From: * US on
On Sun, 20 May 2007 21:12:29 -0400, Jeffrey Turner <jturner(a)localnet.com> wrote:

>* US * wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 May 2007 11:41:55 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( 'Ho high' )" <tributyltinpaint(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>*, US, * wrote:
>>>>On Sun, 20 May 2007 05:10:00 GMT, Rudy Canoza <rudy-canoza(a)excite.com> wrote:
>>>>>in the U.S...
>>>>
>>>>People have to pay more for inferior healthcare.
>>>
>>>... look at the level of health care people
>>>in America have who have decent insurance.
>>
>> They pay more for inferior healthcare.
>
>But they get the best insurance adjusters in the world.
>
>--Jeff

Ha! Good one.
From: Free Lunch on
On Mon, 21 May 2007 00:57:17 GMT, in misc.transport.road
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in
<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.

Mercantilism -- which subsidized loans are -- is not a free market.
Boeing also benefits from certain export subsidies, so the taxpayers of
both countries end up as the ones paying.
From: Free Lunch on
On Mon, 21 May 2007 00:40:53 GMT, in misc.transport.road
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in
<4650EA8B.C3F5EE8B(a)hotmail.com>:
>
>
>"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".

It might or might not be. It's surprising how little overlap there is
between commercial and military jets. If there had been more overlap,
Lockheed would have stayed in the commercial market.
From: Floyd Rogers on
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote
> "Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:

>> That's just because they have nothing which can best them in combat.
>
> That's because Airbus doesn't make combat jets.

Graham is so laughable. The parent of Airbus is EADS, which does
indeed make combat jets (and all sorts of other military stuff.) He
actually knows that EADS owns Airbus (previous post), but ignores
that fact in this post.

He also conveniently ignores the fact that military planes are
assembled on a different assembly line by cleared workers for
security reasons. It makes perfect sense for them to be separate
"entities".

FWIW, the WTO is very likely to rule that both Airbus and Boeing
get govt. subsidies; the real case will be how much each gets. It's
going to be very interesting, as many of the European companies
that get those subsidies for Airbus production also supplies Boeing,
and vice versa.

FloydR


From: Free Lunch on
On Mon, 21 May 2007 00:54:57 GMT, in misc.transport.road
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in
<4650EE14.864B34C1(a)hotmail.com>:
>
>
>"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>> > Joe the Aroma wrote:
>> >
>> > > A government loan is a subsidy.
>> >
>> > A loan is a loan.
>> >
>> That's a remarkably reflexive comment, it is. You should consider that a
>> loan at a lower than market rate by the government is by definition a
>> subsidy.
>
>Not if the government gets something additional in return. Such as guaranteed
>employment and additional tax revenue.

Guaranteed loans may be in the best interest of the government, but
economists and WTO rightly call them subsidies.