler cars.
If we would go for the extreme - remember that a European company owns a very large part of the U.S. tradefleet - Mærsk Sealand. Full scale is full scale, so that would mean a USA without means to transport its goods. Woops.
You may have your unrealistic ideas on how the world looks like, but fining Microsoft would NOT make a trade war, and a full scale trade war between USA and Europe is out of the question. We need to cooperate. Having USA asking other NATO members for assistance against Bin Laden was the latest example. We are happy to be able to help our North American NATO ally with resources to fight a war.
I can only see one person who wants a trade war. You.
<
I am not sure the US need Europe more than Europe need US market. Can you name me one product that the US can not get from anywhere else but Europe. OTOH, I can name you a few that will let the Europe in the dark age for awhile (CPU, advanced communication chips,...)
Mercedes, BMW, Nokia.... it is very easily find alternative (Cadillac, Lincoln... or if preference is foreign Lexus, Infiniti, Acura, Motorola phone or Samsung phone....) Every European products can be substituted with a compatible or better products w/o much problem. Can Mercedes or BMW find the market that will subs for their US market? I don't think you can.
I do not think you really believe that the European government owned companies that not being subsidized heavily in term of money or market access by their owners. It is a fairytail to think Airbus Industrie can survive as itself. Minitel is one of the most profitable telephone because France would not let anyone else in to compete.
Let it be free enteprise alone, half of European companies will be in bankrupcy court within 3 years.
You are wrong when you think that I want a trade war with anyone. Contrary, I really want a free trade on equal term. Being free trader and being steamrollered is two different things.
Mike |
