Moonbox

None of us really know the details. One of the main reasons all of this stinks so bad is that it's all being kept hidden. Details, repayments, conditions etc. We're not even allowed to know how much of taxpayers' money has been recouped. Personally, I think that if your business is floundering and you need to beg the government for money to stay afloat, you don't get to hide your books anymore. That's public interest now.

I don't know, why don't you tell me? While you're at it, tell me how it helps determine why it would be a good idea to disrupt Canada-US trade. It also has a bigly military, a yuge population, and the best words. Tell us how any of this suggests a positive outcome for starting a trade dispute with Canada. So far you've failed miserably. and you're apparently building a wall to keep them out. Brilliant. Compete or be left behind? Is that why President Trump is intent on scrapping Free Trade deals? Because US labor is so competitive with Chinese and Mexican "human capital"? Are you even giving these comments a whiff of thought before barfing them out on your keyboard?

I can certainly understand that Trump and others want to get out of disadvantageous trade deals generating gigantic and persistent trade deficits. The key difference is that the US exports just as much as it imports with Canada, suggesting Canada-US free trade has been beneficial overall for American workers. This is especially true if you consider what sort of resources and materials are being exchanged. Canada is likely importing more value-added/labor-intensive goods from the US than vice-versa. Trump's tax and deregulation strategies are none of Canada's business. If he wants to try to make the US a more competitive place to do business, good for him! As for a trade war with Canada, no, it wouldn't help the US long term. The effects would be mirrored on both sides, with both countries placing restrictions on goods flowing across the border, and both looking to develop their own manufacturing capacity. Long term, all you'd have is less specialization and efficiency across the continent and the overall net effect would be negative on both sides. This is ECON 101. The Canada-US trade situation is fairly unique because you have two countries very similar in culture, Law, living standards and values. A Canadian manufacturer can't escape paying decent wages by moving a factory to the US nor can the reverse happen. That's not true with Mexico or China, but by all means, show us how you're going to continue to grow those trade balances without running deeper and deeper trade deficits.

Trade negotiations aren't zero-sum. The idea of "leverage" and "advantage" is juvenile and shows a profoundly poor understanding of basic negotiating and trade economics in general. The whole point of world trade is to take advantage of specialization and scale so that both sides "win". There's no question that Canada depends more on US trade than vice-versa, but that doesn't mean that a trade war would help the US. Because of how balanced the trade across the border is, the US would likely suffer just the same in in terms of $'s lost. The only difference is that the effect wouldn't be felt as widely. It'd be border and coastal states, and the Rust Belt in particular, that would suffer. Colorado and Texas probably wouldn't care much though!

Sure. FYI, sometimes Google is easier than demanding evidence for super-easy-to-find info. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/canadian-taxpayers-lose-35-billion-on-2009-bailout-of-auto-firms/article23828543/ The Bombardier information is less clear because they go out of their way to block public disclosure of their repayment history (citing it as third-party competitive industry secrets or whatever). http://www.taxpayer.com/commentaries/more-taxpayer-money-for-bombardier--just-say-no,-mr.-trudeau-22511 is just one source but there are plenty of news sites you can go to as well saying the same thing. We know how much we lent Bombardier. The fact that we're not allowed to find out how much they've repaid is a pretty strong indication in itself that the repayment history is poor.

That was a worthless relationship. With Trudeau just getting started, and Obama on his way out, there was never going to much there other than mutual ingratiation and fluff-pieces on them smiling and patting each other on the back. Despite his popularity here, Obama was never much of a friend to Canada and the Harper/Obama relationship was exceptionally frosty. I don't even know where to start with this comment. Literally everything you said was nonsense. Your grasp of economics and trade is poor and your understanding of negotiating and bi-lateral relations is worse. We get access to the largest economy in the world? Cool. You get access to 10th largest. Apparently the US ends up on the losing end of that deal somehow...I guess because #1 is bigger than #10? Canada is by far and away the US's largest destination for exports and the two countries enjoy (mostly) balanced trade. You're running a $300 billion trade deficit with China every year. The US has protectionist trade barriers just like Canada does. Don't cherry-pick your data.

It see your point, but it's actually very different. First off, the federal and Ontario governments got something like 80% of their money back from the auto-sector bailout (as opposed to the maybe 20-30% we've been paid back by Bombardier). Had the auto bailout been managed better and had the ownership stake been maintained longer and sold at better market prices, we'd have done even better. Additionally, Chrysler and GM are widely traded public companies that went through major restructuring and leadership changes during the bailout and the unions had to make concessions as well. Bombardier apparently gets to just keep following the same failed formula. I'm all for supporting and maintaining manufacturing capabilities in Canada. There will come a time when we're going to have to be more than a resource-based economy and we don't want to be starting from scratch. That being said, there's no reason to continue supporting failed leadership and failed execution for a major manufacturer. If we're going to continue supporting Bombardier, we should be getting ownership stake that we can use to implement changes.

The key here is that a thawing of relations would be good for both countries. After 16 years of relative unfriendliness between the various administrations, we could do with more cooperation and bi-lateral respect. Trudeau (and Canada) of course need the US on their side more than the other way around, but that's a really pointless and unproductive way of looking at things. Canada and the USA are each the other's most important (and profitable) trading partner. There's every reason for them to deepen and consolidate that relationship and zero reason to drag in the dirt.

I think that this is the pertinent point here. I don't know how they continue to do it, but somehow the family manages to get hundreds of millions from the federal government every 5-10 years with little/no strings attached. It's pretty clear by now that the present generation isn't capable of managing it effectively and that new leadership is required. Taxpayers have sunk over a billion into the company and have nothing to show for it. Call me crazy, but I don't think you should be allowed to consistently run your company in the red, fall years behind targeted production and development goals, ask for federal bailouts on a regular basis, and STILL get to maintain full control of your company.

It could be a great meeting for Trudeau. The guy is charming and he's popular in the US. It serves no purpose for either leader to get into a spat but Trudeau has to realize that he's the junior partner in the relationship and that he's dealing with an inherently unreasonable man. If he can put his own ego and image aside and at least humor Trump for the purpose of mutually beneficial bi-lateral relations, we'll all be better off. Unfortunately, I don't know if that's even in his DNA. We'll see. The worst and last thing we need right now is a for our Prime Minister to verbally spar with a thin-skinned and vindictive man who leads the most powerful country in the world and that happens to be our overwhelmingly largest trading partner.

That's pretty much all there is to say about this. Bombardier has been receiving federal subsidies for over 50 years now and it doesn't appear that they've ever repaid even half of that. Significant portions of that debt has been written off. This isn't a case of the company having a bad run and needing some support. This is systemic corporate welfare for a company that has consistently struggled to be profitable. It's throwing good money after bad and for the average Canadian, it's bad fiscal policy. It's textbook poor economics.

Haven't visited these forums in quite awhile, so hello everyone. I was reading this in the news today, however, and thought I'd like to discuss the above. Our esteemed Prime Minister (who I grudgingly voted for last election) is set to meet Trump at the White House on Monday. I'm worried. As far as I'm concerned, Trump is a dangerous clown. I'm sure you fine folks have discussed this at length, however, so let's not get into that. What I'm really concerned with is how Trudeau might engage with him. Simply put, I don't think it would serve any purpose to antagonize the American administration like Trudeau Sr did while he was Prime Minister. Trump may be colossally unpopular in Canada, and Trudeau might be able to score political points by publicly standing up to and contrasting him, that's not in the best interest of the country. This isn't a suggestion that Trudeau should roll on his back and be bullied, especially on social issues. It's just a hope that he shows some judgment and realizes that clever jabs and irreverence aren't going to be helpful for the average Canadian. Don't make this an ego thing. Trudeau has a big ego, but Trump's is beyond reason. Operate within those parameters and be tactful please, for all of us.

The arrangement was "useful" he says. Nice understatement. The letter mail monopoly isn't really a burden either. The real burden is the unreasonable wages/benefits paid to the postal workers and about $7B in unfunded pension liabilities. We'd be far, far better off specifically subsidizing letter delivery to remote locations and dismantling the letter monopoly than we are having to deal with the bloated, dying whale that is Canada Post. The most ironic part of the potential strike/lockout, however, is that the wage/benefit demands being made are ultimately hastening the end of this monopoly - a monopoly that benefits letter carriers and postal workers more than anyone else. What does that prove? Nothing other than that regular mail was a rapidly declining business, which we already know. As for what's being subsidized, see above.

Well our more remote locations will probably always need some sort of subsidized postal service, which is fine. I think the more reasonable among us are more than willing to make sure Joe Canada living in Polar Bear Falls has access to basic services. This does not, however, provide any rationale for paying 15-30% premiums on low-skill, low-educated mail delivery wages. The two issues are as unrelated as possible.

Well since there aren't really any countries anywhere with similar geography to Canada, you're not really going to find anything even remotely comparable. If would like to compare public vs private, however, you might want to read up on the privatization of Germany's Bundepost (now Deustche Post) and how the now-private Deustche Post is under-cutting its own business with a lower-cost subsidiary to reduce the number of employees under onerous compensation agreements in the postal union. It's kind of sneaky, but it's also interesting to see that the new subsidiary enjoys an upwards of 30% labour cost advantage over the main carrier. Who do you think pays the difference?

It's absolutely subsidized and it's either supremely ignorant or naive to say it isn't. While the government might not be writing them cheques directly, they maintain the monopoly that Canada Post has on regular mail and ensures that nobody can compete with them for that business. Wages and benefits are being artificially subsidized by the lack of competition and the businesses and consumers that still use the mail and have no other options pay for this subsidy.

I don't know of many public sector labour monopolies where the relationship between management and unionized workers is good. From what you've told us in the past, working in the federal public service was equally miserable. The problem, of course, is that management has very little recourse when it comes to under-performers and thus there is very little incentive to perform. This invariably puts management and labour at odds since their goals don't align. As for Canada Post's apparent layoff practices, this is 100% normal and the absolute smartest way of doing things. I'm not sure how you somehow see this as inappropriate. For reasons already mentioned, it'd be foolish to lay someone off and subsequently allow them free reign in the office.

Is it because the reserves model is 100% broken and feeds into itself?

by what measurement? He says it has a smaller cross-section. I guess that's true, since it's a smaller plane, but from all accounts I've read it has a significantly bigger radar cross-section. Interesting use of words! I didn't say they were. I said it's conceivable that they could/will since they'll have had 20+ years to work on it. It would be stupid not to be concerned by that possibility. I know this is tough for you Derek, but please try to argue what people are actually saying rather than whatever boneheaded interpretation you invent so you can pretend to cleverly argue nothing.

What about it is odd? The F-35's stealth characteristics are a downgrade from the F-22's. If one of the main touted advantages is a stealth profile inferior to one that its most likely opponents have already had 10+ years to prepare countermeasures for, that's concerning, isn't it? It was concerning 4-5 years ago and it's still concerning now. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. It seems like we mostly agree. The only thing I'll counter with is that where people seem to mistake "Stealth" as invincible, you seem to consider it "useless". It's not.

SO much notwithstanding. Regardless, I don't think we're arguing about anything here. I brought up the concerns with the F-35's stealth tech years ago. The F-22 has been in service since ~2005 and the Reds have no doubt been working on improving their detection capabilities since then. The F-35 isn't as stealthy as the F-22, however, so what we're really banking on is that the Russians will not have been able to solve either the F-22's stealth abilities nor the inferior F-35's either with 20+ years of research.

The fact that its radar signature is significantly smaller than its peers and that radar is still the primary means of detecting aircraft?

waldo you know as well as I do that your link is a partisan hack-job. While I'm not going to argue the test pilot's findings, the article writer certainly put a neat spin on it. The F-35 was designed as a BVR fighter. Period. That it would fail in a visual range dogfight is no surprise. Anyone with even rudimentary understanding of aerodynamics was predicting this years ago (excluding expert cheerleaders armchair generals like Derek who of course argued otherwise). That being said, the plane's hardly going to be dead meat flying. Its advantages elsewhere will more than make up for that. The really scary thing about this plane IMO is what happens if/when the Russians/Chinese are capable of defeating the F-35's stealth systems?

Way late, but I had to say that's really funny. There's a sort of common sense to it as well!

Sure is. Your head is deep in the sand if you're suggesting it's not, but nobody ever accused you of being open-minded. Your logic is garbage, as usual, and the above quote didn't even respond to my criticism. You just sort of shifted topics there... Right, you just just drolly listed off some snippets for interests' sake and really weren't trying to say anything by it. It's not your data that's in question. It's the narrow scope of these facts and your ignorant and selective interpretation of them. Sure, if you believe that they're honestly doing their job and don't abuse their power, discriminate or overstep. Sadly we've seen too many examples recently of that not being the case. If you grow up in environment where people naturally don't trust the police and feel they're being unjustly persecuted, resistance should naturally be expected and we have the entire course of human history to support that expectation. Read a book. I mean the antiquated and old-school ignorance you're demonstrating - the sort of dumb comments you'd expect from a drunk grandfather.