No worries – the Soviet Union was also all fine and OK until it imploded economically. Get into your SMART car and drive to work; that is if you even have a job?
Unlike Germany where all you do is get with France and Italy and consolidate a bunch of previous state run entities under one roof with no competition and appoint some bureaucrat as its head and then massively subsidies it (The literal truth with EADS); in the US we have a “private” aerospace sector, something you don’t understand in your “socialist” world view. You figure since you subsidies everything and have a near state command driven economy others must too have it that way.
You have in the US three major helicopter manufacturers:
Boeing (Owns Hughes now) - http://www.boeing.com/product_list.html
Bell - http://www.bellhelicopter.textron.com/
Sikorsky - http://www.sikorsky.com/details/0,9602,CLI1_DIV69_ETI720,00.html
You’re right though. If you EXCLUDE the defense sector and compare Eurocopter to all individual helicopter manufactures in the US, Eurocopter is bigger as a single entity. But if you add up the total volume of helicopters built for all three you get a very different picture. If you add the defense sector in, it’s even more skewed. Realize that for helicopters, defense is one of the main markets unlike say a PKW where it’s near entirely the civilian sector that drives revenue.
As I said before, be proud of EADS! After all “YOU’RE” paying for it, even if your to ignorant to realize it, just like the “sozialschmarotzer” who leaches off the system who you don’t see as someone “YOU” pay for, EADS is getting this money from somewhere, and it is not from their success with the A380, Eurofighter, NH-90, Galileo, Tiger, Herkules products which are all terds that have been chrome plated. EADS is briefing failure as success.
How does it really work? You take State run entities like SNECMA which was a whopping 35% in private hands by 2000 or so (But there are stock; therefore it’s “private” in your head just like the FRAPORT or DB) was formed by the nationalization of Gnome & Rhône in 1945 and is the primary state turbine builder in France to this day and a main supplier for? Of course the “private” firm Airbus. Aerospatiale (State owned), add in a few other state entities or heavily state controlled firms like DASA and roll them all up under one Pan European aerospace conglomerate called EADS. Tell us who Sud Aviation was? The firm which later became Aerospatiale.
Airbus for the new German Euro centrist supra nationalist is more than a firm, it’s a symbol of Europe, a symbol of power economically and technologically. However, it’s “Synthetic”. Unlike P&W or GE or even little Garret and some others; in Europe you have primarily a state run aerospace sector. Your stocks won’t fall, even if Airbus fly’s planes into forests and builds A380s that don’t sell. The state is a major share holder and won’t let Airbus fail, no matter what. But believe me when I say that “You” pay for it.
At this point a failure for Airbus would be catastrophic for the main engines behind it: Germany/France. If Airbus imploded on itself political careers would go up in flames. A whole INDUSTRY would go under. The secondary and tertiary affects economically would be beyond imagination at this point since this would be piled on top of stagnant economies in these two countries which are both running over 12% unemployed, busting their debt caps, have practically no industrial or economic growth, have dropping investments in capital goods and R&D. EADS will just continue to get money injected into it.
But in the meantime, as I told you before, accept the fact that Germany will soon be the 5th largest economy with India and China passing them. Germany and France have economically flat lined for a decade now and show no sign of change. Something you can’t accept since it’s a matter of national pride is that these state subsidies, state holdings, are at least a part of the much larger problem which is crushing the German economy and Airbus in fact EADS all together falls into this category. You didn’t help yourself with massive Braunkohle subsidies for years and silently just doing this without any big advertisement. You didn’t help yourself with subsidies for the Vulkan Werke or over decades the German farmer (Who truthfully can’t compete globally). In the end, there is a real tangible economic cost involved with these games. Just like the Soviets who also ignored basic economic principals (Actually they even partially denied them), you will go down for the same reasons. 20 years my little friend. Germany today is already done economically. You’re just waiting to die.
Strange how India is economically exploding – almost like Germany during the Wirtschaftswunder, or China where near all growth is from the private sector…….. Want more examples? Ireland, Chile, UK under Thatcher, US under Reagan/Bush…….. Want some examples of applied socialist market theories? DDR, UdSSR, China ca. pre 1985, Cuba, Iraq (Under Saddam – Yes, the Ba athists where socialists and Iraq did have social medicine etc)…….
Even in the US we have a “mixed” economy. There is Social Security, HUD, and and and. But…. the percent of state ownership, the total amount subsidized as a percent of GDP, the degree of state regulation etc is in comparison to Germany far far less. Almost all your arguments are based on a relative comparison where you try to equate a defense contract to a subsidy. Where you say “look look the US subsidizes agriculture too!” But what you fail to accept is that firms like Boeing are truly private firms and in the hands of private shareholders. Unlike ZDF, ARD, HR3, SWF, DW, NDR, WDR…. we only have PBS. One nation with 3.5 times the people and near 5 times the economic volume has one (1) state run channel. But like with Boeing, a fool like you would say “You too have state run media, see you have PBS!” While Boeing does make some money on defense contracts, this is not the same as direct money injections worth 15 billion Euro by 2005 for the development of private and for commercial use aircraft as Airbus has had. The A350 is being developed to a large degree with state subsidies! You can’t say that about the 787, 777, 767, 757, 747, 737….707.
While Boeing will get the contract for the new air to air tanker and will make some “profit” off of it. This is not the same as a direct subsidy with the intent to develop an airplane to be marketed on international markets as the A350 will be. See a difference? Probably not. But it does not matter. Since like the cancer patient in denial, you will eventually economically die from the disease you defend.