Re: ATR-72's and Airbuses

Date:         03 Jan 97 04:36:35 
From:         jfmezei <nospam.jfmezei@videotron.ca>
Organization: SPC
References:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

graemec@ibm.net wrote:
> In general, I fail to understand the heat generated by this debate.  My
> Econ 101 said that subsidies/tariffs/etc were bad because of the cost to
> the *host* economy

Subsidies are bad when they sustain an industry which is endemically
inefficient. They cost the nation money, and have no long term benefit
since the industry will always be inefficient.

Look at industries in the former East Block. Good example of the above.
Air France might also be a good example, and now, they were told to
shape up or die, they are trying to get fit ASAP before their subsidies
run out.

However, this contrasts sharply with a government investment in a
startup industry which need a lot of cash to get going and shows long
term promise of jobs and sustainability. (note: long term really means
long term outside of North America).

Aerospace industries get "subsidies" in one form or the other all over
the world. If Airbus gets "more" subsides than the other guys, one must
ask the question:
	"Can Airbus survive on only the "world average" amount of subsidies,
and
     if so, how many years will it take for Airbus to grow/adapt to
this".

It is somewhat unfair to expect Airbus to have no government help
whatsoever, and still let other manufacturers get benefits from
government spending.