4 ms·

Not like Airbus’s hands are clean. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2019/december/united-states-wins-sixth-time https://ustr

by aksss 6y ago

Not like Airbus’s hands are clean. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2019/december/united-states-wins-sixth-time https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-...

monocasa 6y ago
The WTO is run by a very specific brand of economists that don't see the value in a country subsidizing an industry to maintain local expertise in that industry. I for one disagree pretty heavily with this ruling.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- nradov 6y ago
  The WTO is run by bureaucrats who enforce the terms of the membership agreement. If national governments think it's important to subsidize local industries then they should negotiate agreements to allow for that. Don't blame the WTO.
  - monocasa 6y ago
    That has the effect of cutting yourself off from more or less all trade. The WTO leaves you with three options as not the US. 1) Capitulate and lose about any industries as the efficiencies of scales of the US economy steam rolls any industries they don't explicitly prop up in your country (the Israel model if you're lucky, the African model if you're unlucky). 2) Cut yourself off from essentially all global trade (the North Korea model) 3) form a large enough economy that you can flaunt more and more of the WTOs rules because what are they going to do? (The Chinese and EU model).
  - dane-pgp 6y ago
    While it might make sense to provide an exemption for local industries that have critical defence or security implications, politicians may find themselves tempted to expand the scope of that to include other "national interest" products, like yoghurt: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45866508 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45866508
luckylion 6y ago
Are you suggesting that industrial espionage is okay if the targeted company is receiving subsidies from their government? I'm sure the Chinese will love that angle.
- aksss 6y ago
  No, more indicating that both these companies receive so much patronage from their respective national defense agencies/industries and provide employment cover to their respective intelligence agencies that I’m not sure there’s a clean line between actions of them as private actor vs them as state actor. Doesn’t rationalize espionage or maybe it does, I don’t know. I just don’t think the set-up of Airbus, the innocent industrial, as victims of evil Boeing is a realistic implication. These are both behemoths tightly hooked to their national defense apparatus. As for China, I think that angle is their acknowledged policy plus some.

by aksss 6y ago

monocasa 6y ago

The WTO is run by a very specific brand of economists that don't see the value in a country subsidizing an industry to maintain local expertise in that industry. I for one disagree pretty heavily with this ruling.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
nradov 6y ago
The WTO is run by bureaucrats who enforce the terms of the membership agreement. If national governments think it's important to subsidize local industries then they should negotiate agreements to allow for that. Don't blame the WTO.
- monocasa 6y ago
  That has the effect of cutting yourself off from more or less all trade. The WTO leaves you with three options as not the US. 1) Capitulate and lose about any industries as the efficiencies of scales of the US economy steam rolls any industries they don't explicitly prop up in your country (the Israel model if you're lucky, the African model if you're unlucky). 2) Cut yourself off from essentially all global trade (the North Korea model) 3) form a large enough economy that you can flaunt more and more of the WTOs rules because what are they going to do? (The Chinese and EU model).
- dane-pgp 6y ago
  While it might make sense to provide an exemption for local industries that have critical defence or security implications, politicians may find themselves tempted to expand the scope of that to include other "national interest" products, like yoghurt: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45866508 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45866508

luckylion 6y ago

Are you suggesting that industrial espionage is okay if the targeted company is receiving subsidies from their government? I'm sure the Chinese will love that angle.

aksss 6y ago
No, more indicating that both these companies receive so much patronage from their respective national defense agencies/industries and provide employment cover to their respective intelligence agencies that I’m not sure there’s a clean line between actions of them as private actor vs them as state actor. Doesn’t rationalize espionage or maybe it does, I don’t know. I just don’t think the set-up of Airbus, the innocent industrial, as victims of evil Boeing is a realistic implication. These are both behemoths tightly hooked to their national defense apparatus. As for China, I think that angle is their acknowledged policy plus some.