Whenever Donald Trump opens his mouth the rest of the world wonders: "Now what will happen?".

For once, and breaking a lance in favor of all those economists who never guessed a forecast, the economic lines dictated by the US President have consequences that maybe it is possible to predict or measure.
The last exploits regards the threat to impose a tax of 20% on products that Mexico exports to the States.
The tax should cover the costs for the continuation of the construction of the wall on the border between the two states.
Mexico, in response, has decided to invite all Mexicans to boycott US products.
Persuade consummatory not buy certain products or services from companies or non-member countries is not new.
Boycott is a practical deterrent weapon, live, everyone can put in place and that - at least in theory - has immediate adverse effects on the cash flows of businesses boicottate.Anche possibile if not estimate when the potential damage that US companies will suffer if indeed the 33 million Mexican consumers in America, plus the rest of the Mexican citizens at home, decide not to buy Coca-Cola and the like, there are partial calculations.
Some speak only in Texas with a loss of $ 1.3 billion for this is the total expenditure of the Latin consumers in that State.
It is actually a figure that improbably would lose US companies to the consumers only hand, and for a very simple reason: even if any product is replaceable, in theory, in practice one must never underestimate the affection of a consumtore to his favorite brand that in the absence of substitutes height, hardly it would soppiantanto.
A strike, if anything, American companies would be the divisions of Mexican export contracts with big chains and delivery of services and products backed by the United States to Latin customers contracts.
But we are on a different level than where us mere mortals proud we enter into a supermarket and say no to mark impeached.
The scandal of Volkswagen emissions, for example, did not give rise to very large boycott initiatives and has not affected the sales of German cars.
A hurting home automobilisticasono if anything the high fines imposed by US authorities to protect consumers, and not the "no" to the product of those same consumers.
The real question that must be asked, therefore, is whether, in general, economic boycotts work.
The answer is: it depends.
There are two types of boycott: one promoted at the political level and the one that starts directly from groups of citizens / consumers regardless of the indications of your Governo.Nel second case the protest actions are just tickled to multinationals.
With some exceptions, of course.
One of the most successful cases - but, in fact, are rare - is that over the years Novantaport consumers around the Mondoa not buy more Nike products because they are made with child labor exploitation in Cambodia.
The company lost all labor contracts in the country because he had forced to leave (and rightly so) and then resinsediarsi with new conditions that comply with human rights (for Cambodia in any case the tour of secured business from American multinationals in the textile territory at the time was $ 1 billion would therefore not easily boycotted companies that guaranteed work and money).
In general, however, the independent boycotts do not work.
Here you can see the latest list of economic boycotts in place by groups and associations in the world, a list that two years ago the Guardian spulci carefully for an article he wanted to do at the usefulness of this type of protest.
The conclusion was that no fact, boycotting the end not much change the attitude of the companies unless the mobilizations are hyper massive and constant over time.
In the case of Mexico, however, we are faced with the first type of boycott, the one promoted directly by a State against companies of another famous Stato.Precedenti show that when a government is orchestrating the stop buying the measure pesantucci effects on companies or countries it targeted.
When in 2014la Russia was sanctioned by Europe for invading Ukraine, Putin responded by blocking the import of products from countries that had voted in favor of sanctions.
For Italy - according to Coldiretti estimates made on the basis of Italian products sent to Moscow and sent back -up to now this has translated into a loss of 600 million euro dibeni food and a proliferation of "Italian sounding" products that is false .
It is clear that here we are in a different terrain from simple boycott, because in this case the Parmesan just do not find it on the supermarket shelves Russian consumers, but the effect of protectionism is in fact the same that independent movements would respond by saying no the purchase of certain products or services.
Mexico so far has not imposed a stop import from State s - only situation that could really be a problem for American companies - and perhaps be able to bend the only driving US economy for years a constant boycott to the detriment of products made in USA.
Just as Palestine is for years against Israeli products and that, according to World Bank data, in 2015 it produced a decrease in exports to Israel by 24% compared to 2014 due precisely to changes in consumer behavior.
For now, therefore, the most likely outcome would be the boarding of European competitors, Japanese and Indians in the American automotive industry ( "replacement" of US cars with cars of other brands in favor of Mexican consumers) and in general the arrival of non-US products in Central America.
Who knows, maybe instead of Pepsi and Coca Cola, the Mexicans are not conquered dall'italianissima Mole Cola.

From Wired