WTO rules US aid to Boeing is illegal

[JohnOfSheffield]

Actually, Airbus didn't recieve anywhere close to $20 billion in subsidies. They were loans which Airbus payed back in full incl. interest. Problem was that the interest rate on the loans were below the market interest rate.

As a comparison, Boeing was GIVEN money not only to develop civilian products but also to make it cheaper to foreign customers by grant export subsidies.

Given that the Boeing alternative is so much worse (it's completely useless at this point in time) no sane nation would buy it...

Corporate welfare is ok within a nation but according to the WTO rules, it's not ok when you try to do the same outside of a nation, now i know you have your bribes and lobbying and you see that as good business but the WTO frowns on it so keep it within your nation.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

And yet:

- Trade court rejects nearly 80% of EU claim of improper support for Boeing; finds no U.S. equivalent for billions in illegal European launch aid provided to Airbus

- Final rulings in U.S. and EU cases now public; findings show Airbus received more than $20 billion in impermissible funding versus $2.7 billion for Boeing.- Boeing reiterates call for Airbus to fund A350 and other new programs on commercial terms, and remedy prohibited export subsidies on the A380


http://www.aviationnews.eu/2011/03/...sive-airbus-advantage-from-illegal-subsidies/


You'll pardon me for not taking your position seriously, since the WTO also ruled that Airbus was receiving illegal subsidies. And contrary to your 45bn assertion, the WTO have thrown out 80% of that very claim.






Additional sources
http://www.euronews.net/2010/06/30/wto-says-airbus-got-illegal-subsidies/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/05/eu-subsidies-for-airbus-illegal/

So: We get the Airbus announcement last June. And the Boeing announcement today.


Conclusion? The WTO are lining their own pockets, rather than expressing any real desire to regulate trade fairly.

Wow, you can't even understand what you read? Or didn't you read what you posted?

 

[Scotteq]

Wow, you can't even understand what you read? Or didn't you read what you posted?

Riiiiight - It's OK in your eyes for the EU to subsidize Airbus, but some kind of horrible crime for the US to subsidize Boeing to a far lesser extent than the EU have Airbus.

Not difficult to understand the double standard at all.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Riiiiight - It's OK in your eyes for the EU to subsidize Airbus, but some kind of horrible crime for the US to subsidize Boeing to a far lesser extent than the EU have Airbus.

Not difficult to understand the double standard at all.

According to this link :

http://www.aviationnews.eu/2011/03/...sive-airbus-advantage-from-illegal-subsidies/

31 March 2011 – The World Trade Organisation (WTO) today publicly condemned the United States for giving Boeing massive illegal subsidies that caused Airbus to lose $45 billion in sales. This follows years of unfounded accusations and attempts to demonise Airbus, especially during the protracted campaign to win the US Air Force contract for Tanker aircraft.

“Finally the truth emerges: Boeing has received and continues to receive subsidies which have a significantly greater distortive effect than the Reimbursable Loans to Airbus, “ said Rainer Ohler, Airbus’ Head of Public Affairs and Communications. “Taking the cases together, the WTO has now specifically green-lighted the continued use of government loans in Europe and ordered Boeing to end its illegal cash support from US taxpayers. It’s time for Boeing to stop denying or minimizing the massive illegal subsidies it gets”.

EDIT:

But lower on the page : the WTO section in Chicago claims the opposite and announces Boeing as winner ?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Riiiiight - It's OK in your eyes for the EU to subsidize Airbus, but some kind of horrible crime for the US to subsidize Boeing to a far lesser extent than the EU have Airbus.

Not difficult to understand the double standard at all.

You didn't read the articles you posted properly, i'm very familiar with this since my son in law works for the WTO.

 

[William Gaatjes]

I find the page confusing. I must have missed a time stamp on the articles...

As a sidenote, this is seems fun :

The X-47B.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDnvxNdez84&feature=player_embedded

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

It's quite simple, the US subsidises all of it at AND use long term loans an extreme expense while the EU use loans, short term loans and following the WTO rules.

I suppose that if you want to be big in the US, you can be Boeing and give the middle finger to the WTO, but if you want to play in the world, you'll have to play by the same rules as everyone else and not whine when you are bound to do so, after all, you helped institute these rules.

I for one am bored with the US never ending whining about rules they helped set up and are not subjected to but do not want to follow because they now want to change them to their own national rules since it would benefit them at this point in time.

Next up, they want change again since they can't compete fairly.

 

[ichy]

Absolutely, there is legal subsidies and ILLEGAL subsidies, legal subsidies include those used by government to provide a specific product for government, illegal subsidies are the kind that are used to subsidise the price of sale to other nations.

A separate WTO trade panel, ruling on U.S. complaints, also has faulted European governments for illegally supporting Airbus.

Airbus welcomed the ruling saying that WTO had "publicly condemned the United States for giving Boeing massive illegal subsidies that caused Airbus to lose $45 billion in sales."

Boeing, meanwhile, said the WTO had "shattered the longstanding European myth that illegal Airbus subsidies are necessary to fend off alleged U.S. subsidies to Boeing."

Boeing acknowledged it got $2.6 billion of illegal U.S. funding, but said that pales in comparison to $20 billion of "illegal Airbus subsidies."

That interpretation was echoed by the office of the U.S. Trade Representative, which said the subsidies the Europeans give to Airbus "dwarf anything that the U.S. government does for Boeing."

Neither Airbus nor Boeing has any right to claim the moral high ground.

Edit for yet another example of how Airbus's subsidies are no better than Boeing's:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10463761

The EU paid illegal subsidies to aircraft giant Airbus, the World Trade Organization (WTO) has ruled, in the latest twist in a long-running dispute.

The US lodged a complaint with the WTO six years ago, but the decision has only now been made public.

Meanwhile the EU has made a similar complaint over the US's alleged support of its rival aircraft giant Boeing.

The US called the WTO's decision "a landmark victory", though it is not clear if the EU will appeal.

"Taking into account the nature of the prohibited subsidies we have found in this dispute, we recommend that the subsidising member... withdraw [them] without delay," the WTO said in its ruling.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Can we impeach Obama over this? We can't allow this to continue.

 

[Scotteq]

blah blah blah blah

Next up, they want change again since they can't compete fairly.

All I see here is the pot calling the kettle black. The most Airbus can complain about is that Boeing must be "better" at it, since the USA spent less money to greater effect.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

All I see here is the pot calling the kettle black. The most Airbus can complain about is that Boeing must be "better" at it, since the USA spent less money to greater effect.

The point is that you can't compete against a nation built on lobbying where the state is hellbent on corporate welfare in all instances without having the WTO deal with it.

The USA spent more money over all, the export tax subsidies alone were greater than anything else.

I'm not sure if you have been following this at all but it's not tit for tat, the US use corporate subsidies as a way to help all major companies whether they are doing well or poorly, it's got nothing to do with emergency loans when it comes to the US.

 

[Scotteq]

The point is that you can't compete against a nation built on lobbying where the state is hellbent on corporate welfare in all instances without having the WTO deal with it.

The USA spent more money over all, the export tax subsidies alone were greater than anything else.

I'm not sure if you have been following this at all but it's not tit for tat, the US use corporate subsidies as a way to help all major companies whether they are doing well or poorly, it's got nothing to do with emergency loans when it comes to the US.

Thank you for your kind patience, but on this issue I don't feel we'll end up seeing eye to eye.

Cheers, and Out.

 

[werepossum]

Fuck the WTO. American trade policies should be based on what's best for America, not what a majority of our competitors think best for us.

America out of the UN and the UN out of America, and that goes for the WTO as well. As the world's most profitable market we get royally screwed by these organizations anyway, as what is fair for the USA never seems to be fair for other countries. We should negotiate trade policies directly with other nations, not have them set for us by the WTO.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Fuck the WTO. American trade policies should be based on what's best for America, not what a majority of our competitors think best for us.

America out of the UN and the UN out of America, and that goes for the WTO as well. As the world's most profitable market we get royally screwed by these organizations anyway, as what is fair for the USA never seems to be fair for other countries. We should negotiate trade policies directly with other nations, not have them set for us by the WTO.

You hit the nail on the head.

I once read a book from some economist written between 1880 and 1905.
What he stated was quite obvious. Economics based on infinite expansion will always fail and will cause conflicts between countries or nations. Free markets will always fail because of the view of infinite expansion and infinite production. Clashes are bound to happen. I find this very logical and correct.
Thus you can be angry about it, but it will never end.

In my opinion :
One of the modern solutions is exactly that why products must have a very short life cycle. But to justify that short life cycle, it must be extremely cheap or customers will not buy it. The product must also be easily biodegradable meaning no toxic chemicals are used(it is a marketing thing, but works really well because it works on the conscience of people, think about that...). The other reason is that rare metals or other elements drive the price up of the product. Another reason to use other (usually cheaper) solutions.

Unless one enforces them into buying it.
And what better way is to use "role models" who only care for worldly possessions ? Is it really that important to twitter every moment ? To feel more alive because some people feel the need to share ? To feel content because you know some famous star has a dirt spot on her dress while in public while you shout out : "Oh my gosh, the end of the world is nigh"?

 

[actuarial]

LOL at Americans claiming to hate socialism. Shouldn't you be cheering on this ruling comrades?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

LOL at Americans claiming to hate socialism. Shouldn't you be cheering on this ruling comrades?

Why should we? Entire economic systems are built on funding businesses by government, yet when we do a fraction of what's done elsewhere it's "illegal".

Ok, let's let this ruling stand, and governments elsewhere can't subsidize their businesses. Their economies will crash, but you'll have penalized Boeing.

Everyone is happy.

 

[MotF Bane]

Why should we? Entire economic systems are built on funding businesses by government, yet when we do a fraction of what's done elsewhere it's "illegal".

Ok, let's let this ruling stand, and governments elsewhere can't subsidize their businesses. Their economies will crash, but you'll have penalized Boeing.

Everyone is happy.

But then it'll be a "fair" playing field! :awe:

 

[davmat787]

I thought Boeing was required not to use any composite or other technologies gleened from federal/nasa money for the 787? In fact, I thought this was documented and will try to dig up some info on this. Also, doesn't EADS/AirBus get money from multiple countries, and in fact was started this way? Seems like as long as the WTO has been around, Boeing and Airbus have used it to bash one another and is getting old. Market seems to like both anyway, they have roughly equal market shares and many airlines operate aircraft manufactured by both.