Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 113

Thread: US penalizes Chinese tires, infuriating Beijing

  1. #51
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    01-05-10 @ 06:26 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,629

    Re: US penalizes Chinese tires, infuriating Beijing

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    I suspect that the lawsuit Airbus filed over US subsidies to Boeing are likely to be proven true (as the lawsuit we filed against Airbus). We all do this.
    Really so please show me where in any Bill that has been signed by any President of the United States that give's Boeing the same type of subsidies that Airbus has/is getting from France,Italy,Germany and England.

    The US Govn. has never payed for any Boeing Plants to be build nor has the Federal Govn. given any Aircraft Company's any special loan's.

  2. #52
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: US penalizes Chinese tires, infuriating Beijing

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex Libman View Post
    Punishing the winners and rewarding the losers is just as anti-competitive as intervening the other way around.
    Explain to me how preventing market consolidation via illegal measures specifically designed to reduce competition and the competitive framework is anti-competitive.

    Furthermore, explain to me how an efficient capitalist market can work without proper information disclosure.

    You explicitly ignored both of those points in your truncated quote of my post suggesting that you are not interested in actual debate but soapboxing.

    Dumping does not eliminate competition, it postpones it - while you're losing money your competitors are allocating their money toward something else.
    Unless you destroy your competitors in the process. Which kind of is the point of dumping.

    Initiating aggression (i.e. government intervention) is "not capitalism". Everything else is fair play.
    I wasn't aware that fraud was "fair play" nor threats of violence as "fair play" nor was illegal actions such as kickbacks. Can you support such claims that such normally illegal actions are actually supportive of a capitalist market?

    If China wants to give away money indefinitely, that's their business. It would then make more sense for the American companies to focus on things that China isn't dumping, and make profits while China continues to operate at a loss - until they decide to raise their prices and American companies can compete with them again.
    I suspect you do not even understand the point of dumping after such a statement. Explain to me how American firms driven out of business by dumping will magically compete after being liquidated to pay off their debts.

    You appear to support your ideology out of emotional investment and thus do not critically analyze it. Hence your overt support of fraud and illegal measures.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  3. #53
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: US penalizes Chinese tires, infuriating Beijing

    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion89 View Post
    Really so please show me where in any Bill that has been signed by any President of the United States that give's Boeing the same type of subsidies that Airbus has/is getting from France,Italy,Germany and England.

    The US Govn. has never payed for any Boeing Plants to be build nor has the Federal Govn. given any Aircraft Company's any special loan's.
    You do realize that subsidizing does not have to be direct no? Just giving them cash isn't the only way. There's actually an incredibly easy way to do it. Boeing jacks up its defense contract bill which is subject to cost plus. That extra cost which isn't related to defense contract is then cross subsidized to the commercial products. This is somewhat difficult to prove without going through their accounting, but it's not hard to enact, especially under a cost plus system.

    Furthermore, I wasn't aware that the Airbus claim was about the same type of subsidies?
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  4. #54
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    01-05-10 @ 06:26 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,629

    Re: US penalizes Chinese tires, infuriating Beijing

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    You do realize that subsidizing does not have to be direct no? Just giving them cash isn't the only way. There's actually an incredibly easy way to do it. Boeing jacks up its defense contract bill which is subject to cost plus. That extra cost which isn't related to defense contract is then cross subsidized to the commercial products. This is somewhat difficult to prove without going through their accounting, but it's not hard to enact, especially under a cost plus system.

    Furthermore, I wasn't aware that the Airbus claim was about the same type of subsidies?
    Except for this one little fact the Military Division of all US Companies are subject to a GAO aduit every three months so while their is Cost Over runs build in they(Boeing) is required by Federal Law to return any money not used.

    Yes the claim that Airbus is trying to use is the same that Boeing and Lockheed-Martin filed against Airbus. But it's part of a larger suit against Airbus in general.

  5. #55
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: US penalizes Chinese tires, infuriating Beijing

    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion89 View Post
    Except for this one little fact the Military Division of all US Companies are subject to a GAO aduit every three months so while their is Cost Over runs build in they(Boeing) is required by Federal Law to return any money not used.
    Do you know how easy it is to hide stuff like cross subsidization? It's not hard to create an artificial cost over run that appears to be valid. Especially when the contract is for complex items. And if you bury it deep enough in small enough amounts to be immaterial, GAO auditors will simply apply a materiality check and miss it entirely. No auditor goes line by line and breaks down every time into amounts that are immaterial. The only thing potentially shadier than a lawyer is an accountant.

    Yes the claim that Airbus is trying to use is the same that Boeing and Lockheed-Martin filed against Airbus. But it's part of a larger suit against Airbus in general.
    Do you have specifics on their claims?
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  6. #56
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    11-01-09 @ 01:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    829

    Re: US penalizes Chinese tires, infuriating Beijing

    (I'm not going to recite a full textbook on free market economics here. You should read and educate yourself.)


    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Furthermore, explain to me how an efficient capitalist market can work without proper information disclosure.
    It can't, which is why information disclosure is very important to all stakeholders. Blind faith in government only gets in the way of this.


    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Unless you destroy your competitors in the process. Which kind of is the point of dumping.
    Like I said, this isn't the 19th century. Even the production of physical goods is becoming ever-more flexible. The "dumper" would have to spend more time losing money than the very brief gap of time during which he'd be able to profit (and consumers will know they just need to wait a few weeks for prices to come down again).

  7. #57
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    01-05-10 @ 06:26 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,629

    Re: US penalizes Chinese tires, infuriating Beijing

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    GAO auditors will simply apply a materiality check and miss it entirely. No auditor goes line by line and breaks down every time into amounts that are immaterial. The only thing potentially shadier than a lawyer is an accountant.


    Oh yes the GAO goes line for line when it goes threw Military Contracts I can attest to that fact. When the GAO did the aduit of the Boeing-Bell V-22 Test Program at Naval Test Pilot School at NAS Pax River they(The GAO) went thru everything we had on paper plus some of the GAO folks came out and look at some of the stuff that was billed to make sure it actually was being used on the 7 test Birds that we have NAS Pax.

  8. #58
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: US penalizes Chinese tires, infuriating Beijing

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex Libman View Post
    It can't, which is why information disclosure is very important to all stakeholders. Blind faith in government only gets in the way of this.
    Explain to me how you think that all government intervention is bad for the market when government intervention is one of the key ways we ensure accurate, honest and timely disclosure of information is made available to the market.

    You still have not answered my second question.

    Remember, you stated this:

    "government interventionism is inherently anti-competitive."

    Auditors are government intervention that produces accurate, honest and timely information disclosure. By your statement, you think that it is anti-competitive.

    Like I said, this isn't the 19th century. Even the production of physical goods is becoming ever-more flexible.
    Depends on the goods. Not everything can be quickly built nor can the labor be quickly hired, pooled and moved to the plant. Even worse, after a competition has been eliminated, if that dumper takes market share, it is increasingly hard to get that back if the products are similar in quality and if the dumper is willing to dump again to eliminate any upstarts.

    The "dumper" would have to spend more time losing money than the very brief gap of time during which he'd be able to profit (and consumers will know they just need to wait a few weeks for prices to come down again).
    That makes sense for a product like paper cups. How does one do that for complex manufacturing?
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  9. #59
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: US penalizes Chinese tires, infuriating Beijing

    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion89 View Post
    Oh yes the GAO goes line for line when it goes threw Military Contracts I can attest to that fact.
    Not quite. The GAO will go line by line for material items. There is no way they will go down each item and break each item down for immaterial items. You really think they are going to go after $1,000 items on a $50 million contract?

    And as the R&D, test and eval of the V-22 is at $12.7 billion, the materiality levels are probably not even $50 million. Generally, materiality levels will start around half of a percent of the total cost.
    Last edited by obvious Child; 09-13-09 at 11:49 PM.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  10. #60
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    01-05-10 @ 06:26 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,629

    Re: US penalizes Chinese tires, infuriating Beijing

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Not quite. The GAO will go line by line for material items. There is no way they will go down each item and break each item down for immaterial items. You really think they are going to go after $1,000 items on a $50 million contract?

    And as the R&D, test and eval of the V-22 is at $12.7 billion, the materiality levels are probably not even $50 million. Generally, materiality levels will start around half of a percent of the total cost.
    Yea your right never mind the fact that I had to sit with two GAO Guys and go over some of the items that were billed and have other stuff pulled part by Ground Crews so they can check for certain parts. Yea your right how silly of me. So what time shall I report to your office on Monday so we can introduce each other.

Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •