3 ms·

You isn't a game you can "hack" with a clever trick. Even if it got around a law (which it doesn't), Congress would just write a new one. This doesn't change an

by Cacti 9y ago

You isn't a game you can "hack" with a clever trick. Even if it got around a law (which it doesn't), Congress would just write a new one. This doesn't change anything.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> Even if it got around a law (which it doesn't), Congress would just write a new one. This doesn't change anything. The Congress wrote the law, at Boeing's behest, to encourage American manufacturing employment. Airbus and Bombardier's deal sounds an awful lot like it accomplishes that.
- Cacti 9y ago
  This has nothing to do with this US employment. This is a trade 'war'. The issue is dumping, subsidies, and foreign competition. Whether the plane is temporarily assembled in the US or not is irrelevant.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > This has nothing to do with this US employment The Department of Commerce announced its affirmative preliminary determination in respect of Bombardier's alleged dumping under its countervailing duties (CVD) powers from the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, as amended [1][2]. The Tariff Act was passed "to protect American jobs and farmers from foreign competition" [2]. There is a secondary concern in national security, e.g. if a country's automotive sector is decimated by foreign competition then it can no longer build tanks. But the driving concern behind "trade wars," and certainly this administration's enforcement of them, is employment. [1] http://enforcement.trade.gov/download/factsheets/factsheet-canada-large-civil-aircraft-ad-prelim-100617.pdf http://enforcement.trade.gov/download/factsheets/factsheet-c... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot–Hawley_Tariff_Act#End_of_the_tariffs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot–Hawley_Tariff_Act#End_of...
    - Cacti 9y ago
      You realize that the justification for the action and the reason behind it need not be the same thing, right? The fact that they are citing a law that was, nearly 100 years ago, concerned with employment, doesn’t mean that is why they are doing this. This is a long term strategic calculation and has nothing to do with a few thousand jobs.
ChuckMcM 9y ago
I disagree. Legislation and tax policy are very blunt instruments of control. By its nature it is harder to change laws than it is business practices. This is why you get things like the 'double irish' tax dodge. I am a bit cynical here but if you legislate based on principle you lose special interest funding (or worse it aligns against you in the next election) so changes have to be carefully worded to avoid a clear path back to the source, often there is a minimum amount of "distance" that legislators seek between the problem behavior and the introduction of legislation.

by Cacti 9y ago

You isn't a game you can "hack" with a clever trick. Even if it got around a law (which it doesn't), Congress would just write a new one. This doesn't change anything.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> Even if it got around a law (which it doesn't), Congress would just write a new one. This doesn't change anything. The Congress wrote the law, at Boeing's behest, to encourage American manufacturing employment. Airbus and Bombardier's deal sounds an awful lot like it accomplishes that.

Cacti 9y ago
This has nothing to do with this US employment. This is a trade 'war'. The issue is dumping, subsidies, and foreign competition. Whether the plane is temporarily assembled in the US or not is irrelevant.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > This has nothing to do with this US employment The Department of Commerce announced its affirmative preliminary determination in respect of Bombardier's alleged dumping under its countervailing duties (CVD) powers from the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, as amended [1][2]. The Tariff Act was passed "to protect American jobs and farmers from foreign competition" [2]. There is a secondary concern in national security, e.g. if a country's automotive sector is decimated by foreign competition then it can no longer build tanks. But the driving concern behind "trade wars," and certainly this administration's enforcement of them, is employment. [1] http://enforcement.trade.gov/download/factsheets/factsheet-canada-large-civil-aircraft-ad-prelim-100617.pdf http://enforcement.trade.gov/download/factsheets/factsheet-c... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot–Hawley_Tariff_Act#End_of_the_tariffs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot–Hawley_Tariff_Act#End_of...
  - Cacti 9y ago
    You realize that the justification for the action and the reason behind it need not be the same thing, right? The fact that they are citing a law that was, nearly 100 years ago, concerned with employment, doesn’t mean that is why they are doing this. This is a long term strategic calculation and has nothing to do with a few thousand jobs.

ChuckMcM 9y ago

I disagree. Legislation and tax policy are very blunt instruments of control. By its nature it is harder to change laws than it is business practices. This is why you get things like the 'double irish' tax dodge. I am a bit cynical here but if you legislate based on principle you lose special interest funding (or worse it aligns against you in the next election) so changes have to be carefully worded to avoid a clear path back to the source, often there is a minimum amount of "distance" that legislators seek between the problem behavior and the introduction of legislation.