Our ‘foes’ in Europe? They invest in U.S.

Not that facts matter to the current crop of know-nothings, but here are some evil things our European “foe” — as President Donald Trump called the European Union over the weekend — has done to us:

Invested more than $2.6 trillion, accounting for 70 percent of all foreign investment in the United States, more than four times that from all of Asia.

Supported 4.4 million U.S. jobs (counting only jobs directly supported — i.e., not suppliers).

Spent more than $40 billion annually in the U.S. on research and development.

Hosted almost two-thirds of all U.S. outward foreign direct investment; Asia accounts for 16 percent.

Accounted in 2017 for a surplus in trade in services of more than $64 billion, reducing the deficit trade in goods by onethird.

Invested nearly $170 billion in the U.S. in 2017, 10 times that invested in the U.S. by China.

Closer to home, we might want to be aware that:

Pennsylvania ranks fourth nationally in terms of number of jobs directly supported by European investment, more than 220,000 people.

European affiliates operating in the U.S. typically account, all by themselves, for 10 percent of all U.S. merchandise exports, thus helping reduce the trade deficit in goods.

Pennsylvania exports more than $10 billion in goods to Europe every year, five times more than we export to China, an economy bigger than the entire eurozone.

Of the 400 foreign-owned firms in the Pittsburgh region, the leading source is Europe, with Britain No. 1, Germany No. 2 and France No. 4. (That other freeloader, Canada, is No. 3.) Together firms from these three European countries support directly more than 22,000 jobs in the Pittsburgh region.

We certainly can’t let these kinds of foes take advantage of us much longer. RONALD H. LINDEN

Squirrel Hill

The writer is professor of political science at the University of Pittsburgh and former director of the university’s European Studies Center.

More whoppers

Your July 14 editorial “How Not to Hold Hearings” claimed that FBI official Peter Strzok was aggressive and smirking, told one whopper after another.

Since there was no evidence to substantiate these claims, perhaps you are blessed with a prescient gift or talent that equips you to judge a person’s veracity and the meaning of their facial expressions.

Your editorial comment on Mr. Strzok is cryptically invictive. How do you know he was not telling the truth? One should assume he was telling the truth since he was under oath. How do you know he was aggressive and smirking? Perhaps he was trying to answer questions and being continually cut off. Perhaps he, like many viewers, could not believe the outrageous and strenuous attacks on his dignity and authenticity.

But, I’m afraid you have drunk the bug juice and you will, like many Republicans on the committee, protect the president at any cost. Editorials are opinions but they still need some basis in fact. GEORGE S. WORGUL JR. Squirrel Hill

He held his own

Your July 14 editorial “How Not to Hold Hearings” has convinced me that the PG has taken a hard turn right, and is now the conservative rag in Pittsburgh.

I, too, was appalled by the circus that was the House joint hearing on alleged dysfunction at the FBI. But not for the reasons you cited.

FBI official Peter Strzok held his own, and then some, to the incredibly rude treatment he received from Republicans at the hearing. Their questions and comments were appalling; Mr. Strzok’s answers impressed the hell out of me.

The Republicans will go to any length to try to protect our disgusting president. The facts mean nothing to them. And, obviously, they mean nothing to the PG. JOHN R. DOYLE Oakdale

Unions matter

In response to “Why Aren’t Wages Rising?” (July 15) by Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson: Mr. Samuelson presented an interesting set of theories as possible explanations of why wages are stagnant for the overwhelming majority of workers today. He omitted mention of a primary reason wages are stagnant, and that is the significant decline of labor unions.

Without a strong advocate, the individual worker is unable to bargain effectively. Historically, labor unions were able to achieve higher wages, retirement benefits and other improvements to working conditions.

There is a strong correlation between the decline of labor unions and wage stagnation. CAROLE ANDERSON

Clarion

The writer is a professor emeritus in the College of Business Administration at Clarion University.