4 ms·

The question is not if there are subsidies, but whether they are legal subsidies. > “The WTO has now rejected every allegation of unlawful subsidies to Boeing

The question is not if there are subsidies, but whether they are legal subsidies. > “The WTO has now rejected every allegation of unlawful subsidies to Boeing with the single exception of one measure—a Washington State business and occupancy (B&O) tax rate. Boeing has pledged from the beginning of this case to comply with the WTO’s rulings, and the B&O tax rate will be no exception. Boeing will support the United States and Washington State as they take steps necessary to fully comply with today’s ruling. > In 2006, after attempts to negotiate a bilateral agreement, the U.S. Government (USG) filed a case with the World Trade Organization claiming Airbus had received $22 billion in illegal subsidies. U.S. officials estimated the economic benefit of those subsidies (in 2006 dollars) at more than $200 billion. http://www.boeing.com/company/key-orgs/government-operations/wto.page http://www.boeing.com/company/key-orgs/government-operations...

vernie 7y ago
Both are questions.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
ineedasername 7y ago
Citing Boeing on this isn't really going to get a good answer, of course they think it's an illegal subsidy. You need to define illegal though. The general interpretation of the issue states that allowable subsidies are, "those which are applied to research and pre-competitive development activities, and others which assist disadvantaged regions" [0] Tens of billions of dollars in tax breaks and loan guarantees doesn't really seem like it could all fit under that definition, and indeed it looks likely that the WTO will rule that way as well. The main problem with this case isn't just that AirBus received illegal subsidies. That can be true at the same time that Boeing also received them, making this a somewhat ridiculous thing to argue about, for Boeing to claim to be the aggrieved party here when any grievance or disadvantage has been offset by their own subsidies. The end result will be additional tariffs imposed in both directions, making consumers pay more, at a time that tariffs and trade wars exacerbate a minor economic slowdown, increasing the chance that it will turn into something more. [0] https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Trade+Liberalization+Under+the+GATT%2C+the+NAFTA+and+the+EU%3A+Selected+...-a078738322 https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Trade+Liberalization+Under+th...
- stale2002 7y ago
  > You need to define illegal though Illegal as defined by the WTO.
  - ineedasername 7y ago
    Um, yes, obviously, they are the relevant authority in this case and whose definition I then expound upon. Were you voicing a criticism?
    - stale2002 7y ago
      You implied that the actions werent illegal, by bringing up things that Boeing said, and implying that Boeing is biased, and also wrong. This is misleading, because the WTO has already ruled on this Airbus stuff. And the WTO thinks that the stuff that the EU did is illegal. Therefore it is illegal, and you shouldn't imply that it is not illegal. So yes, the stuff that the EU did is illegal. Full stop. It is illegal according to the WTO, and therefore it is irelevant to say that Boeing is Biased, because the authorities agree with Boeing and the authorities have ruled that it was illegal.
- defertoreptar 7y ago
  Boeing isn't just saying that they "think" there are illegal subsidies. They're pointing to the WTO's rulings. I guess I could've looked up those particular cases and cited them directly. However, I reckon if they were lying about what the WTO was saying, that wouldn't be difficult for you to find and point to yourself. In fact, we need look no further than the article that started this discussion to verify. Let's look at the actual content of the argument instead of relying on circumstantial ad hominem.
  - ineedasername 7y ago
    No, you're right: The WTO has ruled against AirBus, which makes their subsidies de facto officially illegal. But Boeing isn't a great source for understanding the intricacies of the issue, and by definition any claim that subsidies are improper is also a claim that they are illegal. That's pretty much what I meant, along with pointing out that Boeing's subsidies are similarly problematic.
Excel_Wizard 7y ago
Both Boeing and Airbus have received subsidies that are claimed by various parties to be illegal.
- Beldin 7y ago
  And the WTO rulings on these cases will come about 4 months apart. Airbus now, Boeing probably January. Which might lead to similar option for tariffs in the other direction. Our, possibly all aid to Boeing was legal. But this think that would have been noted - these cases have been dragging around for a while. (2014 or something)

vernie 7y ago

Both are questions.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

ineedasername 7y ago

Citing Boeing on this isn't really going to get a good answer, of course they think it's an illegal subsidy. You need to define illegal though. The general interpretation of the issue states that allowable subsidies are, "those which are applied to research and pre-competitive development activities, and others which assist disadvantaged regions" [0] Tens of billions of dollars in tax breaks and loan guarantees doesn't really seem like it could all fit under that definition, and indeed it looks likely that the WTO will rule that way as well. The main problem with this case isn't just that AirBus received illegal subsidies. That can be true at the same time that Boeing also received them, making this a somewhat ridiculous thing to argue about, for Boeing to claim to be the aggrieved party here when any grievance or disadvantage has been offset by their own subsidies. The end result will be additional tariffs imposed in both directions, making consumers pay more, at a time that tariffs and trade wars exacerbate a minor economic slowdown, increasing the chance that it will turn into something more. [0] https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Trade+Liberalization+Under+the+GATT%2C+the+NAFTA+and+the+EU%3A+Selected+...-a078738322 https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Trade+Liberalization+Under+th...

stale2002 7y ago
> You need to define illegal though Illegal as defined by the WTO.
- ineedasername 7y ago
  Um, yes, obviously, they are the relevant authority in this case and whose definition I then expound upon. Were you voicing a criticism?
  - stale2002 7y ago
    You implied that the actions werent illegal, by bringing up things that Boeing said, and implying that Boeing is biased, and also wrong. This is misleading, because the WTO has already ruled on this Airbus stuff. And the WTO thinks that the stuff that the EU did is illegal. Therefore it is illegal, and you shouldn't imply that it is not illegal. So yes, the stuff that the EU did is illegal. Full stop. It is illegal according to the WTO, and therefore it is irelevant to say that Boeing is Biased, because the authorities agree with Boeing and the authorities have ruled that it was illegal.
defertoreptar 7y ago
Boeing isn't just saying that they "think" there are illegal subsidies. They're pointing to the WTO's rulings. I guess I could've looked up those particular cases and cited them directly. However, I reckon if they were lying about what the WTO was saying, that wouldn't be difficult for you to find and point to yourself. In fact, we need look no further than the article that started this discussion to verify. Let's look at the actual content of the argument instead of relying on circumstantial ad hominem.
- ineedasername 7y ago
  No, you're right: The WTO has ruled against AirBus, which makes their subsidies de facto officially illegal. But Boeing isn't a great source for understanding the intricacies of the issue, and by definition any claim that subsidies are improper is also a claim that they are illegal. That's pretty much what I meant, along with pointing out that Boeing's subsidies are similarly problematic.

Excel_Wizard 7y ago

Both Boeing and Airbus have received subsidies that are claimed by various parties to be illegal.

Beldin 7y ago
And the WTO rulings on these cases will come about 4 months apart. Airbus now, Boeing probably January. Which might lead to similar option for tariffs in the other direction. Our, possibly all aid to Boeing was legal. But this think that would have been noted - these cases have been dragging around for a while. (2014 or something)