4 ms·

Extreme protectionism can be dangerous for sure. But the Bombardier example and protectionism in aerospace isn't a negative example of protectionism. It actuall

Extreme protectionism can be dangerous for sure. But the Bombardier example and protectionism in aerospace isn't a negative example of protectionism. It actually shows that protectionism works. The US benefited by having bombardier planes being built in the US. More jobs, more work for american workers and more taxes for the government. It's a win-win situation. You could argue that Boeing lost out, but they really didn't either. Bombardier, Airbus, Boeing and the entire aerospace industry in every country exists primarily due to protectionism. Without canadian government support and market protection, bombardier could not exist. Without EU protection, Airbus cannot exist. Boeing or other aerospace companies would have underbid bombardier and airbus out of existence because they produced their own planes. It's why China and Japan also use significant protectionism to protect their aerospace industry. They, like the US and EU, all "encourage" their own national carriers to buy from national manufacturers. As others have noted, aerospace industry is inherently dual function just like satellite/GPS industry. They, by their innate nature, serve both the civilian and military industries. I know we are told "protectionism" is bad from a young age, but the modern industrial world ( starting with the US ) was created by protection. Almost every industry in every industrial nation owes it's rise to protectionism. If you have the time, you should read up on the history of US protectionism in the 1800s, which set the example that every major economy from china to germany to japan to south korea followed to become major economic players. Without protectionism, we don't have Airbus, Bombardier, etc. Without protectionism, we also don't have Samsung, Toyota, Sony, Volkswagen, etc. Without protectionism, every industry in the US would have been bought up or controlled by the wealthier british industrialists. The first act of Congress was an act of protectionism - a tariff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_of_1789 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_of_1789

nolok 7y ago
> Extreme protectionism can be dangerous for sure. But the Bombardier example and protectionism in aerospace isn't a negative example of protectionism. It actually shows that protectionism works. The US benefited by having bombardier planes being built in the US. More jobs, more work for american workers and more taxes for the government. It's a win-win situation. You could argue that Boeing lost out, but they really didn't either. No they didn't. No new plant, no new hires, no more planes built at that plant than before. They will displace planned production at that plant to make room for the specific planes requesting by US customers, and the plane originally meant to be built there will be made in another non US plant. The ONLY thing that changes for the US is negative in that Boeing's competitors are now stronger and allied together against Boeing.
- basetop 7y ago
  Lets say you are right. If protectionism was so bad for the US and so good for our competitors, then our competitors would be begging us to increase our protectionism. But they are doing the exact opposite. If protectionism was so good for the competitor, Boeing and the US government wouldn't be attacking the EU and their subsidies and protectionism of Airbus. If protectionism is so bad for Boeing, why have the Boeing execs lobbied the US government for more protectionism? If protectionism is so bad, why has bombardier lobbied canada and quebec for protectionism for decades? If protectionism is so bad, why has airbus lobbied for protectionism from the EU even before they became operational? Airbus was born with protectionism and subsidies that is the envy of the world. I'm not entirely for or against protectionism, but the blanket ideology that protectionism is bad is historically incorrect. Ask Boeing, ask Airbus, ask Bombardier. If Airbus starts demanding more tariffs, subsidies and protectionism for Boeing in the US, then I'll start to believe what you say. If Boeing demands that EU give Airbus even more subsidies and greater market protection it the EU, then I'll start to believe what you say.
  - _Codemonkeyism 7y ago
    Your argument basically is: War is good, b/c after the first strike everything is ok for the attacker. You forget that there is always some kind of reaction. Protectionism always works in the short run. We'll see how protectionist US looks in 10y. Then you can argue depending on results it works.
  - rurp 7y ago
    >If protectionism was so bad for the US and so good for our competitors, then our competitors would be begging us to increase our protectionism. But they are doing the exact opposite. Most people view trade in general as a mutually beneficial endeavor.
    - basetop 7y ago
      I too agree that trade can be a mutually beneficial endeavor. But it's not an either-or nor an absolute. Trade can be good, trade can be bad. Protectionism can be good, protectionism can be bad. History has shown that a certain amount of trade and a certain amount of protectionism is the formula for success and trade. As I pointed out before, some of the top trading nations are the US, China, Japan, Germany and South Korea. All of them have significant amount of protectionist policies. All of them also have significant amount of trade. It's a false dichotomoy to claim you can have trade or you can have protectionism. You can have both.

nolok 7y ago

> Extreme protectionism can be dangerous for sure. But the Bombardier example and protectionism in aerospace isn't a negative example of protectionism. It actually shows that protectionism works. The US benefited by having bombardier planes being built in the US. More jobs, more work for american workers and more taxes for the government. It's a win-win situation. You could argue that Boeing lost out, but they really didn't either. No they didn't. No new plant, no new hires, no more planes built at that plant than before. They will displace planned production at that plant to make room for the specific planes requesting by US customers, and the plane originally meant to be built there will be made in another non US plant. The ONLY thing that changes for the US is negative in that Boeing's competitors are now stronger and allied together against Boeing.

basetop 7y ago
Lets say you are right. If protectionism was so bad for the US and so good for our competitors, then our competitors would be begging us to increase our protectionism. But they are doing the exact opposite. If protectionism was so good for the competitor, Boeing and the US government wouldn't be attacking the EU and their subsidies and protectionism of Airbus. If protectionism is so bad for Boeing, why have the Boeing execs lobbied the US government for more protectionism? If protectionism is so bad, why has bombardier lobbied canada and quebec for protectionism for decades? If protectionism is so bad, why has airbus lobbied for protectionism from the EU even before they became operational? Airbus was born with protectionism and subsidies that is the envy of the world. I'm not entirely for or against protectionism, but the blanket ideology that protectionism is bad is historically incorrect. Ask Boeing, ask Airbus, ask Bombardier. If Airbus starts demanding more tariffs, subsidies and protectionism for Boeing in the US, then I'll start to believe what you say. If Boeing demands that EU give Airbus even more subsidies and greater market protection it the EU, then I'll start to believe what you say.
- _Codemonkeyism 7y ago
  Your argument basically is: War is good, b/c after the first strike everything is ok for the attacker. You forget that there is always some kind of reaction. Protectionism always works in the short run. We'll see how protectionist US looks in 10y. Then you can argue depending on results it works.
- rurp 7y ago
  >If protectionism was so bad for the US and so good for our competitors, then our competitors would be begging us to increase our protectionism. But they are doing the exact opposite. Most people view trade in general as a mutually beneficial endeavor.
  - basetop 7y ago
    I too agree that trade can be a mutually beneficial endeavor. But it's not an either-or nor an absolute. Trade can be good, trade can be bad. Protectionism can be good, protectionism can be bad. History has shown that a certain amount of trade and a certain amount of protectionism is the formula for success and trade. As I pointed out before, some of the top trading nations are the US, China, Japan, Germany and South Korea. All of them have significant amount of protectionist policies. All of them also have significant amount of trade. It's a false dichotomoy to claim you can have trade or you can have protectionism. You can have both.