29 ms·
> shouldn't this be a loss for Quebec? Agreed. It's a loss for Quebec, Bombardier, Canadian workers (who lose jobs to Alabama), Canadian taxpayers, and most im
by forapurpose 9y ago
> shouldn't this be a loss for Quebec?
Agreed. It's a loss for Quebec, Bombardier, Canadian workers (who lose jobs to Alabama), Canadian taxpayers, and most importantly, for free trade and free markets - this will only establish anti-competitive policies as an accepted norm, a dangerous precedent.
Not that anyone cares about economics any more; it all seems political.
- danmaz74 9y agoLooks like only final assembly will be moved to Alabama, and only for the jets destined to the US...
- kharms 9y ago>this will only establish anti-competitive policies as an accepted norm Wouldn't it have the opposite effect? Quebec subsidized a local industry and lost.
- stale2002 9y agoHow is it a loss for the free market? Now Bombardier doesn't have to pay the ridiculous 300% tax. They are subject to less regulations and more free market.
- forapurpose 9y agoThe 300% tax still distorted the market by pushing Bombardier into a deal they otherwise might not have taken, into investing resources in a location (Alabama) that they might not otherwise have chosen, and by taking a competitor out of a marketplace with very high barriers to entry.