Europeans claim wictory over Americans!!!

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Is that really true? Gemany´s deficit was 50 billion last year and it was Germany and France and Portugal that had had the highest deficits in % in EU, and since Germany is at least 1/5 th of the EU economy it doesnt seem correct..

The report I saw had total EU deficit estimated to end up at 4.5% of the GDP which comes out to about 600 billion based on an estimated 13.7 Trillion GDP.

It is interesting to note when searching for the information I came across information stating current GDP to debt ratio for the EU is hovering around 70%. Not only higher in terms of % compared to the United States but also higher in absolute dollars.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Let's see, the French did more in 35 hours a week than Americans did in 40. Now who is more productive? ;)
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Let's see, the French did more in 35 hours a week than Americans did in 40. Now who is more productive?

You must be trolling for dollars now.

What is the GDP of France? What is the GDP of the United States?

 

nCred

Golden Member
Oct 13, 2003
1,105
100
106
Originally posted by: Genx87
Is that really true? Gemany´s deficit was 50 billion last year and it was Germany and France and Portugal that had had the highest deficits in % in EU, and since Germany is at least 1/5 th of the EU economy it doesnt seem correct..

The report I saw had total EU deficit estimated to end up at 4.5% of the GDP which comes out to about 600 billion based on an estimated 13.7 Trillion GDP.

It is interesting to note when searching for the information I came across information stating current GDP to debt ration for the EU is hovering around 70%. Not only higher in terms of % compared to the United States but also higher in absolute dollars.

Were is this report? In the Eurozone only France, Germany and Portugal had deficits over 3 %, and no one had 4.5 %.. BTW the EU GDP is more like 11 trillion.

http://www.pwcglobal.com/extwe...1DB1B685256EA80053EE1C
"In Euroland as a whole, budget deficits are expected to average around 2.75% of GDP in 2004, similar to 2003, and to fall only slightly during 2005."
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
airbus is publicly traded...boeing has gov't subsidies, mooches off gov't contracts, gives gov't bribes.

Airbus receives grants from several EU nations without having to deliver anything in return for those grants...they are government investments into Airbus without Airbus having to deliver anything...kind of like that rich uncle who bails you out of trouble whenever you blow your rent money in Vegas.

Boeing on the other hand is not capable of receiving blind government subsidies...what Boeing has done is utilize the financial strength of their defense operations to help support their commercial business...I do not know what you define as mooching off government contracts, but the technologies and capabilities that Boeing has delivered are worth every penny...if anything, they have been underpayed for their services.

Also, our government does not pressure or provide incentives to American airlines to purchase Boeing planes...Airbus basically has an open market in America, yet you are finding that many European airlines are switching over their fleets to Airbus...and they are receiving incentives to do so...not exactly a level playing field, but you would have free trade advocates crying foul if America established barriers to entry on Airbus planes.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Seriously, just because socialist "Old Europe" has outdone capitalist America, all the while enjoying universal healthcare and 35 hr work week, it doesn't mean we are intellectually inferior. We'll beat them one day.


Considering that the a380 will be made with about 50% US content......
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
airbus is publicly traded...boeing has gov't subsidies, mooches off gov't contracts, gives gov't bribes.

Airbus receives grants from several EU nations without having to deliver anything in return for those grants...they are government investments into Airbus without Airbus having to deliver anything...kind of like that rich uncle who bails you out of trouble whenever you blow your rent money in Vegas.

Boeing on the other hand is not capable of receiving blind government subsidies...what Boeing has done is utilize the financial strength of their defense operations to help support their commercial business...I do not know what you define as mooching off government contracts, but the technologies and capabilities that Boeing has delivered are worth every penny...if anything, they have been underpayed for their services.

Also, our government does not pressure or provide incentives to American airlines to purchase Boeing planes...Airbus basically has an open market in America, yet you are finding that many European airlines are switching over their fleets to Airbus...and they are receiving incentives to do so...not exactly a level playing field, but you would have free trade advocates crying foul if America established barriers to entry on Airbus planes.

So you are saying big government and protectionism are good for Airbus business? This can't be true. We all know big government and protectionism are burdens on business.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
the major distinction between Boeing and Airbus...if Airbus makes a mistake, miscalculation or simply requires more funding to support a project...the European taxpayers pay...Airbus has an almost unlimited access to funds in the event that their projects go over budget...Boeing cannot afford to take such risks, and because of that, Airbus is able to make more high risk high reward investments.

Boeing on the other hand is a publicly traded company...if Boeing makes a mistake, its stock takes a hit, which hinders its access to funds to support projects that go over budget, or to invest in new technologies.
airbus is publicly traded...
boeing has gov't subsidies, mooches off gov't contracts, gives gov't bribes.

most of boeing's money comes from defense....



What subsidies does boing receive from the fed?
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
airbus is publicly traded...boeing has gov't subsidies, mooches off gov't contracts, gives gov't bribes.

Airbus receives grants from several EU nations without having to deliver anything in return for those grants...they are government investments into Airbus without Airbus having to deliver anything.

Boeing on the other hand is not capable of receiving blind government subsidies...what Boeing has done is utilize the financial strength of their defense operations to help support their commercial business...I do not know what you define as mooching off government contracts, but the technologies and capabilities that Boeing has delivered are worth every penny...if anything, they have been underpayed for their services.

Also, our government does not pressure or provide incentives to American airlines to purchase Boeing planes...Airbus basically has an open market in America, yet you are finding that many European airlines are switching over their fleets to Airbus...and they are receiving incentives to do so...not exactly a level playing field, but yo would have free trade advocates crying foul if America established barriers to entry on Airbus planes.
I don't like corporate welfare at all...but boeing is notorious for it.

Subsidies
Critics said at the time that the US action was a bid to boost Bush's standing in Washington state, Boeing's industrial heartland, ahead of November's presidential election.
The 1992 agreement allowed European governments to finance up to 33 percent of Airbus' cost of developing new aircraft, including USD$3.2 billion in loans for its A380 superjumbo jet.

In its complaint to the WTO, the EU said that since 1992 Boeing had received USD$23 billion in subsidies. It said this included about USD$3.2 billion in tax breaks from Washington state and contracts with both the US Defense Department and NASA.

Boeing is a gravy sucker, just as much as airbus :)
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Seriously, just because socialist "Old Europe" has outdone capitalist America, all the while enjoying universal healthcare and 35 hr work week, it doesn't mean we are intellectually inferior. We'll beat them one day.


Considering that the a380 will be made with about 50% US content......

You wish. You can't back that up.
 

rahvin

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,475
1
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
So you are saying big government and protectionism are good for Airbus business? This can't be true. We all know big government and protectionism are burdens on business.

Of course they are good for airbus. Any subsidy is good for the business being subsidized. It isn't good for the consumer or the tax payer though. They also have a tendency to cause trade wars which can lead to real wars. The US has been looking the otherway for close to 5 years on airbus. The EU has been promissing for years that the subsidies to airbus would end after airbus was established and could compete against Boeing. What has actually happend is that Airbus has become competative with the EU paying for all of airbuses R&D and now they are paying the R&D on the two new airliners being developed AND airbus has 50% of the airliner market.

Competition is good, I didn't like but didn't oppose the EU subsidies in the beginning so that airbus could get off the ground. The problem is that the subsidies haven't ended and likely won't until boeing is out of business, and that is wrong. The press and EU lambasted Boeing for pursing the 7E7 and the airbus officials went so far as to say it would be a complete disaster. Now that the information is actually in and the orders have started and Boeing's business plan have been vindicated the EU is going to give airbus 10 billion in grants so that they can R&D a similar plane and undercut Boeing on price. It's rediculous and I hope the WTO allows sanctions against the EU.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Seriously, just because socialist "Old Europe" has outdone capitalist America, all the while enjoying universal healthcare and 35 hr work week, it doesn't mean we are intellectually inferior. We'll beat them one day.


Considering that the a380 will be made with about 50% US content......

You wish. You can't back that up.

linkage, 50% US content excluding the engines
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
So you are saying big government and protectionism are good for Airbus business? This can't be true. We all know big government and protectionism are burdens on business.
Typically this is true, with the exception perhaps of markets and industries that have huge cost restrictive barriers of entry, are defined by proprietary technologies & innovation, and the competitors that do exist receive government protection. The commercial aircraft industry is essentially dominated by Boeing and Airbus...the lifecycle of an airplane from inception through design into production can take nearly a decade...Boeing is not suffering for lack of talented engineers or an understanding of the industry...what they are learning is to be more cost effective through the design and manufacturing process, and this will pay off for them as they launch 7E7.

Boeing is a gravy sucker, just as much as airbus
The bizarre thing about commercial aircraft is just how inefficient the industry is as a whole...can you imagine how much a car would cost if the auto industry was structured anything like commercial aircraft.

If anything, this competition between Boeing and Airbus is healthy...it is fostering innovation and forcing both companies to react, which are the healthy elements of a free market...however, when you have governments bailing out companies, they fail to learn from their mistakes, do not innovate, and otherwise stagnates certain elements of the industry.
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: Genx87
Well it is a combination of the wake turbulence from the 747 and the rudder. Either way that is not very good for a plane to fall apart from either and or the combination. That doesnt look good for Airbus.

Seriously, just because socialist "Old Europe" has outdone capitalist America, all the while enjoying universal healthcare and 35 hr work week, it doesn't mean we are intellectually inferior. We'll beat them one day.

Well dont stop there. With their region wide 9% unemployment rates(worse than our highschool diploma unemployment rate of 8.3%). Some people dont work at all and get universal healthcare.

Yeah hopefully those countries whose Airbus is outcompeting Boeing get rid of their 35 hr work week, because it's making them uncompetitive

You can surely see the gdp growth of the United States vs the EU to see who is more productive ;)

If we are so productive, how come we are a nation in debt? How come our dollar is losing value to Euro faster than a Bimmer is depreciating :D ?

Lots of nations are in debt, even these other ones in question.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Seriously, just because socialist "Old Europe" has outdone capitalist America, all the while enjoying universal healthcare and 35 hr work week, it doesn't mean we are intellectually inferior. We'll beat them one day.


Considering that the a380 will be made with about 50% US content......

You wish. You can't back that up.

linkage, 50% US content excluding the engines

But they don't say 50% of what? Weight? Part numbers? Value?
I doubt 50% of the profit from every A380 sold will go to American companies.
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
So you are saying big government and protectionism are good for Airbus business? This can't be true. We all know big government and protectionism are burdens on business.
Typically this is true, with the exception perhaps of markets and industries that have huge cost restrictive barriers of entry, are defined by proprietary technologies & innovation, and the competitors that do exist receive government protection. The commercial aircraft industry is essentially dominated by Boeing and Airbus...the lifecycle of an airplane from inception through design into production can take nearly a decade...Boeing is not suffering for lack of talented engineers or an understanding of the industry...what they are learning is to be more cost effective through the design and manufacturing process, and this will pay off for them as they launch 7E7.

Boeing is a gravy sucker, just as much as airbus
The bizarre thing about commercial aircraft is just how inefficient the industry is as a whole...can you imagine how much a car would cost if the auto industry was structured anything like commercial aircraft.

If anything, this competition between Boeing and Airbus is healthy...it is fostering innovation and forcing both companies to react, which are the healthy elements of a free market...however, when you have governments bailing out companies, they fail to learn from their mistakes, do not innovate, and otherwise stagnates certain elements of the industry.
So...in short Boeing is a gravy sucker and you admit to it getting government subsidies.
And you admit that airbus is publically traded.
thanks for the blatently wrong post above :p
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Seriously, just because socialist "Old Europe" has outdone capitalist America, all the while enjoying universal healthcare and 35 hr work week, it doesn't mean we are intellectually inferior. We'll beat them one day.


Considering that the a380 will be made with about 50% US content......

You wish. You can't back that up.

linkage, 50% US content excluding the engines

But they don't say 50% of what? Weight? Part numbers? Value?
I doubt 50% of the profit from every A380 sold will go to American companies.



It will still be a sizable chunk going to the US subcontractors invovled.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
So...in short Boeing is a gravy sucker and you admit to it getting government subsidies.
And you admit that airbus is publically traded.thanks for the blatently wrong post above
Well no I admitted that Boeing is keeping its commercial aircraft division alive through its more lucrative defense industry...if you think these contracts are pork barrel subsidies, then yes it is gravy...I happen to think that the government gets a lot of tech back for their "subsidies." Also Boeing is working especially hard to innovate, change and cut production costs...hardly the behavior of a company with a government subsidy safety net.

Airbus may be publicly traded, but they do not have the same stockholder obligations that Boeing has because of that lovely safety net provided by Europe's particular brand of socialism.

I wouldnt say my post is wrong...I would say my perception of each company and how its gets money differs from yours..
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Seriously, just because socialist "Old Europe" has outdone capitalist America, all the while enjoying universal healthcare and 35 hr work week, it doesn't mean we are intellectually inferior. We'll beat them one day.


Considering that the a380 will be made with about 50% US content......

You wish. You can't back that up.

linkage, 50% US content excluding the engines

But they don't say 50% of what? Weight? Part numbers? Value?
I doubt 50% of the profit from every A380 sold will go to American companies.



It will still be a sizable chunk going to the US subcontractors invovled.



linkage


If the customer chooses the Engine Alliance engine (made as a joint venture between GE Aircraft Engines and UTC?s Pratt & Whitney), then the U.S. content is about 50% of the value of the A380. A Rolls-Royce engine choice pushes that percentage of U.S. content value down by a bit more than 10% (my estimate), but the value of American-manufactured components on any A380 is very, very high.
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
So...in short Boeing is a gravy sucker and you admit to it getting government subsidies.
And you admit that airbus is publically traded.thanks for the blatently wrong post above
Well no I admitted that Boeing is keeping its commercial aircraft division alive through its more lucrative defense industry...if you think these contracts are pork barrel subsidies, then yes it is gravy...I happen to think that the government gets a lot of tech back for their "subsidies." Also Boeing is working especially hard to innovate, change and cut production costs...hardly the behavior of a company with a government subsidy safety net.

Airbus may be publicly traded, but they do not have the same stockholder obligations that Boeing has because of that lovely safety net provided by Europe's particular brand of socialism.

I wouldnt say my post is wrong...I would say my perception of each company and how its gets money differs from yours..
sigh can you read.
"Boeing had received USD$23 billion in subsidies. It said this included about USD$3.2 billion in tax breaks from Washington state and (in addition to) contracts with both the US Defense Department and NASA."

gravy sucking is the over $26billion

They both get the money for doing nothing = gravy sucking.

Quit your blind support for American corporations.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
So...in short Boeing is a gravy sucker and you admit to it getting government subsidies.
And you admit that airbus is publically traded.thanks for the blatently wrong post above
Well no I admitted that Boeing is keeping its commercial aircraft division alive through its more lucrative defense industry...if you think these contracts are pork barrel subsidies, then yes it is gravy...I happen to think that the government gets a lot of tech back for their "subsidies." Also Boeing is working especially hard to innovate, change and cut production costs...hardly the behavior of a company with a government subsidy safety net.

Airbus may be publicly traded, but they do not have the same stockholder obligations that Boeing has because of that lovely safety net provided by Europe's particular brand of socialism.

I wouldnt say my post is wrong...I would say my perception of each company and how its gets money differs from yours..
sigh can you read.
"Boeing had received USD$23 billion in subsidies. It said this included about USD$3.2 billion in tax breaks from Washington state and (in addition to) contracts with both the US Defense Department and NASA."

gravy sucking is the over $26billion

They both get the money for doing nothing = gravy sucking.

Quit your blind support for American corporations.

Goverment contracts are not exactly subsidies.

 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
So...in short Boeing is a gravy sucker and you admit to it getting government subsidies.
And you admit that airbus is publically traded.thanks for the blatently wrong post above
Well no I admitted that Boeing is keeping its commercial aircraft division alive through its more lucrative defense industry...if you think these contracts are pork barrel subsidies, then yes it is gravy...I happen to think that the government gets a lot of tech back for their "subsidies." Also Boeing is working especially hard to innovate, change and cut production costs...hardly the behavior of a company with a government subsidy safety net.

Airbus may be publicly traded, but they do not have the same stockholder obligations that Boeing has because of that lovely safety net provided by Europe's particular brand of socialism.

I wouldnt say my post is wrong...I would say my perception of each company and how its gets money differs from yours..
sigh can you read.
"Boeing had received USD$23 billion in subsidies. It said this included about USD$3.2 billion in tax breaks from Washington state and (in addition to) contracts with both the US Defense Department and NASA."

gravy sucking is the over $26billion

They both get the money for doing nothing = gravy sucking.

Quit your blind support for American corporations.

Goverment contracts are not exactly subsidies.

So Boeing does not receive any DIRECT subsidies for its 7E7 development, as opposed to Airbus receiving direct subsidies to fund its own product development?
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
So...in short Boeing is a gravy sucker and you admit to it getting government subsidies.
And you admit that airbus is publically traded.thanks for the blatently wrong post above
Well no I admitted that Boeing is keeping its commercial aircraft division alive through its more lucrative defense industry...if you think these contracts are pork barrel subsidies, then yes it is gravy...I happen to think that the government gets a lot of tech back for their "subsidies." Also Boeing is working especially hard to innovate, change and cut production costs...hardly the behavior of a company with a government subsidy safety net.

Airbus may be publicly traded, but they do not have the same stockholder obligations that Boeing has because of that lovely safety net provided by Europe's particular brand of socialism.

I wouldnt say my post is wrong...I would say my perception of each company and how its gets money differs from yours..
sigh can you read.
"Boeing had received USD$23 billion in subsidies. It said this included about USD$3.2 billion in tax breaks from Washington state and (in addition to) contracts with both the US Defense Department and NASA."

gravy sucking is the over $26billion

They both get the money for doing nothing = gravy sucking.

Quit your blind support for American corporations.

Goverment contracts are not exactly subsidies.

So Boeing does not receive any DIRECT subsidies for its 7E7 development, as opposed to Airbus receiving direct subsidies to fund its own product development?



They got a tax break from washington state and that is it.
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
So...in short Boeing is a gravy sucker and you admit to it getting government subsidies.
And you admit that airbus is publically traded.thanks for the blatently wrong post above
Well no I admitted that Boeing is keeping its commercial aircraft division alive through its more lucrative defense industry...if you think these contracts are pork barrel subsidies, then yes it is gravy...I happen to think that the government gets a lot of tech back for their "subsidies." Also Boeing is working especially hard to innovate, change and cut production costs...hardly the behavior of a company with a government subsidy safety net.

Airbus may be publicly traded, but they do not have the same stockholder obligations that Boeing has because of that lovely safety net provided by Europe's particular brand of socialism.

I wouldnt say my post is wrong...I would say my perception of each company and how its gets money differs from yours..
sigh can you read.
"Boeing had received USD$23 billion in subsidies. It said this included about USD$3.2 billion in tax breaks from Washington state and (in addition to) contracts with both the US Defense Department and NASA."

gravy sucking is the over $26billion

They both get the money for doing nothing = gravy sucking.

Quit your blind support for American corporations.

Goverment contracts are not exactly subsidies.
Wow...you can't read either....
23 billion IN ADDITION TO CONTRACTS

damn ppl :p
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
So...in short Boeing is a gravy sucker and you admit to it getting government subsidies.
And you admit that airbus is publically traded.thanks for the blatently wrong post above
Well no I admitted that Boeing is keeping its commercial aircraft division alive through its more lucrative defense industry...if you think these contracts are pork barrel subsidies, then yes it is gravy...I happen to think that the government gets a lot of tech back for their "subsidies." Also Boeing is working especially hard to innovate, change and cut production costs...hardly the behavior of a company with a government subsidy safety net.

Airbus may be publicly traded, but they do not have the same stockholder obligations that Boeing has because of that lovely safety net provided by Europe's particular brand of socialism.

I wouldnt say my post is wrong...I would say my perception of each company and how its gets money differs from yours..
sigh can you read.
"Boeing had received USD$23 billion in subsidies. It said this included about USD$3.2 billion in tax breaks from Washington state and (in addition to) contracts with both the US Defense Department and NASA."

gravy sucking is the over $26billion

They both get the money for doing nothing = gravy sucking.

Quit your blind support for American corporations.

Goverment contracts are not exactly subsidies.
Wow...you can't read either....
23 billion IN ADDITION TO CONTRACTS

damn ppl :p


It appears you cant read.

"Boeing had received USD$23 billion in subsidies."

23 Billion total


"included about USD$3.2 billion in tax breaks from Washington state and (in addition to) contracts with both the US Defense Department and NASA.""

23 -3B in state tax breaks= 20B left for contracts with DoD and Nasa.


Not a single subsidy from the fed.