From: Joe the Aroma on 20 May 2007 21:24 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4650EEA0.D7301B88(a)hotmail.com... > > > "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" wrote: > >> Eeyore wrote: >> > "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" wrote: >> > > Eeyore wrote: >> > > > "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Airbus is a subsidized company >> > > > >> > > > Wrong. It's a commercial company just like Boeing. >> > > >> > > Of course it is "commercial", it's also subsidized. >> > >> > It's not subsidised. If you're going to make that claim you'll have to >> > provide > evidence of >> subsidy. >> >> You acknowledge below market loans from the government. > > I do. What's wrong with that. The government has an interest in high > employment and increased > tax revenue wheras a bank doesn't. So the government can offer better > terms. > > It's the market at work effectively. I disagree, were the market being "at work effectively" there would be a private bank available to take the risk and give them a loan... or they could issue bonds like a normal company (more likely).
From: Eeyore on 20 May 2007 21:26 "Matthew T. Russotto" wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > >"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" wrote: > > > >> Boeing competes for its military contract sales. > > > >Airbus describes them as 'pork barrel contracts'. > > That's just because they have nothing which can best them in combat. That's because Airbus doesn't make combat jets. Graham
From: Eeyore on 20 May 2007 21:28 Jeffrey Turner wrote: > Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: > > > > 1) The lease didn't happen. > > Only because of a lot of publicity. > > > 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. Share entire airframes in this case. Graham
From: Eeyore on 20 May 2007 21:32 Rudy Canoza wrote: > Fred G. Mackey wrote: > > Eeyore wrote: > > > >> You can pay more for 'private' care in the UK too if you want to. > >> Either by electing to have an additional insurance policy or by paying on > an >>ad-hoc basis. It's simply not compulsory and most ppl go with the normal > >>provision most of the time. > > > But the ones who can afford it, do get private insurance. That's > > telling, isn't it? > > The most telling thing was back in the early 1990s, > when the premier of Quebec, Robert Bourassa, came to > the U.S. for cancer treatment. At that time, and maybe > still, Canada *prohibited* its citizens from having > supplemental health insurance. They took their > egalitarianism to an absurd extent, wanting rich and > poor, governors and governed, to die before getting > treatment. That sounds bizarre. Sure about it ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 20 May 2007 21:33
"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" wrote: > Jeffrey Turner wrote: > > Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: > > > > 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. Why duplicate at all ? Graham |