gas over $4 is here! is $5 gas far behind ?
in [Cars]
|
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) on 20 May 2007 20:22 Jeffrey Turner wrote: > > Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: > > > > > Eeyore wrote: > > > >>Jeffrey Turner wrote: > >> > >> > >>>Eeyore wrote: > >>> > >>>>"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>Boeing competes for its military contract sales. > >>>> > >>>>Airbus describes them as 'pork barrel contracts'. > >>> > >>>Boeing has congressmembers on payroll, so they'll get contracts. > >>>It took a huge dust-up in 2002 (?) to keep the gov't from leasing > >>>tanker planes from Boeing when it was *much* cheaper to buy them. > >> > >>Exactly the kind of thing that Airbus means. There's a closer watch on that form > >>of intrinsic corruption in Europe. > >> > > > > 1) The lease didn't happen. > > Only because of a lot of publicity. > Probably. > > 2) It's the military division, although it was military version of their > > commercial aircraft. > > 3) Boeing's commercial division has to make a profit or why have it? > > You're so eager to separate the two, but you admit they share designs, > which is a major cost in the industry. > That specific airplane does but the military division of Boeing isn't just a rehash of the civilian one.
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) on 20 May 2007 20:23 Free Lunch wrote: > > On Sun, 20 May 2007 11:24:23 -0700, in misc.transport.road > "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in > <46509257.BC4845BA(a)yahoo.co.uk>: > > > > > >Jeffrey Turner wrote: > >> > >> Eeyore wrote: > >> > "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> >>Boeing competes for its military contract sales. > >> > > >> > Airbus describes them as 'pork barrel contracts'. > >> > >> Boeing has congressmembers on payroll, so they'll get contracts. > >> It took a huge dust-up in 2002 (?) to keep the gov't from leasing > >> tanker planes from Boeing when it was *much* cheaper to buy them. > >> > >The idea was to pay for them over a number of years in a lease > >arrangement and reduce the upfront costs. > > How could Boeing offer better rates than the US Treasury can borrow? > That was the problem. > The idea was to make the programme seem lower cost upfront. I suspect that the accounting if the money is borrowed by the government looks different. -- "There are some gals who don't like to be pushed and grabbed and lassoed and drug into buses in the middle of the night." "How else was I gonna get her on the bus? Well, I'm askin' ya.", George Axelrod, "Bus Stop"
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) on 20 May 2007 20:24 Jeffrey Turner wrote: > > Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: > > Jeffrey Turner wrote: > >>Eeyore wrote: > >>>Jeffrey Turner wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>Losing your job to someone who'll work for half the wages *so* often > >>>>leads to prosperity. > >>> > >>> > >>>Why stop at half the wages. China and India can do it for far far less. > >> > >>It just as clearly applies to Chinese workers eventually losing their > >>jobs to people in Burma or Nigeria thanks to "free trade." > > > > What's interesting, because that did happen already in Japan, is that > > eventually you run out of dirt poor people to shift the work to and then > > every group on the planet is suddenly better off. The people of Japan > > aren't in a state like the people of Nigeria even though the people of > > the worse world took their old jobs. > > But Japan never subjected itself to "free market" principles. > Within Japan, you are correct the economy is pretty controlled. And you'll notice they've had serious problems.
From: Eeyore on 20 May 2007 20:40 "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > > > Are Boeing's pork-barrel military contracts a subsidy ? > > Boeing's military contracts are in its military aircraft division. Obfuscation. I'll take that as a "Yes, military contracts are a (hidden) subsidy". Graham
From: Eeyore on 20 May 2007 20:41
"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > > Maybe Boeing should 'get a life' and move on and think itself lucky it has so much > > military income ? > > What? You think that Boeing should drop out of commercial aircraft? No, just compete as it does today without pitiful and pathetic whingeing. Graham |