Bombardier is a joke

[guyser]

A mythical $1.4 Billion that only exists because you say so. What exactly is "Oil and Gas"? Where does this $1.4 Billion figure come from?

Hypocrisy how?

Mythical ? And thanks for asking , I was remiss in posting them.

http://www.pembina.org/media/media-release.php?id=1154

http://www.sierralegal.org/m_archive/pr06_06_14.html

http://ideas.repec.org/a/cpp/issued/v3y1977i3p355-364.html

Frankly you were not the one who was being accused of hypocrisy.

Please come back and tell me how these two are comparable. Better yet, dont, I am still not caring about the subsidy.

[Hydraboss]

I wonder how much of my tax money it cost to produce those commercials? Oh well, if they were too expensive, the feds will just give Bomb another billion or two in tax money and some more loan guarantees.

Oil and gas subsidies are non-existent?

Oil and gas subsidies are every bit as bad. However, the product of O&G is required in this country. It is a necessity, Bomb's products are not. Planes, trains, and street cars? Accessible from other places and therefore not deserving of government subsidies. Jet-Ski watercraft? Snowmobiles? Not really in the "necessary" column either. But it is a Kwebek-based business and therefore is fed money intravenously from Ottawa. If O&G go away, we all have major problems. When business was slow in the early 80's (due to federal intervention), the O&G sector would not have recovered unless there was more intervention. If Bomb goes out of business, someone won't be able to hit that perfect powder at Blue Ridge.

Does this make me a hypocritical seperatist, or a seperatist hypocrite?

[guyser]

Oil and gas subsidies are every bit as bad.

Not necessarily. Subsidies can and do return to Canada Govt in other forms.

However, the product of O&G is required in this country. It is a necessity, Bomb's products are not. Planes, trains, and street cars?

Neither are a necessity . That is called justification, and both sides can have their say.

Accessible from other places and therefore not deserving of government subsidies. Jet-Ski watercraft? Snowmobiles? Not really in the "necessary" column either. But it is a Kwebek-based business and therefore is fed money intravenously from Ottawa. If O&G go away, we all have major problems. When business was slow in the early 80's (due to federal intervention), the O&G sector would not have recovered unless there was more intervention. If Bomb goes out of business, someone won't be able to hit that perfect powder at Blue Ridge.

Again, justification on your part. I dont blame you for trying, but I cannot see any relevance. O&G goes, we pay more.

Does this make me a hypocritical seperatist, or a seperatist hypocrite?

No idea why you would want to be a separatist.

[geoffrey]

No idea why you would want to be a separatist.

In Alberta, it's not hard. We each pay $4000 per pop more into this thing called Canada than we get out. That's $16,000 for a family of four. Nah, no use in sticking around. I'll take my $4000 and say bye bye.

[Michael Bluth]

Mythical ? And thanks for asking , I was remiss in posting them.

http://www.pembina.org/media/media-release.php?id=1154

http://www.sierralegal.org/m_archive/pr06_06_14.html

http://ideas.repec.org/a/cpp/issued/v3y1977i3p355-364.html

Frankly you were not the one who was being accused of hypocrisy.

Please come back and tell me how these two are comparable. Better yet, dont, I am still not caring about the subsidy.

You are equating tax incentives with cash given directly to a company in the form of "loans" that won't be repaid?

[guyser]

You are equating tax incentives with cash given directly to a company in the form of "loans" that won't be repaid?

Lets look at those figures you and I posted. Bombardier gets $1.1B over 23 years...agreed? (they are your figures.

O&G gets $1.4B THIS year and LAST year....not over 23 years.

Go ahead and make any arguement you want. I have said that subsidies eexist for legitimate reasons and I care not a whit about who gets what.

For the third time I was pointing out that one cannot call the kettle black whilst sitting in the same coloured pot.

[guyser]

In Alberta, it's not hard. We each pay $4000 per pop more into this thing called Canada than we get out. That's $16,000 for a family of four. Nah, no use in sticking around. I'll take my $4000 and say bye bye.

Thats a shame from my perspective.

But the population/economic scale and the benefits derived from a hugely prosperous oil market are turned upside down a la the early 80s late 70s....Alberta will want back in.

Same deal as Quebec gets, you want out, you best be ready to pay huge for the infrastructure.

You know Ontario does quite well, and frankly if I pay $4000, or $40000, or $400 more than I get means not a thing to me.

Irksome that the engine that runs things loses $17B , sure, but this is one country. I stand by it thick and thin.

[Michael Bluth]

Lets look at those figures you and I posted. Bombardier gets $1.1B over 23 years...agreed? (they are your figures.

O&G gets $1.4B THIS year and LAST year....not over 23 years.

Tax incentives are not the same as subsidies.

You are trying to compare an industry with one company.

Apples to oranges on both counts.

[geoffrey]

Oil and gas is about 1500 companies and tens of thousands of private contractors. Bombardier is one corporation (maybe three, I think they have divisions for aerospace and transportation).

Oil and gas has a track record of extremely high performance. EnCana's debt/risk rating for example is A (low), Shell is AA (low), Suncor is A (low)... all on debt instruments far greater in value than Bombardier those issued by Bombardier at a BB (neg) rating. The finance industry has decided that a high volatile industry like oil and gas is far more secure than Bombardier.

I still can't figure why... I'm honestly betting on the fact that management is completely incompetent beyond getting government bail outs. Industry is hesitant to loan to them money because one day Ottawa may say enough is enough and they'll default.

[White Doors]

Bombardier... despite being the 'success' of Quebec... rates pretty poorly on credit... BB Neg on DBRS on their new €800mil floating/€300mil 8%/€800mil 7.5% notes. That's only a billion and a half in debt, approx. for a company that's revenues are many billion a year. Their interest expense on the entire offering is only about $200 million a year. Hmm. And they have government backing. Hmm.

Obviously management at Bombardier needs a good looking at, are they all political hacks with Ottawa connections, or are they actually qualified leaders? This is the problem with companies that rely on bailouts, in bring in executives they look at political connections before a track record of success. Beadouin is qualified IMO, but he's overly vested in the industry and the company. He was controller at Bombardier at 25 years old, President by 28. That's pretty remarkable, but sometimes you need a changing of the guard, especially when a company has been a poor performer.

Sources:

http://www.dbrs.com/

I agree with you on huge government subsidies but when you look at the airline manufacturing industry as a whole, bomabrdiers situation is hardly unique.

In fact, they are the most 'free market' of the airline manufacturers.

The solution, ultimately, is freer trade. Ironic that the leftists are against this, no?

[Michael Bluth]

I agree with you on huge government subsidies but when you look at the airline manufacturing industry as a whole, bomabrdiers situation is hardly unique.

In fact, they are the most 'free market' of the airline manufacturers.

The solution, ultimately, is freer trade. Ironic that the leftists are against this, no?

Only if you use Alanis Morissette's unique definition of ironic.

They are logically consistent if you believe that the Government should be involved in picking winners and losers in our economy.

[White Doors]

I agree with you on huge government subsidies but when you look at the airline manufacturing industry as a whole, bomabrdiers situation is hardly unique.

In fact, they are the most 'free market' of the airline manufacturers.

The solution, ultimately, is freer trade. Ironic that the leftists are against this, no?

Only if you use Alanis Morissette's unique definition of ironic.

They are logically consistent if you believe that the Government should be involved in picking winners and losers in our economy.

Disagree. Incentives for a company to TAKE a risk and to CONTINUE to be a risk are not the same as the federal budget just pointed out to us all.

[Michael Bluth]

Disagree. Incentives for a company to TAKE a risk and to CONTINUE to be a risk are not the same as the federal budget just pointed out to us all.

Fair enough. I completely agree that the Government providing incentives to take a risk is a far different, and preferable thing, to providing incentives to a company continuing to be a risk.

[blueblood]

So would it be wrong if the Gov't of Canada decided to invest in an offshore oil rig and pop one up off the coast of NFLD? No laws, just acts like another corporation investing money.

[Hydraboss]

The feds shouldn't be investing in an offshore rig at all. If they want to create an atmosphere where investors favor the idea, fine. But they shouldn't be doing any private investing with my money.

Irksome that the engine that runs things loses $17B , sure, but this is one country. I stand by it thick and thin.

Alberta gets screwed. Always has and always will. Interestingly enough (or maybe not), I have only begun to fully endorse seperation in the last year. Before that time, I squealed a bit over a beer about how we should go it alone, but that was about it. This CPC was my last hope at saving this almost-country, but as I feared even then, it is a huge waste of time and money to continue with this charade.

Try sitting in a lounge or resturaunt in this province following another "Give Kwebek a Handout" announcement. The seperatist aire is amazingly strong, and although lots of people think that the feeling is restricted to a miniscule minority they are dead wrong. Hell, Geoffrey was an Alberta Nationalist until recently. If a bright, educated, young man can be soured on federalism that quickly, imagine how the rest of us "uneducated rednecks" are.

[M.Dancer]

Well, there is one thing missing here.....the dollar value of the sunsidies...and whether the subsidies are repayable or not.......

......please continue

As of May 2005 Bombardier had received $1.1 Billion in "repayable contributions" from 1982 to 2005. Less than 5% of the money "invested" in these programs had been recouped. Here's a link from Andrew Coyne.

Anything else you need?

That will do for now.....thanks

[Topaz]

Bombardier to Chretien is the oil sands to HARPER!!!!

[geoffrey]

Bombardier to Chretien is the oil sands to HARPER!!!!

Chretien cut the deal with the oil sands.

[August1991]

You run a hot dog stand, collect the GST and PST, contribute CPP and EI for your employees and then pay income tax on your own earnings.

The veggie burger guy across the street doesn't have to collect GST, PST nor CPP and EI for his employees. He doesn't have to pay income tax. Why? Veggie burgers are considered a new, cutting edge technology that may end obesity.

Further down the street, the taco lady receives $1000 a month from the government as part of a "multicultural food heritage" programme.

Who is getting the "subsidy"?

----

To make this even messier, Hydro-Quebec sells its electricity below cost and as a result, Quebec consumers (including Quebec industry) receive a subsidy and waste electricity.

This electricity wasted could have been sold to Ontario so that it didn't have to burn coal (adding GHG to the atmosphere) to generate electricity.

[geoffrey]

This electricity wasted could have been sold to Ontario so that it didn't have to burn coal (adding GHG to the atmosphere) to generate electricity.

Would that subsidy be carbon taxable?

[jbg]

I agree with you on huge government subsidies but when you look at the airline manufacturing industry as a whole, bomabrdiers situation is hardly unique.

In fact, they are the most 'free market' of the airline manufacturers.

The solution, ultimately, is freer trade. Ironic that the leftists are against this, no?

Ironically I'm of mixed mind. Military suppliers are hardly "free market" creatures. And even though I'm an ardent capitalist I'd rather pay subsidies than EI.