How many loans and bailouts does Bombardier need?

[Machjo]

Being the first country to put a man on Mars would be a great step in making us great. Congratulations JLM...You finally said something that wasn't completely idiotic. Let me go mark my calendar....

Absolutely! While our public education system has produced literacy rate of around 50% in neither official language among working-age Canadians, instead of funding our public education system or pay off the debt, we'll blow that money to send someone off to Mars. Priorities I say.

 

[Cannuck]

It'll be yuge...you'll see.

 

[Locutus]

 

[Cannuck]

Poor LOC doesn't like government handing cash to corporations unless it's Trump doing the handing

 

[petros]

Why would it matter Trumpette?

 

[Curious Cdn]

The Yanks subsidize their aircraft industry with massive defence contracts (4 billion dollar Presidential aircraft!?!?) from which they have derived immense benefit over the last three quarter century. We're just silly, cheapskate wannabe parsimonious skinflints with zero courage or vision. We deserve to be losers who can only dig all of their money out of the ground instead of thinking and acting and creating on higher levels. Silly and second rate, we are.

 

[Machjo]

The Yanks subsidize their aircraft industry with massive defence contracts (4 billion dollar Presidential aircraft!?!?) from which they have derived immense benefit over the last three quarter century. We're just silly, cheapskate wannabe parsimonious skinflints with zero courage or vision. We deserve to be losers who can only dig all of their money out of the ground instead of thinking and acting and creating on higher levels. Silly and second rate, we are.

The US may subsidize industries to the hilt, but at what cost? Look at the US debt. Look at its crumbling infrastructure! Sure it might mean these big industries move to the US. But the party can last only so long. After all, we get to enjoy aircraft subsidized by US taxpayers. Honestly, I've never understood opposition to commercial dumping. Heck, Canada should welcome it! If foreign states are dumb enough to get their taxpayers to subsidize the goods we buy, are we to be so dumb as to turn it down?

In the end, let's just focus on exporting what we they aren't subsidizing to the hilt. The fact is that they can't afford to subsidize all industries. They got to pick and choose which to subsidize at the expense of the others.

 

[petros]

5000 Boeing jobs went overseas. Not a good thing for Seattle.

 

[Machjo]

5000 Boeing jobs went overseas. Not a good thing for Seattle.

Maybe the US could borrow more money to bribe Boeing to stay and sell US-taxpayer-subsidized planes to Canada. Why should we be so stupid as to subsidize our own planes when we can just get the US taxpayer to subsidize ours.

 

[Curious Cdn]

The US may subsidize industries to the hilt, but at what cost? Look at the US debt. Look at its crumbling infrastructure! Sure it might mean these big industries move to the US. But the party can last only so long. After all, we get to enjoy aircraft subsidized by US taxpayers. Honestly, I've never understood opposition to commercial dumping. Heck, Canada should welcome it! If foreign states are dumb enough to get their taxpayers to subsidize the goods we buy, are we to be so dumb as to turn it down?

In the end, let's just focus on exporting what we they aren't subsidizing to the hilt. The fact is that they can't afford to subsidize all industries. They got to pick and choose which to subsidize at the expense of the others.

We would not be flying around in jet airliners without the US military having bought fleets of B-52 bombers back in the fifties and sixties. We wouldn't have any sort of space exploration going on had they not built thousands of ICBMs. The synergies that were derived from dumping mountains of cash into Boeing, McDonnell, Douglas, Lougheed, Marietta, Grumman have literally transformed the planet.

We're second rate pikers.

 

[Cannuck]

Why would it matter Trumpette?

You'll have to ask Loc.

 

[Curious Cdn]

Maybe the US could borrow more money to bribe Boeing to stay and sell US-taxpayer-subsidized planes to Canada. Why should we be so stupid as to subsidize our own planes when we can just get the US taxpayer to subsidize ours.

Maybe, development of the C-Series cost Bombardier more than they thought it would because their technologies are cutting edge. Pulling the plug on them now, just when they're going into production is so bloody Avro Arrow Canadian. We deserve to be also-rans.

 

[Machjo]

We would not be flying around in jet airliners without the US military having bought fleets of B-52 bombers back in the fifties and sixties. We wouldn't have any sort of space exploration going on had they not built thousands of ICBMs. The synergies that were derived from dumping mountains of cash into Boeing, McDonnell, Douglas, Lougheed, Marietta, Grumman have literally transformed the planet.

We're second rate pikers.

We could achieve the same through practical, down-to-earth civilian investments.

For example, ministries of education could invest in developing improved telecommunication technologies for teleconference classrooms for more remote communities. More open borders could encourage businesses to invest in more advanced telecommunications technologies too for international trade. The arms industry is a very inefficeint and round-about way to develop civilian technologies.

Maybe, development of the C-Series cost Bombardier more than they thought it would because their technologies are cutting edge. Pulling the plug on them now, just when they're going into production is so bloody Avro Arrow Canadian. We deserve to be also-rans.

If the Cseries is so good, then won't bombardier survive on its own?

To be clear, I actually support eliminating business taxes, but I do not support the government playing favourites between businesses.

 

[Curious Cdn]

We could achieve the same through practical, down-to-earth civilian investments.

For example, ministries of education could invest in developing improved telecommunication technologies for teleconference classrooms for more remote communities. More open borders could encourage businesses to invest in more advanced telecommunications technologies too for international trade. The arms industry is a very inefficeint and round-about way to develop civilian technologies.



If the Cseries is so good, then won't bombardier survive on its own?

To be clear, I actually support eliminating business taxes, but I do not support the government playing favourites between businesses.

They had no problem bailing out GM with 25 times more money and far less benefit to Canada.

Aerospace is not a level playing field ... never was, anywhere. We decide as a nation whether we want to develop and keep this sort of expertise or not. All of the other aircraft producing nations do it for strategic reasons.

 

[Machjo]

They had no problem bailing out GM with 25 times more money and far less benefit to Canada.

I opposed bailing out GM too. Heck, even the 'environmentalist' parties supported that. Why not subsidize the bicycle industry instead? Actually, bailing out GM is even worse than Bombardier. They could have subsidized the train industry instead of the car industry. Telecommuting is even better. Why not subsidize the internet industry instead and develop the most advanced internet system in the world so as to allow the easiest telecommuting to work possible, maybe even across oceans?

without getting into details on how I know this, I can tell you that Canadian civil servants do a hell of a lot of traveling and airlines and Via Rail and even hotels and car rental companies make a killing off of civil servants. Why not invest in more teleconferencing equipment for different government departments? This would help Canada's internet industry and save the taxpayer money and help protect the environment in one swoop. They need to think outside the friggin box.

 

[Curious Cdn]

I opposed bailing out GM too. Heck, even the 'environmentalist' parties supported that. Why not subsidize the bicycle industry instead? Actually, bailing out GM is even worse than Bombardier. They could have subsidized the train industry instead of the car industry. Telecommuting is even better. Why not subsidize the internet industry instead and develop the most advanced internet system in the world so as to allow the easiest telecommuting to work possible, maybe even across oceans?

Should we maintain the expertise to design and manufacture aircraft? (We're really good at it and it makes us all a bit "smarter")

 

[Machjo]

Should we maintain the expertise to design and manufacture aircraft? (We're really good at it and it makes us all a bit "smarter")

Makes no sense. Official bilingualism does not make the average Canadian more bilingual. In the same way, subsidizing Bombardier does not make the average Canadian a rocket scientist. If highly paid aircraft engineers who pay such high taxes are all paid by the taxpayer, does that not essentially undermine the whole point of keeping them in the country?

And what makes aircraft engineers more important than electronics engineers? Why not let the aircraft engineers leave the country and attract more electronics engineers to develop our teleconferencing technologies?

 

[Curious Cdn]

Makes no sense. Official bilingualism does not make the average Canadian more bilingual. In the same way, subsidizing Bombardier does not make the average Canadian a rocket scientist. If highly paid aircraft engineers who pay such high taxes are all paid by the taxpayer, does that not essentially undermine the whole point of keeping them in the country?

And what makes aircraft engineers more important than electronics engineers? Why not let the aircraft engineers leave the country and attract more electronics engineers to develop our teleconferencing technologies?

Well, subsidizing our aerospace industry goes right back to WWII and we never stopped doing it. As a matter of fact, the marriage of deHavilland and Canadair into Bombardier aerospace was brokered by a Canadian government who had subsidized both since 1940, pretty much non-stop. Why did they do it? For strategic reasons, a big, modern, up-and-coming power like Canada needs to have that expertise and to have a seat at the high-tech table. The Avro Arrow fiasco showed successive governments that the Canadian public really do want to live in a modern, cutting edge country. Diefenbaker didn't "get" it and I doubt that any subsequent government wants to be seen in the same light.

teleconferencing technologies?
[... checks his watch to see if it's the twenty first century, yet]

You mean, like ... Nortel ?

 

[Machjo]

Well, subsidizing our aerospace industry goes right back to WWII and we never stopped doing it. As a matter of fact, the marriage of deHavilland and Canadair into Bombardier aerospace was brokered by a Canadian government who had subsidized both since 1940, pretty much non-stop. Why did they do it? For strategic reasons, a big, modern, up-and-coming power like Canada needs to have that expertise and to have a seat at the high-tech table. The Avro Arrow fiasco showed successive governments that the Canadian public really do want to live in a modern, cutting edge country. Diefenbaker didn't "get" it and I doubt that any subsequent government wants to be seen in the same light.

teleconferencing technologies?
[... checks his watch to see if it's the twenty first century, yet]

You mean, like ... Nortel ?

Here's the thing though. I don't have a fighter jet in my garage, nor any jet for that matter, nor even a skidoo. Could this be why they're failing? They're building things I don't buy.

I do have internet at home and depend on it for work. I work online. I pay money for an internet connection. So I'm a consumer of such services and that's why they don't need government spending. Hong Kong is quite high tech too yet very little government spending. It exports what it does best and imports the rest. Works there, why not here?

As for teleconferencing, are you implying that it has reached the pinnacle of advancement and has no more room to develop?

If we want a more high tech economy, why not invest more in universal compulsory education? That way, we'd be subsidizing all businesses indirectly by ensuring that the workers they hire are better educated. That way too, everyone benefits and not just Bombardier employees.

 

[taxslave]

I opposed bailing out GM too. Heck, even the 'environmentalist' parties supported that. Why not subsidize the bicycle industry instead? Actually, bailing out GM is even worse than Bombardier. They could have subsidized the train industry instead of the car industry. Telecommuting is even better. Why not subsidize the internet industry instead and develop the most advanced internet system in the world so as to allow the easiest telecommuting to work possible, maybe even across oceans?

without getting into details on how I know this, I can tell you that Canadian civil servants do a hell of a lot of traveling and airlines and Via Rail and even hotels and car rental companies make a killing off of civil servants. Why not invest in more teleconferencing equipment for different government departments? This would help Canada's internet industry and save the taxpayer money and help protect the environment in one swoop. They need to think outside the friggin box.

Explain to us poor hillbillies how construction workers and loggers can telecommute.