From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) Organization: DECUServe Date: 29 Feb 96 02:04:13 References: 1 2
View raw article or MIME structure
In article <airliners.1996.159@ohare.Chicago.COM>, rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) writes: re: subsidies > Then you had better say what they are called in the US. We have > to be able to call it something, if it exists. The problem is that the USA, for trade "fighting" purposes, will accuse other countries of the "subsidies" sin and deny that it is helping its own industries in any way in order to make the other country look worse. For instance, the USA cried foul when Canada, in an attempt to help our farmers match the US grain prices on the markets, gave outright grain subsidies to our farmers which were forced to sell below cost in order to compate against the US grain growers. The USA claimed that canada's actions were very bad and wanted to lower the canadian grain exports to the USA. Throughout this, the USA denied that it ever gave subsidies to its grain farmers. So, while the USA may deny ever giving any subsidies to Boeing, McD and Lockheed, the facts are that the USA government spends HUGE amounts in military expenditures (which serve no constructive purposes - they are designed to destroy) which support many industries. Look at what happened in southern california after the cold war ended. Lots of job losses. The point that the original poster wanted to make was not that military "subsidies" were bigger than outright subsidies elsewhere, but rather that the USA was also "guilty" of subsidies except that they were dressed up differently (military, tax breaks etc).