3 ms·
Anti-subsidy rules aren't exactly a totally contrived reason for tariffs. If the American company is working without subsidy, then it's hard to compete on even
by b4lancesh33t 9y ago
Anti-subsidy rules aren't exactly a totally contrived reason for tariffs. If the American company is working without subsidy, then it's hard to compete on even footing when the Canadian competitor is underwritten by the state. The correct forum for litigating this question is the WTO.
However, this analysis is complicated by Boeing's close relationship with the USG, particularly the military. I've seen the argument that the juicy contracts they get for military aircraft and weapons systems constitute an indirect subsidy for civilian aircraft. To be honest, I lack the expertise to evaluate this objection, so I simply note it for completeness' sake.
- dean 9y ago"The aerospace giant [Boeing] has received more state and local subsidy dollars than any other corporation in America" https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/03/17/the-united-states-of-subsidies-the-biggest-corporate-winners-in-each-state https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/03/17/t...
- b4lancesh33t 9y agoPersonally, I am skeptical of studies that count tax breaks as subsidies. If the company's BATNA is to go to a lower tax state, surely one cannot count the entire break as a subsidy, as opposed to a necessary cost to retain the company's presence. But, yes, in principle I agree that Boeing is subsidized to some degree or another.