What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[The Minsky Moment]

Way to go, fellas.  America First, baby.  Winning!
. ..
In October Bombardier gave away half the C-Series for free to Boeing's arch-rival Airbus, weakening the American firm's position in market for smaller jetliners considerably . . .

That was a brilliant coup by Airbus.  They got a huge boost in a key market for nothing.  Boeing just strengthened their arch-rival.  That's what happens when you consort with idiocy.

[Admiral Yi]

The linked article doesn't actually refute that subsidies were given.

[HVC]

The linked article doesn't actually refute that subsidies were given.

It does highlight the hypocrisy of taking subsides and then bitching about subsidies though.

[Grey Fox]

The linked article doesn't actually refute that subsidies were given.

Probably because Boeing is right but this is not a fight it should have picked. Now instead of Canadian made Bombardier planes, Boeing has to contend with USA made Airbus planes.

[Admiral Yi]

It does highlight the hypocrisy of taking subsides and then bitching about subsidies though.

Yeah, I heard that line when Airbus was first starting up, that all the military contracts were subsidies for Boeing.  I think it's pretty much crap.

[HVC]

I read that as 8.7 billion in hand outs on top of military contracts. And if the military contracts are not tendered wouldn't that be a subsidy.

[Admiral Yi]

I read that as 8.7 billion in hand outs on top of military contracts. And if the military contracts are not tendered wouldn't that be a subsidy.

The original form of the "military contracts as subsidy" argument I heard was that all the bombers Boeing built during WWII allowed them to build up expertise in building commercial planes.  Nothing to do with overpaying.  It would be much like saying anytime Lufthansa buys an Airbus it's a subsidy because it increases Airbus' experience.

The 8.7 I would imagine has to do with various economic development tax breaks Boeing has gotten (anyone correct me if I'm wrong).  That functions differently than a subsidy.

[HVC]

I agree, expertise shouldn't count as a subsidy. But in you opinion does giving contracts to Boeing, even at market value, and only Boeing count as a subsidy? You're effectively cutting the competition out of the market and with Americans huge military budget you're providing a giant revenue stream.

[Admiral Yi]

I agree, expertise shouldn't count as a subsidy. But in you opinion does giving contracts to Boeing, even at market value, and only Boeing count as a subsidy? You're effectively cutting the competition out of the market and with Americans huge military budget you're providing a giant revenue stream.

Did that happen? I might not understand what you're talking about.

[grumbler]

The $8.7 billion "subsidy" comes from things like Boeing not having to pay state sales tax on materials it uses to build new factories in Washington.  It's not money given to the company directly, and the $9.7 billion is the estimate of the value of the tax reductions from 2015 through 2040.

[grumbler]

That's not to say that Boeing isn't being absolutely boneheaded with this Bombardier issue.  Boeing doesn't even compete in that market, so all they can possibly do is make enemies over the issue.

[Tonitrus]

As a home state company, I would normally be more loyal to the Boeing brand.

But they earned my internal indifference when they moved the HQ to Chi-town.

[The Brain]

The linked article doesn't actually refute that subsidies were given.

I'm sure Boeing owners are thrilled to be on the barricades.

[The Minsky Moment]

Yeah, I heard that line when Airbus was first starting up, that all the military contracts were subsidies for Boeing.  I think it's pretty much crap.

Since 2000, Boeing received almost half a billion dollars in federal grants.  Mostly NASA and the DOD.  E.g., $6.2 million grant from DOD for work on "Rapid high-Performance Manufacturing for Small Parts"

Boeing also received billions in state tax kickbacks and loan guarantees from ExIm.

[The Minsky Moment]

The case against Bombardier as I understand it rests on two facts.  First when the company was in financial distress, the Canadian government purchased a 49% share for $1 billion. On its face that looks like an exchange for value although I suppose it could be argued otherwise.

After the acquisition the government extended a $372.5 million interest free loan to the company.  That is a subsidy of sorts but one could dispute materiality and given support to Boeing from ExIm over the years it's a tough case for Boeing to make with a straight face.

Whatever the merits of the subsidy case based on these occurences it's hard to see how a 200%+ tariff could be justified.  For example, Boeing pays about 2-3% on its bonds, so to create a level playing field a tariff of a couple percent should be sufficient.