Replies

Are you really convinced that subsidized companies will do better than completely private companies in the long run?

All the completely private tool and die companies being put out of business because our government tries to destroy the small businessman aren't going to be around to "compete in the longrun". China's government actively supports and promotes it's businesses. It wants the jobs and the money from trade.

Companies that have their losses subsidized will do better because they won't go under. Completely private companies can and will go under as part of business. Subsidized companies have no incentives to practice proper business procedures and no incentive to even profit. Hell, it's a disincentive. But as long as someone is willing to keep propping them up, they will outlast private companies that don't have that luxury. They become monopolies.

As an example, consider Amtrak. It is, in theory, a private company, but its losses are continually picked up by Congress; it should have died long ago. No private company could practice the business the way Amtrak does, runnning unprofitable routes, etc. Only in the northeast, where demand outstrips what Amtrak can provide, are other regional rail systems in existence, and Amtrask would not be there were it not for the federal subsidies.

Now if Congress were to suddenly stop funding Amtrak, would that be a subsidy to the rail industry? Of course not; it would be terrific. Other carriers would fill any voids left, and would turn a profit, and yes, some places won't get service. Or a truly private Amtrak might surprise us all and be a truly efficient and profitable rail system. Doubtful, but stranger things have happened.

In other words, weaning Amtrak from the Federal teat is not a subsidy to the rail industry. It opens competition.

Economically, there is no difference between Amtrak on the US tax doles, and Airbus on the doles of European taxpayers. None whatsoever.

Congress cannot defund Airbus, however, but it level the playing field. So having Congress enact a tariff on a foreign competitor that is not allowed to fail (i.e., Airbus) only promotes competition. (Tariffs have to be coupled with corporate tax cuts, of course, and an easing of the burden of federal regulations). If Airbus has a truly superior product, let them play by our rules and prove it. If they get beat by American competition, so be it.