Brexit, for once some facts.

[oldtom]

Seem to be missing the real question here: are the planes being sold below cost? That in turn raises the spectre of manufacturing in JC’s ‘modern’ GB with state-owned utilities and government controlled investment banks. Not so sure we will find too many customers for the big-ticket items.

Am I the only one who doesn't understand this post?

The second sentence seems unconnected with the first and rather incredibly, brings either Jesus Christ or Jeremy Corbyn into the strange mish-mash with which the poster presents the readers.

By not starting sentences using the normal rules of grammar, (and I'm no expert), I have a difficulty pinning down, for example in sentence 1, whether the author refers to we, meaning we readers, as if to suggest we are all incapable of grasping the thread or perhaps it is he confessing that he doesn't understand....I'm not sure what.

Neither do I understand the point about a 'GB with state-owned utilities and government controlled investment banks'. Those things already exist in the UK - sadly though, it is other states which own large chunks of our utilities. Equally, there still exists the National Savings and Investment entity, formerly known by a couple of other names at various times, which does take its orders direct from government from time to time (pensioner bonds a la George Osborne's directive).

As for the last part,

Not so sure we will find too many customers for the big-ticket items

I struggle to imagine what we will offering to overseas buyers after 'Brexit' that merits the term, 'big ticket'. I'd guess though it won't be anything made of steel or anything with wheels attached. Perhaps James Dyson will make a greater success of his planned electric car than Clive Sinclair did? At least, the country makes a fortune in tax from Dyson's vacuum cleaners and he employs a whole army of workers to keep up production of his expensive models......oh wait!

Tom

 

[Steb]

It is not about protectionism, that is your interpretation. It is about subsidies, on both sides and that is plainly (pun) wrong. You really should try to read things as written - including my posts.

Am I the only one who doesn't understand this post?

The second sentence seems unconnected with the first and rather incredibly, brings either Jesus Christ or Jeremy Corbyn into the strange mish-mash with which the poster presents the readers.

By not starting sentences using the normal rules of grammar, (and I'm no expert), I have a difficulty pinning down, for example in sentence 1, whether the author refers to we, meaning we readers, as if to suggest we are all incapable of grasping the thread or perhaps it is he confessing that he doesn't understand....I'm not sure what.

Neither do I understand the point about a 'GB with state-owned utilities and government controlled investment banks'. Those things already exist in the UK - sadly though, it is other states which own large chunks of our utilities. Equally, there still exists the National Savings and Investment entity, formerly known by a couple of other names at various times, which does take its orders direct from government from time to time (pensioner bonds a la George Osborne's directive).

As for the last part, I struggle to imagine what we will offering to overseas buyers after 'Brexit' that merits the term, 'big ticket'. I'd guess though it won't be anything made of steel or anything with wheels attached. Perhaps James Dyson will make a greater success of his planned electric car than Clive Sinclair did? At least, the country makes a fortune in tax from Dyson's vacuum cleaners and he employs a whole army of workers to keep up production of his expensive models......oh wait!

Tom

If it weren't for Tom's astute analysis, I'd never get this. you were, literally, referring to the Second Coming (JC). That changes everything (no one will be selling planes after that).

 

[Danidl]

If it weren't for Tom's astute analysis, I'd never get this. you were, literally, referring to the Second Coming (JC). That changes everything (no one will be selling planes after that).

.. would there not be celestial planes?

 

[anotherkiwi]

Airbus Industries is one of the best examples of EU cooperation. It saved many of the the UK's aircraft industry jobs. Does it have issues? Which multinational cooperation doesn't have issues? But the issues Airbus does have aren't the same ones Boeing has. Boeing is propped up by price inflated contracts with the US military, but that isn't subsidies is it...

 

[Steb]

.. would there not be celestial planes?

Damn, yes, hopefully without trump though

 

[PeterL]

Am I the only one who doesn't understand this post?
Tom

Would seem that way to me, but not at all surprising really. Albeit with the odd amusing retort encouraged a little later in the thread.

 

[PeterL]

.. would there not be celestial planes?

I think it was Dennis Wheatley that wrote about those planes, not me.

 

[oldtom]

I think it was Dennis Wheatley that wrote about those planes, not me.

Ah, you can do grammar! Wheatley is one of the most readable authors I have ever read. He told absorbing tales with well-to-do heroes always able to outsmart the devil's agents, whatever the situation!

The heroes would never make it in time nowadays on that car dash from central London down to the Savernake Forest though.

Tom

 

[PeterL]

Ah, you can do grammar! Wheatley is one of the most readable authors I have ever read. He told absorbing tales with well-to-do heroes always able to outsmart the devil's agents, whatever the situation!

The heroes would never make it in time nowadays on that car dash from central London down to the Savernake Forest though.

Tom

Well, well - that is encouraging. I really did enjoy reading DW in all his manifestations. I will look on you in a different light in future - perhaps!. Even stranger, I lived nearby to Marlborough in those days.

 

[oldtom]

Even stranger, I lived nearby to Marlborough in those days.

That must be the basis for one cracking accent if you've picked up some broad Dundonian and mingled it with that slightly pirate burr of the West Country!

Tom

 

[oldtom]

And in other news.......









And finally:



Tom

 

[oldgroaner]

An example of journalistic licence gone mad?
From the Telegraph this morning
"
Theresa May threatens US with trade war over Bombardier row

The Mouse that roared!

 

[oldtom]

An example of journalistic licence gone mad?
From the Telegraph this morning
"
Theresa May threatens US with trade war over Bombardier row

The Mouse that roared!

Unbelievable! Much more of this ridiculous nonsense and we could become the laughing stock of all the world's trading nations. Oh, hang on a mo........!

Tom

 

[PeterL]

That must be the basis for one cracking accent if you've picked up some broad Dundonian and mingled it with that slightly pirate burr of the West Country!

Tom

Perhaps, it's more complicated even than that - I was born a scouser!

 

[Woosh]

It is not about protectionism, that is your interpretation. It is about subsidies, on both sides and that is plainly (pun) wrong. You really should try to read things as written - including my posts.

There was public money invested in Bombardier but it may not be fair to translate the investment into subsidies.

 

[PeterL]

There was public money invested in Bombardier but it may not be fair to translate the investment into subsidies.

I am perfectly OK with that, it makes sense and no doubt that is what Boeing, along with all the others would say. All of the manufacturers have been dragged through the courts at some point for subsidies. Perhaps the WTO needs to reform or at least accept the realities that the development of a plane requires rather more investment than can be expected of a commercial enterprise. Much of the investment in research does come from the military contracts these firms enjoy but that doesn't work out equal, especially not for the likes of Bombardier or indeed any new-comer to the party. The elephant in the room being China and no doubt the real threat to the likes of Boeing or others.

 

[KTM Bike Industries UK]

There was public money invested in Bombardier but it may not be fair to translate the investment into subsidies.

Can you explain to me how the government investing in a company to support them isn't a subsidy?

 

[Danidl]

Can you explain to me how the government investing in a company to support them isn't a subsidy?

I can but a court might take a different view. It depends on what the monies are and their purpose. A government might levy all firms for say training of staff and then give rebates or grants from that fund for those with approved apprenticeship programmes . Ditto for safety systems .
The state might pay for an industry wide non company specific research program, or make burseries available for say employing graduates to implement a new technology. Now if there is only one eligible company???

There are a number of ways...

 

[Woosh]

Can you explain to me how the government investing in a company to support them isn't a subsidy?

The Quebec government bought Cn $1bn in B-shares of Bombardier stock, half in 2016 and the rest in 2017, saving it from possible bankruptcy.
The investment does not have a direct influence on the cost base of Bombardier.
This is very different from either buying some of their planes at inflated price or give them tax concessions.

 

[KTM Bike Industries UK]

The Quebec government bought Cn $1bn in B-shares of Bombardier stock, half in 2016 and the rest in 2017, saving it from possible bankruptcy.
The investment does not have a direct influence on the cost base of Bombardier.

Do you realise how daft that sounds? So saving the company from bankruptcy, doesn't have an impact on the cost base? Really??

Clearly it does, if the company doesn't have to service its costs, its can operate more successfully.

If the government paid off the investment I've made to get FLi to where it is I'd be able to reduce the margin we make on bikes, making them more competitive.