Yes.  It's still cheating.  It's illegal and anti-free trade you know.

Yes.  It's still cheating.  It's illegal and anti-free trade you know.

The reason the military contracts given to Boeing are seen as protectionist is because they are essentially given the contracts directly by the government without any fair bidding process or anything. It is essentially a well disguised government handout.

Also I think the EU was being protectionist with regards to Airbus and so I pretty much agree with them being slapped with a fine or something.

Whatever, you know what the EU will do next?

They'll bump up ESA's budget (that's the EU's NASA), fund research into technologies whos real use are on civilian airplanes and then email all the research results to Airbus.

You know the interesting fact here? I am aware that the US government is propping up Boeing and I am aware that the EU government is propping up Airbus. Yet you seem to ignore the pork-barrel spending that's being used to prop up Boeing.

You are arguing that the White House can and should prop up Boeing while the EU should sit tight and let Airbus rot.

Well, tough luck =/

The truth is, if Boeing had to rely on its own without the rain of cash from the United States budget, Boeing would go into bankruptcy. But it'll never happen because the US government considers Boeing an strategic industry so they'll keep supporting them - and as long as that fact doesn't change, the EU can do whatever it wants concerning Airbus.

The only thing this ruling will accomplish is changing the way the euros are doled out to Airbus.

We're argueing that the EU should follow the rules.  Like the US.

There really isn't anything "Pork barrel spending" related.  I don't think you understand what that means.

Pork Barrel spending is when money is spent for useless stuff.  Like the bridge to nowhere or millions of dollars to study field mice.

Military technology isn't pork barrel spending.

FURTHERMORE, if you'd been paying attention you'd know the US actually backed out of a lot of contracts with Boeing.

For example instead of a couple hundred F22s we're now buying like... 5.

I'm actually disappointed now. I thought you could do more, than just repeat slogans you've heard. I'm still surprised how definite you think laws are...

@Kasz. You think the US has been following the rules? o.O

There is a reason the EU is now taking the US to the WTO over Boeing, they have been propping up Boeing through military contracts (which is actually also against the rules) for years.

Yes, I think the EU is taking the US to the WTO because they simply want payback... and that it has nothing to do with the rules.  The EU's main claim is "The US paid too much in developing new technology." 

Even if they got a bid from Boeing and then another from Airbus that's lower they'd always go with Boeing... because Airbus is a foreign company when it comes to new technology like the F22

Giving out military contracts to foreign companies makes no sense.

Hell infact Airbus won some recent military contracts that were only overturned because of the illegal subsidies.

There really isn't any propoganda to say.  Your basically saying "It's ok for the EU to cheat because it's facing another world power".

It isn't.  Besides when it comes to this shit it's the tip of the iceberg for Europe.

For example the EU has the biggest farm subsidies IN THE WORLD.  Farm subsidies greatly hurt poor countries.

Hell just about everything in the EU has something protecting it... when you get down to individual countries it gets even worse....

like France and they're laws.

I actually agreed before in my post(s), that most of the subsidies do hurt poor countries.

But that's not my point here. I reckon we both agree, that capitalism is the best economical form humankind has invented yet.

But as everything it has it's flaws. One is that, if too much power is accumulated it doesn't work any more. And this was the case with Boeing.

So I question if it's a good move to forbid any subsidies even if they're there to keep the system going and are aimed to create innovation.

Your answer is free market, even if monopolies already exist - this will solve everything. But the same way as communism in both political and economical senses doesn't work the other extrem regarding the economy doesn't work as well.

While you might only be aware of subsidies  - we use the opposite in Europe a lot as well. One example is higher taxes on oil. Yes, higher taxes suck for you as a single consumer, but they can create innovation. People want to pay less, therefore they buy more efficient cars. That's probably the main reason, why the US-car-industry is in the shape it is (Bigger sometimes /= better).

Next thing, when you propagate a totally free market, you have never-ending growth in mind. But never-ending doesn't happen, you must have a break-down in between. It hasn't really happened in the USA before, but one day you'll face it. One day you'll guys see, that there's no more land to be given to people, no more of your endless looking resources to divide, that the jobs simply won't be there for all of you and than you'll face the some problems Europe has. But the worst thing is, that you went into that with your eyes open and you wasted the opportunity to stay on top for many more years and your fall and probably the fall of the rest of the world will even be harder, because you didn't use the measures available to soft it.

And as for the WTO, it propagates a totally free market now, but that doesn't mean that this has the be the case all the time.