Comment by ineedasername | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ineedasername | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Citing Boeing on this isn't really going to get a good answer, of course they think it's an illegal subsidy. You need to define illegal though.

The general interpretation of the issue states that allowable subsidies are, "those which are applied to research and pre-competitive development activities, and others which assist disadvantaged regions" [0]

Tens of billions of dollars in tax breaks and loan guarantees doesn't really seem like it could all fit under that definition, and indeed it looks likely that the WTO will rule that way as well.

The main problem with this case isn't just that AirBus received illegal subsidies. That can be true at the same time that Boeing also received them, making this a somewhat ridiculous thing to argue about, for Boeing to claim to be the aggrieved party here when any grievance or disadvantage has been offset by their own subsidies.

The end result will be additional tariffs imposed in both directions, making consumers pay more, at a time that tariffs and trade wars exacerbate a minor economic slowdown, increasing the chance that it will turn into something more.

[0] https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Trade+Liberalization+Under+th...

Boeing isn't just saying that they "think" there are illegal subsidies. They're pointing to the WTO's rulings. I guess I could've looked up those particular cases and cited them directly. However, I reckon if they were lying about what the WTO was saying, that wouldn't be difficult for you to find and point to yourself. In fact, we need look no further than the article that started this discussion to verify. Let's look at the actual content of the argument instead of relying on circumstantial ad hominem.

No, you're right: The WTO has ruled against AirBus, which makes their subsidies de facto officially illegal. But Boeing isn't a great source for understanding the intricacies of the issue, and by definition any claim that subsidies are improper is also a claim that they are illegal. That's pretty much what I meant, along with pointing out that Boeing's subsidies are similarly problematic.

Note: The WTO will issue their ruling on the legality of Boeing's subsidies in January.

> The end result will be additional tariffs imposed in both directions, making consumers pay more

Consumers will pay more, roughly in proportion to their consumption of a product that is at once a luxury good and environmentally unfriendly. The money mostly won't be destroyed - it will go to governments who can increase social spending or cut other taxes instead.

Sounds like a very progressive change to the tax regime. Who's complaining about this again?

> You need to define illegal though

Illegal as defined by the WTO.

Um, yes, obviously, they are the relevant authority in this case and whose definition I then expound upon. Were you voicing a criticism?

You implied that the actions werent illegal, by bringing up things that Boeing said, and implying that Boeing is biased, and also wrong.

This is misleading, because the WTO has already ruled on this Airbus stuff.

And the WTO thinks that the stuff that the EU did is illegal. Therefore it is illegal, and you shouldn't imply that it is not illegal.

So yes, the stuff that the EU did is illegal. Full stop. It is illegal according to the WTO, and therefore it is irelevant to say that Boeing is Biased, because the authorities agree with Boeing and the authorities have ruled that it was illegal.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com