3 ms·

Whether other countries choose to subsidise development in a particular industry is irrelevant, and if they choose to essentially export their money then that's

Whether other countries choose to subsidise development in a particular industry is irrelevant, and if they choose to essentially export their money then that's up to them. It's not like there aren't plenty of other things these people could be doing. If you reach the level of China style product dumping then you have a trade war situation and things are different, but that's not (quite) what is going on here, though if Boeing or Airbus gained a monopoly it would sure look like that. What is really happening is risks are socialised, profits (if any) are privatised.

dotcoma 13y ago
What do you mean when you "if Boeing or Airbus gained a monopoly"? A duopoly isn't bad enough?
Volpe 13y ago
> What is really happening is risks are socialised, profits (if any) are privatised. Well not quite, given companies pay tax too. Not only that, but large industries like Aerospace spend money on other stuff. I agree it's clumsy, but it isn't as simple as you put it. Seems to me with the level of subsidy Boeing/Airbus/Bombardier receive, why aren't they just nationalised.
- Mikeb85 13y ago
  To add to this, aerospace companies contribute plenty to the economy, in jobs, scientific research - much more than most other corporations that are of a similar size. And speaking as a Canadian, it's nice that we still do have Bombardier, otherwise those jobs would simply go down south (probably the actual talent too). Canada needs to invest in industries other than resources... And of course Bombardier IS profitable (forward P/E of 9.71 on the stock).
gnaffle 13y ago
Do you seriously believe that the government subsidies of Airbus/EADS and Boeing in the 60s and 70s have been a net negative benefit to their home countries economic and employment wise, now that those two companies dominate the jet airliner market?

3 ms·

Whether other countries choose to subsidise development in a particular industry is irrelevant, and if they choose to essentially export their money then that's

by fidotron 13y ago

dotcoma 13y ago
What do you mean when you "if Boeing or Airbus gained a monopoly"? A duopoly isn't bad enough?
Volpe 13y ago
> What is really happening is risks are socialised, profits (if any) are privatised. Well not quite, given companies pay tax too. Not only that, but large industries like Aerospace spend money on other stuff. I agree it's clumsy, but it isn't as simple as you put it. Seems to me with the level of subsidy Boeing/Airbus/Bombardier receive, why aren't they just nationalised.
- Mikeb85 13y ago
  To add to this, aerospace companies contribute plenty to the economy, in jobs, scientific research - much more than most other corporations that are of a similar size. And speaking as a Canadian, it's nice that we still do have Bombardier, otherwise those jobs would simply go down south (probably the actual talent too). Canada needs to invest in industries other than resources... And of course Bombardier IS profitable (forward P/E of 9.71 on the stock).
gnaffle 13y ago
Do you seriously believe that the government subsidies of Airbus/EADS and Boeing in the 60s and 70s have been a net negative benefit to their home countries economic and employment wise, now that those two companies dominate the jet airliner market?