U.S. imposing 220% duty on Bombardier CSeries planes

[RUPERTKBD]

9 hours ago, HI5 said:

I think this is a bit misleading. I've read up on it a bit and I think the above "chart" (and the one posted by Sabre) skip many of the smaller, less populated countries.

 

From what I've read, obesity rates are highest in some of the small Polynesian countries like Palau, Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands. The affluent countries on the Persian Gulf (Bahrain, Qatar and Kuwait) also rank highly.

 

This isn't to say that there aren't issues in the countries mentioned above, (there certainly are) but I think the chart is somewhat designed to make things appear as bad as possible.

[Warhippy]

I wonder what will happen if Bombardier and canada come back and mention the auto bailouts of 2008.  The bank and wall street bail outs.  The corporate welfare from state and federal sources for places like "foxcon" and of course my personal favorite

 

Oil and energy

 

Will be interesting to see if True Dough has the ball to chretien them and say no then do something drastically different.

[aliboy]

22 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

I wonder what will happen if Bombardier and canada come back and mention the auto bailouts of 2008.  The bank and wall street bail outs.  The corporate welfare from state and federal sources for places like "foxcon" and of course my personal favorite

 

Oil and energy

 

Will be interesting to see if True Dough has the ball to chretien them and say no then do something drastically different.

I would imagine that reality is sinking in for the Liberals, that the Trump gov't is an unstable trading partner as Trump is going to do the America First thing at every opportunity. Options would include, more deals with China, changing the C Series engines to Rolls Royce and perhaps even doing a deal with Airbus to give them more sales in Canada in exchange for parts sourcing. We could also assemble the Rafale fighter in Canada. I'm sure the Liberals are going over all of the US bailouts, including money to Boeing, right now, after which they would send a communication to the US gov't saying, here is what's coming your way if you don't back off.

[taxi]

12 hours ago, SabreFan1 said:

They can sue in both the US courts and international courts...  I'd imagine that they have a decent chance of winning.

Do they?

 

Duty free agreements only apply to products that are not subsidized by the government. You can't have free trade if a company can effectively sell a product a loss and have the shortfall paid for by the government. Bombardier was expecting an 80% tariff, but go slapped with a 220% tariff. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, but I doubt Bombardier gets a clear victory in any court. 

[taxi]

11 hours ago, Warhippy said:

I'm not wrong.  The US is the most obese nation in the world and leads the world for consumption.

 

That's not incorrect at all

The  USA is definitely high up there, but not the most obese. There's all sorts of different data out there, but the Pacific Island countries always rank at the top, with the USA in the middle of a bunch of Arab nations. This is the most recent data I've found:

 

http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/29-most-obese-countries-in-the-world.html

 

Interestingly enough Canada (at 30.1%) is not far behind the USA (at 35%). 

 

I also don't think we should be bragging about consumption either, as the average Canadian's existence results in more GHG emissions than the average American. 

[Kragar]

10 hours ago, luckylager said:

I guess it's a good thing we're fatter than Hungary.

 

Iran because I was Hungary

for my Turkey covered in Greece.

I can understand that, but with all the Russian to Fiji face, I Belize it's better that Kuwait for some Guinea fowl with Chile, while sipping some Curacao.

 

 

[aliboy]

Give it a good read because this is where the US is going in a big hurry.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/business/trade-softwood-dairy-japan-europe-china-mexico-1.4085031

[taxi]

37 minutes ago, aliboy said:

Give it a good read because this is where the US is going in a big hurry.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/business/trade-softwood-dairy-japan-europe-china-mexico-1.4085031

I actually think Trump is in the right here. The nations he is trading with simply aren't playing fair. China has an extreme amount of protectionist policies, they ignore environmental and labour standards, manipulate currency, etc...No country should ever deal economically with a place like China in any kind of a free trade scenario. 

 

Trumps changes also deal largely with NAFTA, which is a deal between Canada, the USA, and Mexico.

 

It's interesting that the leftist "anti-globalization" crowd who ranted and raved about NAFTA is now screaming to protect it. Is the left really now pushing for sweatshops in Mexico and mass exports of Canadian clearcut lumber to the US? I also think the argument in that article is totally flawed. Yes, producing goods locally might be more expensive than relying on sweatshops or clearcuts, but the money goes back into the economy. 

 

Canada shouldn't be fighting this, they should be using this. Canada has, itself, been getting the raw end of the NAFTA agreement. 

[luckylager]

1 hour ago, Kragar said:

I can understand that, but with all the Russian to Fiji face, I Belize it's better that Kuwait for some Guinea fowl with Chile, while sipping some Curacao.

 

 

Bravo!

[aliboy]

54 minutes ago, taxi said:

I actually think Trump is in the right here. The nations he is trading with simply aren't playing fair. China has an extreme amount of protectionist policies, they ignore environmental and labour standards, manipulate currency, etc...No country should ever deal economically with a place like China in any kind of a free trade scenario. 

 

Trumps changes also deal largely with NAFTA, which is a deal between Canada, the USA, and Mexico.

 

It's interesting that the leftist "anti-globalization" crowd who ranted and raved about NAFTA is now screaming to protect it. Is the left really now pushing for sweatshops in Mexico and mass exports of Canadian clearcut lumber to the US? I also think the argument in that article is totally flawed. Yes, producing goods locally might be more expensive than relying on sweatshops or clearcuts, but the money goes back into the economy. 

 

Canada shouldn't be fighting this, they should be using this. Canada has, itself, been getting the raw end of the NAFTA agreement. 

Canada should certainly be using this in terms of Mexico, but Boeing has seen massive gov't money over the years and the Canadian jets support thousands of US jobs. Last I looked Canada no longer allows clear-cutting. Trump is going to do massive damage to the American Brand and it is going to take a long time for that damage to be undone.

[Kragar]

1 hour ago, taxi said:

I actually think Trump is in the right here. The nations he is trading with simply aren't playing fair. China has an extreme amount of protectionist policies, they ignore environmental and labour standards, manipulate currency, etc...No country should ever deal economically with a place like China in any kind of a free trade scenario. 

 

Trumps changes also deal largely with NAFTA, which is a deal between Canada, the USA, and Mexico.

 

It's interesting that the leftist "anti-globalization" crowd who ranted and raved about NAFTA is now screaming to protect it. Is the left really now pushing for sweatshops in Mexico and mass exports of Canadian clearcut lumber to the US? I also think the argument in that article is totally flawed. Yes, producing goods locally might be more expensive than relying on sweatshops or clearcuts, but the money goes back into the economy. 

 

Canada shouldn't be fighting this, they should be using this. Canada has, itself, been getting the raw end of the NAFTA agreement. 

The money only goes back into the economy if it is spent.  Prices rise too much, and demand will fall for soft-wood products.  If that happens, then the money that builders and others make from using the soft-wood make less.  I'm not disagreeing with you, just that it's only a part of the picture.  Another question is whether the US forests can handle the demand, and maintain sustainability, if there is no softwood coming in from Canada.  If there are also internal supply issues, then either less sustainable cutting will take place, or prices rise even further.

 

It would be awesome to level the playing field with places like China.  Amen on the bolded.  I do worry that Trump is (surprise, surprise) going over the top, sniping at every little slight out there.  It's not like the US hasn't bent or broken some trade rules, like with Boeing. 

[SabreFan1]

4 hours ago, aliboy said:

There is already an order for C Series jets in the works with China. The C Series currently supports 23k jobs in the US, with 53% of the parts for the aircraft coming from US suppliers, but those jobs are not threatened by the ruling because they are supported by sales anywhere in the world, not just the US. I agree, we need to move away from the US on trade big time. 

Giving up or moving any type of trade with a neighbouring country would be silly.  What Canada needs to do is diversify it's trade.  With the Asian markets opening up, the Western part of Canada needs to start shipping more of it's products, especially it's raw materials, to Eastern China.  I also think Canada is seriously missing out on creating it's own version of Silicon Valley.  Vancouver seems like it would be a great place to have a high tech industry.  Although I would pity the new home owners market since the influx of more upper middle and high income people would drive up the cost of housing even further.

[SabreFan1]

3 hours ago, taxi said:

Do they?

 

Duty free agreements only apply to products that are not subsidized by the government. You can't have free trade if a company can effectively sell a product a loss and have the shortfall paid for by the government. Bombardier was expecting an 80% tariff, but go slapped with a 220% tariff. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, but I doubt Bombardier gets a clear victory in any court. 

I would think they'd have a decent shot at a ruling especially in an international court.  As for a US court, they'd probably have to choose a more liberal district to level the suit in.

 

Courtesy of @RUPERTKBD  http://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/topstories/bombardier-belted-with-america-first-stunner/ar-AAsvQfy?li=AAggNb9

[JM_]

4 hours ago, Warhippy said:

I wonder what will happen if Bombardier and canada come back and mention the auto bailouts of 2008.  The bank and wall street bail outs.  The corporate welfare from state and federal sources for places like "foxcon" and of course my personal favorite

 

Oil and energy

 

Will be interesting to see if True Dough has the ball to chretien them and say no then do something drastically different.

he's certainly been making noises like he will. I sure don't want to see Boeing make any money from Canada moving forward. Some doofus at Boeing feels empowered by being buddies with Trump and its going to cost them anywhere from 6-10 billion in the short term, and maybe much more. I want to see us take that money and start building our own fighter jets. 

 

The Delta CEO seems to think this will all blow over. Its not great for them either.  

 

 

[taxi]

51 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said:

I would think they'd have a decent shot at a ruling especially in an international court.  As for a US court, they'd probably have to choose a more liberal district to level the suit in.

 

Courtesy of @RUPERTKBD  http://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/topstories/bombardier-belted-with-america-first-stunner/ar-AAsvQfy?li=AAggNb9

If Boeing is claiming is true, the 220% penalty may be right on the mark:

 

https://leehamnews.com/2017/05/25/bombardier-delta-deal-can-put-boeing-business-company-claims/

 

According to this link, Bombardier is selling the C series plane for $19.6 million. The production cost is $33.2 million, and the typical market value of the plane is over $70 million. So if the Bombardier was actually selling that low below market, then the 220% penalty may be correct. 

 

[SabreFan1]

1 hour ago, taxi said:

If Boeing is claiming is true, the 220% penalty may be right on the mark:

 

https://leehamnews.com/2017/05/25/bombardier-delta-deal-can-put-boeing-business-company-claims/

 

According to this link, Bombardier is selling the C series plane for $19.6 million. The production cost is $33.2 million, and the typical market value of the plane is over $70 million. So if the Bombardier was actually selling that low below market, then the 220% penalty may be correct. 

 

Good find.  Thanks for the link.

[JM_]

4 hours ago, taxi said:

If Boeing is claiming is true, the 220% penalty may be right on the mark:

 

https://leehamnews.com/2017/05/25/bombardier-delta-deal-can-put-boeing-business-company-claims/

 

According to this link, Bombardier is selling the C series plane for $19.6 million. The production cost is $33.2 million, and the typical market value of the plane is over $70 million. So if the Bombardier was actually selling that low below market, then the 220% penalty may be correct. 

 

the story conveniently misses the part about Boeing collecting over $70 billion in support from the US gov't since 2000... more than any other aerospace manufacturer in the world. They are massive hypocrites. 

[CBH1926]

22 hours ago, Warhippy said:

I'm not wrong.  The US is the most obese nation in the world and leads the world for consumption.

 

That's not incorrect at all

That would be incorrect, but hey don't let the facts get in your way.

[aGENT]

On 9/26/2017 at 9:59 PM, HI5 said:

 

 

[Warhippy]

17 hours ago, CBH1926 said:

That would be incorrect, but hey don't let the facts get in your way.

Ok, spell it out then champ.  Facts are for their sie population by numbers alone they lead the world in some ugly categories in weight issues.  That's not exactly arguable.  If you want to scale down to countries/islands with populations totalling a mllion or less fine.  We can do that and the US still sits top 10.