Sorry, but that's complete bullshit.

Both by the rules of the WTO and by the fact that the US is purchasing something... while the EU is just giving subsidies.

As for weapons being overstocked.  All weapons are overstocked....until they're understocked.  You never know how many bombs and planes your going to need until you have a reason to use them.

There is no denying that the EU is by far the biggest barrier to free trade. 

US protectionism had only ramped up in response to the EU protectionism.

The gap used to be worse... the US is unfortunitly closing... but the EU still is the top of the line when it comes to this.

Also... the EU also bailed out it's auto industries... with opel and such.

Also the bailouts (US ones) were loans... not subsidies.

Your analogy of the government loaning money to the auto makers equating to purchasing products from Boeing is a HORRIBLE comparison, and you know it.

In fact, the similarities between the govt. bailout of GM and Crysler should exactly be likened to what the EU is doing.

In one situation, the government entity is purchasing goods and services from a domestic company. The other is a handout. It should be opposed that the US helped specific auto companies, just like the EU helped Airbus out.

One transaction involves exactly that - an exchange of products for goods and services. The other involves subsidizing failures. I wonder why Airbus is doing better than Boeing, hmm? Maybe because they are getting cash infusions that foster an un-natural advantage, because they did not earn the money legally?

Man the Boeing guys on the Hill will not sleep for days now! Great work protectionist EU! How about giving the boot to more Euro corps!

Two little things to get you right.

1. The EU hasn't bailed out anyone (except for some eastern european national banks), it was their different member countries.

2. Opel was before the crisis 100% American-owned company (GM) and got into trouble due to bad management. They still got their 1,5 billion credit by Germany. Actually they now have wasted another 1,1 billion € because they haven't accepted any buyer yet, but have outsorced 65% of there share to a so called trust-fonds.

As for the subsidies - you're right on Airbus, but thing it another way.

Why does the EU support Airbus? Because they didn't want a quasi-monopoly from Boeing and you can't create such a giant nowadays (all the development costs etc.) without help from the goverment (in this case the EU, respective some of their members in co-operation).

So actually this was the only way to create a market with competition. Ever thought it that way?

woah,eu hate incoming!!

Doesn't matter.  If that was there goal they should buy some shit and follow international law.

Well, we don't know yet, if it was correct under international law. Or have you read the 1000+ pages of the WTO-statement?

I guess, you haven't so the only thing which we could do here is to discuss, if it was a good move to give subisidies to EADS (the Airbus company) or not.

And we should discuss, if it's a good move to attract/ help to build up key industries for your economical area or not.

Which is protectionism.

You can be pro-protetionism.... that's fine. 

However in the international community that's seen as cheating and unfair to pooerer countries... and the EU is by far the biggest offender.

While I agree, that this might be cheating and unfair to poorer countries, I wouldn't say, that the USA is a poorer country. Can you still call it cheating then?

It's not, that the airplane sector is, where we take poor Africans something away. It helps to create more competition => freer market => cheaper prices, in the end bigger markets for everyone AND higher commodity prices for poor countries.

So this is hardly the typical kind of subsidies and except for the USA nobody in the international community would call it cheating, if you think through it.

I agree with you, that the EU generally gives away large sums to protect industries and this is most of the times cheating and unfair. But in the Airbus case it's just not. But now as we agreed on the definition, the question from my first posts still stands:

Do think a country (or a country-union) should do nothing to break a monopoly? And if you think it should, shouldn't the WTO agree that they are needed sometimes?

Protectionism can work in favor of the poorer countries, too. A lack of protectionism nearly bankrupted Jamaica's banana business, for instance. The IMF required Jamaica to open up its banana market if they wanted to get IMF money, so Jamaica had to, and then the American banana companies annihilated them, crushing a large part of Jamaica's domestic market

The WTO is no benevolent figure, and neither are the IMF and the World Bank. This anti-protectionism is often just an effort to force poorer countries into more submissive positions by default, while institutions like the US and EU continue to do as they more or less please.