U.S. Politics

[tonyh29]

On ‎26‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 11:15, Keyblade said:

I'm not sure cartoons like this really do the message any favour ... aren't BLM more about police killings of black people and broader issues of racial profiling, police brutality, and racial inequality in the criminal justice system ? 

White Americans per se aren't racist Neanderthals are they ? 

[bobzy]

 

 

[Keyblade]

4 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

I'm not sure cartoons like this really do the message any favour ... aren't BLM more about police killings of black people and broader issues of racial profiling, police brutality, and racial inequality in the criminal justice system ? 

White Americans per se aren't racist Neanderthals are they ? 

I don't think this is supposed to represent all white Americans, but the subset of them that clearly are against any form of black protesting as succinctly summed up in the video @bobzy just posted.

[Villaphan04]

Quote

• The US Department of Commerce has proposed a tariff of 219.63% for each Bombardier C Series airliner imported into the US.
• Boeing filed a complaint in April alleging Delta's order for 75 of the Bombardier jets is a result of ultra-low prices subsidized by the Canadian government.
• Delta and Bombardier say Boeing doesn't have a product that is comparable to the C Series.

On Tuesday, the US Department of Commerce issued a preliminary ruling that would levy a 219.63% tariff on every Bombardier C Series airliner imported into the US.

The US International Trade Commission will issue a final judgment on the Commerce Department's proposed tariffs in early 2018.

Tuesday's ruling comes as a result of a complaint Boeing filed in April alleging Bombardier's landmark 2016 deal with Delta Air Lines is the result of abnormally low prices made possible by Canadian government subsidies. Boeing contends that Bombardier's subsidized sales of the C Series airliner in the US came at the detriment of its 737 NG and 737 MAX models.

"The US Department of Commerce today affirmed that Bombardier has taken massive illegal subsidies in violation of existing trade law," Boeing said in a statement. "Subsidies enabled Bombardier to dump its product into the US market, harming aerospace workers in the United States and throughout Boeing’s global supply chain."

Bombardier responded in a statement, calling the ruling "absurd and divorced from reality." The Montreal-based airplane manufacturer also hit out at Boeing, accusing it of manipulating US trade laws to stifle competition.

"We are confident the USITC will conclude that no US manufacturer is at risk because neither Boeing nor any other US manufacturer makes any 100-110 seat aircraft that competes with the CS100," Delta said in a statement. "Boeing has no American-made product to offer because it canceled production of its only aircraft in this size range — the 717 — more than 10 years ago."

According to Delta, Boeing's only proposed alternative to the CS100 was to offer it a batch of second-hand Brazilian Embraer E190 regional jets. Oddly enough, the used Embraers that Boeing offered Delta were reportedly traded in by Air Canada.

How we got here

For years, the story around the Bombardier C Series program has been blighted cost overruns, developmental delays, and slow sales.

In 2015, Bombardier was forced to write down $4.4 billion. At the same time, the company took a $1 billion bailout from the Quebec government. In return, the provincial taxpayers took a 49.5% stake in the C Series. Even as it struggled to close a sale, Bombardier was credited with building an aircraft that's one of the most capable on the market today. The plane's operators say the C Series is delivering fuel economy even better than what Bombardier promised.

At the heart of Boeing's complaint is a deal that was widely seen as the order that saved the Bombardier C Series program from its demise.

Looking for a blockbuster sale to help build traction for the plane in the US, Bombardier went all-in on a pitch to United Airlines. Sensing the new competition, Boeing bit the bullet and gave United a whopping 70% discount on 40 737-700s. While large airlines like United never pay list price, 70% off is the aviation equivalent of a Black Friday sale price.

In January 2016, United announced the sale of 40 737-700s followed by an order for another 25 of the planes in March. (Oddly enough, United realized several months later that it actually didn't want any of these planes and converted them to orders for four of the larger 737-800s and 61 737 MAX jets.)

 

Finally, in April 2016, Bombardier struck pay dirt. Delta Air Lines ordered 75 C Series 100 airliners in a deal worth up to $5.6 billion. In addition, Bombardier and Delta agreed to an option for 50 additional jets.

With the Delta order, Bombardier not only found a US launch customer for the C Series but also had the blockbuster deal it needed to validate the attractiveness of the aircraft for other prospective buyers.

With the C Series, Delta has a long-range ultra-fuel-efficient, 100-seat jet capable of making money in markets where competition has depressed profits. In addition, the new Bombardier jet will allow Delta to operate mainline service in markets that traditionally were serviced by smaller regional jets.

From Boeing's perspective, how Bombardier netted the deal has it seeing red.

Boeing claims Bombardier sold the CS100 for just $19.6 million. That's far less than the $33.2 million the Chicago-based aviation giant says it cost Bombardier to make the plane — and a mere fraction of the CS100's $79.5 million sticker price.

Where do we go from here?

Should the proposed tariff stick, each of Delta's C Series jets would cost over $40 million, putting the future of the deal on shaky ground.

For Bombardier, the big decision is the USITC's final ruling in 2018, the aerospace-industry analyst Richard Aboulafia said.

If the USITC decides to allow the tariff to stick, it will need to show how it came upon such a punishment, Aboulafia told Business Insider.

"If they can't explain how they came to that conclusion, that's really dangerous because the Canadians are going to regard this as a slap in the face," said Aboulafia, who is the vice president of analysis at Teal Group.

That's because the dispute has now entered the realm of politics, with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau threatening to scuttle the country's plans to buy $5 billion worth of F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter jets from Boeing. British Prime Minister Theresa May expressed her concerns regarding the dispute because the C Series' wings are made in Northern Ireland.

In addition, a tariff on the C Series is also a concern for industry in the US. More than 50% of the Canadian jet is made using US-sourced components, including its prized Pratt & Whitney geared turbofan engines.

At its most extreme, using Boeing's logic that the C Series is a rival to the 737, the Canadian government could argue that Air Canada's and WestJet's orders for Boeing 737 MAX airliners were made to the detriment of the country's aviation industry.

"This is how trade wars get started," Aboulafia added.

The ultimate effect of Tuesday's ruling on the Bombardier C Series and US-Canadian trade relations remains to be seen.

"As the Brits say, it's still early days," Aboulafia said.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing-scored-big-victory-against-015504047.html

This is a horrible economic move imo. I cannot wait for the tariff wars to begin. 

[Chindie]

That'd be the US who are going to ride over the hills and give us a great deal on Brexit day /glib

[villakram]

11 minutes ago, Villaphan04 said:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing-scored-big-victory-against-015504047.html

This is a horrible economic move imo. I cannot wait for the tariff wars to begin. 

Horrible for whom? Can't say I'm overly concerned about corporation X having a hard time of it in comparison to equally loathsome corp y. It's not as if "the people" are having a great time with things as they are.

Not a shot at you, but this is the correct question to ask.

[villakram]

Trickle down to make your eyes bleed starts today.

Now back to kneeling and such.

[chrisp65]

9 minutes ago, villakram said:

Horrible for whom? Can't say I'm overly concerned about corporation X having a hard time of it in comparison to equally loathsome corp y. It's not as if "the people" are having a great time with things as they are.

Not a shot at you, but this is the correct question to ask.

I think there are 4,000 directly employed by Bom in the U.K.

If they can't sell aircraft to the biggest market, then they lose their jobs. But so does the guy in the car park with the sandwich van. So does the car dealership that sells them their little family cars. The guys in Currys won't be selling too many Sonos systems to 4,000 unemployed people.

It hardly looks good for our brave new world of free trade areas and special small handed friends. We're not even on day 1 of our trade agreement, yet a 220% tariff has been slapped on Canadian products. A country that does have a trade agreement!

Oh, but I forgot. Our deal will be better.

[bickster]

Our deal will be better because we’ve got nothing to sell them but they can sell us their shite for even less

[blandy]

2 hours ago, villakram said:

Horrible for whom? Can't say I'm overly concerned about corporation X having a hard time of it in comparison to equally loathsome corp y. It's not as if "the people" are having a great time with things as they are.

Not a shot at you, but this is the correct question to ask.

I kind of dislike this post (but not the poster, obviously).

I don't mind that someone doesn't like corporations. But the rest of it, I take issue with. Corporations, including Boeing and Bombardier are not "loathesome". They make the stuff that makes the world (and people, in this case) go round. They provide jobs, purpose, security of housing, money and all that buys - whether healthcare, food, children clothes, community and kinship and a whole lot more to tens of thousand of people like us.

OK, so Boeing benefits from this at the expense of Bombardier and their customer and then a trade war or squabble starts and everyone hunkers down and is a little less secure and wealthy, (even though T.May and D.Trump held hands like special relationship friends).

 

[El Zen]

On 26.9.2017 at 03:25, Keyblade said:

Free speech only matters to them when it's them or people like them saying some bigoted shit. In every other situation they really couldn't care less about it. 

Or could they? 

[LondonLax]

3 minutes ago, Michelsen said:

Or could they? 

I reckon 'couldn't care less' is the correct phrase i.e. it is not possible to care less. If it is possible to care less than you do about something then that is hardly extraordinary or worth comment  

[El Zen]

Just now, LondonLax said:

I reckon 'couldn't care less' is the correct phrase i.e. it is not possible to care less. If it is possible to care less than you do about something then that is hardly extraordinary or worth comment  

Try telling them crazy Yanks that! 

[peterms]

On 09/26/2017 at 11:41, villaglint said:

He's literally using his phone to do this. 

However much I dislike Trump, I have to respect his ability to tweet with his head up his own arse.  Not many people could do that.

[peterms]

10 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

White Americans per se aren't racist Neanderthals are they ? 

No.  But a Venn diagram would be useful.

[villakram]

3 hours ago, blandy said:

I kind of dislike this post (but not the poster, obviously).

I don't mind that someone doesn't like corporations. But the rest of it, I take issue with. Corporations, including Boeing and Bombardier are not "loathesome". They make the stuff that makes the world (and people, in this case) go round. They provide jobs, purpose, security of housing, money and all that buys - whether healthcare, food, children clothes, community and kinship and a whole lot more to tens of thousand of people like us.

OK, so Boeing benefits from this at the expense of Bombardier and their customer and then a trade war or squabble starts and everyone hunkers down and is a little less secure and wealthy, (even though T.May and D.Trump held hands like special relationship friends).

 

I get the "kind of" part as I'm fully aware of the repercussions for regular people. Corps may make the stuff, but the actual way they are structured and operate should be seen as criminal at least 6 days of the week.

In his/republican/corporate USA tax plan, the $2T of overseas profits held by these same off-shoring (for profit) corporations would be repatriated sans tax. This is daylight robbery of the very same people who live with shite schools, healthcare, roads and employment opportunities. 

But, we end up talking about targeted trade fisticuffs. 

[LondonLax]

Sums it up

[peterms]

Interesting piece here about part-time US academics being homeless and turning to sex work because they don't earn enough to live on.

Quote

...Homelessness is a genuine prospect for adjuncts. When Ellen Tara James-Penney finishes work, teaching English composition and critical thinking at San Jose State University in Silicon Valley, her husband, Jim, picks her up. They have dinner and drive to a local church, where Jim pitches a tent by the car and sleeps there with one of their rescue dogs. In the car, James-Penney puts the car seats down and sleeps with another dog. She grades papers using a headlamp.

Over the years, she said, they have developed a system. “Keep nothing on the dash, nothing on the floor – you can’t look like you’re homeless, you can’t dress like you’re homeless. Don’t park anywhere too long so the cops don’t stop you.”

James-Penney, 54, has struggled with homelessness since 2007, when she began studying for her bachelor’s degree. Jim, 64, used to be a trucker but cannot work owing to a herniated disk. Ellen made $28,000 last year, a chunk of which goes to debt repayments. The remainder is not enough for afford Silicon Valley rent.

At night, instead of a toilet they must use cups or plastic bags and baby wipes. To get clean, they find restrooms and “we have what we call the sink-shower”, James-Penney said. The couple keep their belongings in the back of the car and a roof container. All the while they deal with the consequences of aging – James-Penney has osteoporosis – in a space too small to even stand up...

Freedom, eh? 

[magnkarl]

I've resorted to treating South Park as my main source on American politics. So far this has happened this season:

• Mr Garrison (Trump) has been in a tweet war with North Korea.
• Randy has protested the statue of Christopher Columbus as it was racist and genocidal tearing it down in the process. 
• It's not people looking at their phones that is the problem when driving, it's them looking at what Trump tweets. Once that stops there will be no more distracted driving accidents.

I presume they'll touch on the NFL thing next. 

[PompeyVillan]

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

I've resorted to treating South Park as my main source on American politics. So far this has happened this season:

• Mr Garrison (Trump) has been in a tweet war with North Korea.
• Randy has protested the statue of Christopher Columbus as it was racist and genocidal tearing it down in the process. 
• It's not people looking at their phones that is the problem when driving, it's them looking at what Trump tweets. Once that stops there will be no more distracted driving accidents.

I presume they'll touch on the NFL thing next. 

Southpark is genius.