Hey brother can you spare a $billion to bailout Bombardier?

[onthebottom]

Interesting those that are supportive of corporate "welfare", would all these justifications be applicable to the West energy industry?

 

[nottyboi]

Interesting those that are supportive of corporate "welfare", would all these justifications be applicable to the West energy industry?

Why is the West energy industry so special. The govt has invested BILLIONS into the energy industry. Beaufort sea, Hibernia etc etc..
Petro Canada was part of this investment and strategy.

 

[saxon]

Why is the West energy industry so special. The govt has invested BILLIONS into the energy industry. Beaufort sea, Hibernia etc etc..
Petro Canada was part of this investment and strategy.

Correct, and how much did the government make when they finally sold off Petro Canada? Millions.

 

[eguapo]

They are compliant with the terms of the loan, why would they repay that loan when the project is not yet complete and still burning cash? That would be absurd....[/QUOTE




What is absurd is the all the previous C-series loans and the recent $1bln deal plus the $350mln or so they are going to ask from the federal government for the C-series is basically to protect only 12,500 jobs not the entire aerospace industry. That is not a fabricated number. That is what the company projects all the direct, indirect and induced jobs that the C-Series project will create at max production levels.

Probably even more absurd is the notion you put forth that the C series would add $150-200bln in Canadian GDP over a 20 year horizon. The entire Company adds around $12.5bln to Canadian GDP. That is planes.trains and not automobiles.

The C series adding up to an incremental $10bln a year sounds a bit high doesn't it? Would be curious to see where you got those numbers from.

 

[nottyboi]

Correct, and how much did the government make when they finally sold off Petro Canada? Millions.

They made money on Hibernia as well. So what's your point? Their investments are not really to make money but to encourage development and try not to lose money. They lost billions on GM.

 

[nottyboi]

They are compliant with the terms of the loan, why would they repay that loan when the project is not yet complete and still burning cash? That would be absurd....[/QUOTE




What is absurd is the all the previous C-series loans and the recent $1bln deal plus the $350mln or so they are going to ask from the federal government for the C-series is basically to protect only 12,500 jobs not the entire aerospace industry. That is not a fabricated number. That is what the company projects all the direct, indirect and induced jobs that the C-Series project will create at max production levels.

Probably even more absurd is the notion you put forth that the C series would add $150-200bln in Canadian GDP over a 20 year horizon. The entire Company adds around $12.5bln to Canadian GDP. That is planes.trains and not automobiles.

The C series adding up to an incremental $10bln a year sounds a bit high doesn't it? Would be curious to see where you got those numbers from.

Projected revenues for Cseries are about 8b/year at 110 frames/year. If they proceeds with CS500 it will be MUCH bigger, at least another 4B/year..

 

[wilbur]

They are compliant with the terms of the loan, why would they repay that loan when the project is not yet complete and still burning cash? That would be absurd....[/QUOTE




What is absurd is the all the previous C-series loans and the recent $1bln deal plus the $350mln or so they are going to ask from the federal government for the C-series is basically to protect only 12,500 jobs not the entire aerospace industry. That is not a fabricated number. That is what the company projects all the direct, indirect and induced jobs that the C-Series project will create at max production levels.

Probably even more absurd is the notion you put forth that the C series would add $150-200bln in Canadian GDP over a 20 year horizon. The entire Company adds around $12.5bln to Canadian GDP. That is planes.trains and not automobiles.

The C series adding up to an incremental $10bln a year sounds a bit high doesn't it? Would be curious to see where you got those numbers from.

12,500 jobs represent wealth creation. A society needs to generate wealth in order to thrive and feed the service industry.

Lose all those manufacturing jobs, and who is going to buy the products the service industry sells? That means fewer sales for retailers, fewer people going to restaurants and otherwise entertaining themselves, and results in the service industry shrinking with more jobs lost, and lower wages for the rest of workers as a result. That's what happened to the US when it exported most of its manufacturing jobs to China and Mexico, in exchange for quick short-term corporate profits.

Don't be fooled. The US economy is in a depression, with the actual unemployment rate over 20%, considering those who have run out of unemployment benefits and who have ceased looking for a job).

Manufacturing jobs are vital for the economy, and a billion or two to prop up a project that's 97% complete is a very wise investment. Even if the government doesn't recoup all of its investment when it sells those shares again I the future, it reaps much higher gains through increased tax revenue from a richer society.

 

[onthebottom]

Why is the West energy industry so special. The govt has invested BILLIONS into the energy industry. Beaufort sea, Hibernia etc etc..
Petro Canada was part of this investment and strategy.

So you support that as well?

 

[onthebottom]

12,500 jobs represent wealth creation. A society needs to generate wealth in order to thrive and feed the service industry.

Lose all those manufacturing jobs, and who is going to buy the products the service industry sells? That means fewer sales for retailers, fewer people going to restaurants and otherwise entertaining themselves, and results in the service industry shrinking with more jobs lost, and lower wages for the rest of workers as a result. That's what happened to the US when it exported most of its manufacturing jobs to China and Mexico, in exchange for quick short-term corporate profits.

Don't be fooled. The US economy is in a depression, with the actual unemployment rate over 20%, considering those who have run out of unemployment benefits and who have ceased looking for a job).

Manufacturing jobs are vital for the economy, and a billion or two to prop up a project that's 97% complete is a very wise investment. Even if the government doesn't recoup all of its investment when it sells those shares again I the future, it reaps much higher gains through increased tax revenue from a richer society.

Actually, wealthy economies are predominantly services, poorer economies are manufacturing centric. One major exception is resource extraction - but once you move beyond pulling money out of the ground the value is in services.

 

[wilbur]

Actually, wealthy economies are predominantly services, poorer economies are manufacturing centric. One major exception is resource extraction - but once you move beyond pulling money out of the ground the value is in services.

Look at the state of the US economy. A basket case, where the central bankers had to resort to creating a money printing ponzy scheme in order to put off the inevitable.

Where do you get the wealth to support the services? The service industries can't feed on themselves. Look at any town that has lost its sole manufacturing or mining industry and you'll eventually find a much smaller town of retirees with a whole lot of shops closed.

The only economies with service industries can survive are those that handle foreigners' money, like London or Switzerland. Much of that cash is from offshore.

 

[wilbur]

Actually, wealthy economies are predominantly services, poorer economies are manufacturing centric. One major exception is resource extraction - but once you move beyond pulling money out of the ground the value is in services.

Service economies are stagnating (UK). Manufacturing economies have very high growth (China). The US has staggering debt (17 trillion).

 

[elmo]

. They lost billions on GM.

Which is a good reason not to do it...

 

[nottyboi]

So you support that as well?

Yes I think the for the most part it has worked really well in places like NL and has really transformed the NL economy for the better.

 

[nottyboi]

Which is a good reason not to do it...

Not really if you net out the tax revenues from GM and the rest of the supply chain.

 

[nottyboi]

Actually, wealthy economies are predominantly services, poorer economies are manufacturing centric. One major exception is resource extraction - but once you move beyond pulling money out of the ground the value is in services.

That may be so, but they also often have a large manufacturing base. Like the US and Germany. Also the types of good manufactured is a key part of that. Aerospace is at the very top of value add , vs garment and other low end goods.

 

[onthebottom]

Not really if you net out the tax revenues from GM and the rest of the supply chain.

Show your math.....

 

[onthebottom]

That may be so, but they also often have a large manufacturing base. Like the US and Germany. Also the types of good manufactured is a key part of that. Aerospace is at the very top of value add , vs garment and other low end goods.

Wealthy countries (other than resources based) derive their wealth from services and IP driven Manufactoring. These countries also have powerful brands (Apple, Google, BMW, Honda, H&M), strong higher education systems (Harvard, Stanford, Oxford, Cambridge) and a strong rule of law and transparency - which creates a highly productive labor force and draws capital investment.

Given the US and Europe already own the market where the C will compete, and the Chinese have beaten BBD to market with a third option, I'm not sure I see the rational to a 4th player that is indebted and can't manage 3 projects at a time.

 

[james t kirk]

Wealthy countries (other than resources based) derive their wealth from services and IP driven Manufactoring. These countries also have powerful brands (Apple, Google, BMW, Honda, H&M), strong higher education systems (Harvard, Stanford, Oxford, Cambridge) and a strong rule of law and transparency - which creates a highly productive labor force and draws capital investment.

Given the US and Europe already own the market where the C will compete, and the Chinese have beaten BBD to market with a third option, I'm not sure I see the rational to a 4th player that is indebted and can't manage 3 projects at a time.

1. No-one will want to fly on a Chinese plane.

2. Apple was almost broke once too wasn't it.

3. Honda, hmmm, they have been struggling for at least 5 years. Some argue that they will probably go broke (I'm not so sure). But they have had more failures than successes in the last 5 to 10 years. Acura has failed to execute on all levels. Compared to Infiniti and Lexus, it's a distant (very distant) 3'rd. Many would argue, and I WOULD agree with this, that Acura really isn't at all different than Honda. Their pickup truck is a disaster and really, how many boxes on wheels with odd looking grills can you really sell? They all look the same.

4. Google. Google has simply bumped off Microsoft. Where MS was once king, there now stands google. So really, has google's rise to fame expanded the market, or just shoved one player aside and taken its position?

 

[wilbur]

1. No-one will want to fly on a Chinese plane.

Actually, they make Airbus A320 series airplanes in China now (Tianjin).

Aircraft overhaul work in China is top notch.

Anyway, the class of aircraft the C series is competing with is obsolete. The Boeing 737NG is still based on the original B737-100 systems, except for the engine, wings and flight management systems. Airbus A320 series design is nearly 30 years old. Its main competitor for that market niche would be the Sukhoi SuperJet.

 

[Polaris]

China beat them to market....

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/02/asia/china-new-c919-passenger-jet/

This story is a little off topic, but damn. I never thought I would live to see the day this would happen, it is unthinkable.


China overtakes Canada as largest trade-partner of US

http://www.business-standard.com/ar...rgest-trade-partner-of-us-115110501151_1.html

That is how this country works. Instead of trying to improve competitiveness, Canadian industry ask for handouts, and Canadian governments (cough cough Wynne) payoff the unions. This is not the way to develop the future. This is the road to somewhere else.