What effect would trade sanctions have on the USA?

mackthefork · #1 10-19-2005, 05:41 AM

If every country in the world stopped buying US products, but still allowed the US to buy what they needed at fair market prices if they so desired..

What effect do you think this would have on the US economy?

Would it be crippling, or would the difference be negligible?

How badly do you think it would affect the economies of other countries, assuming they continued to freely trade among each other?

Mack

Matty · #2 10-19-2005, 06:09 AM

If they ALL stuck to their guns, it would only hurt them each moderately (although some of them drastically in the short term). It would cripple us. We're like 1/5th of the world's GDP but that number overestimates us because wealth is extremely concentrated right now in the US. With sanctions the huge GDP generators would flee for Europe/SE Asia. However what you propose is impossible.

bobman0330 · #3 10-19-2005, 11:36 AM

This scenario does not make a lot of sense. Are they allowing us to buy with dollars? If so, what do they expect to buy with those dollars?

In any case, it would be a lot worse for places in East Asia that are heavily export-dependent than for the EU.

mackthefork · #4 10-19-2005, 11:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]
This scenario does not make a lot of sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know.

[ QUOTE ]
Are they allowing us to buy with dollars?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe we'll have some kind of mutually beneficial agreement, call it 'The Food for Operating Systems Program'.

Mack

zipo · #5 10-19-2005, 01:35 PM

>>If every country in the world stopped buying US products, but still allowed the US to buy what they needed at fair market prices if they so desired..<<

Obviously, it wouldn't work like this in reality.

If the 'world' imposed trade sanctions on the US, we'd reciprocate, closing off the biggest, most vibrant consumer market in the world.

The biggest challenge for the US would be energy self-sufficiency. Backed into a corner, we could achieve this in 5 years or so with uber-aggressive alternative energy/conservation measures - actually, this would be a good thing.

Short term this scenario would hurt the US, and likely plunge the world into global recession. Longer term, the US would achieve energy self-sufficiency, eliminate the trade deficit, and emerge in tremendous economic shape.

It would also serve to unite many of the political divisions in this country, as the nation would rally together in the face of this kind of internatial action, making the US much stronger, although perhaps somewhat more defensive and militaristic in posture.

bobman0330 · #6 10-19-2005, 01:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The biggest challenge for the US would be energy self-sufficiency. Backed into a corner, we could achieve this in 5 years or so with uber-aggressive alternative energy/conservation measures - actually, this would be a good thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems a lot harder than conquering Canada and Mexico...

Felix_Nietsche · #7 10-19-2005, 01:50 PM

Obviously, it wouldn't work like this in reality.
If the 'world' imposed trade sanctions on the US, we'd reciprocate, closing off the biggest, most vibrant consumer market in the world.
************************************************** *********
If every country in the world had the discipline to boycott the USA, I think the countries doing the boycotting would be hurt more than the USA.

Of course this scenario is silly. Countries did not have the discipline/ethics to honor the embargo on Iraq during the oil-for-food program. To think countries would shut themselves out from the most lucrative market in the world and not expect for the USA to retaliate is silly.

Il_Mostro · #8 10-19-2005, 02:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The biggest challenge for the US would be energy self-sufficiency. Backed into a corner, we could achieve this in 5 years or so with uber-aggressive alternative energy/conservation measures - actually, this would be a good thing.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, but this is just plain wrong. Total pie-in-the-sky wishing.

Try 20 years and an end result that is the American people using a lot less energy per capita than today.

zipo · #9 10-19-2005, 02:23 PM

>>I'm sorry, but this is just plain wrong. Total pie-in-the-sky wishing.<<

Not really. Aggressive conservation measures (doubling vehicle fuel efficiency, residential and commercial heating/cooling measures, etc) could reduce consumption approximately 40%.

Modern clean coal-burning plants, buildout of nuclear reactors, and a crash-program in wind, solar, bio-diesel (i.e. from grain, algae, etc) and other alternative energies could provide substantial output provided we could a) adequately fund these measures (the 200 billion we're spending on Iraq would be a good start) and b) we could get the cooperation of the energy lobby.

Yes, pie-in-the-sky in the current political climate. But with the right catalyst - like the one hypothetical at the beginning of the thread (i.e. an international trade embargo against the US) it is doable.

Il_Mostro · #10 10-19-2005, 03:03 PM

I wont get into this debate again... I've had it too many times before, but I can't help myself from pointing out that in 5 years you won't have time to build one nuke, or one coal plant. Much less the amounts you will need.

I still say about 20 years, even in and crash-program environment and the end result is much less energy per capita.
See the Robert L. Hirsch peak-oil report for more discussions about this.