Rowing Illustrated

Slim wrote:Of course this goes against the desire of manufacturers to produce the best product - it’s easy to quantify the stiffness of a boat and improve that, but I’m not sure manufacturers are measuring what matters for speed.

.

Agreed. Neither stiffness nor less wetted surface area are the things that matter the most for a rowing 8. Don't get me wrong, they matter to a degree. Both are necessary but not sufficient to build a really fast 8 over 2,000 meters (or more). You have to have a boat with enough feel for the crew to know when they are on it together, and when they are not. Shorten the races we care about to just a 500 meter all out sprint, and my guess is you'll see more crews in a Resolute.

Sounds like Filippi is getting the deal ,Italian subsidized boats. A savings of 200k

Based on the last year, who is getting the better end of that deal????

I may be mistaken, but I believe Filippi and other Italian sports & sports companies receive support based on a tax of revenue sports, mostly football. Not too unlike how college revenue sports support rowing which in turn supports Vespoli etc.

Yes, but no. Mostly no.

Direct government aid to a specific producer is very different than individual customers' internal redistribution of general funds which may or may not be spent with a specific producer.

rowing wrote:Yes, but no. Mostly no.

Direct government aid to a specific producer is very different than individual customers' internal redistribution of general funds which may or may not be spent with a specific producer.

I think this is somewhere in the middle. All boat builders get some subsidy/tax break from the government because yachts building is a major industry in Italy. Filippi has found a loophole that has allowed them to apply it to rowing shells.

At least that is the way it was explained to me.

Mango wrote:

rowing wrote:Yes, but no. Mostly no.

Direct government aid to a specific producer is very different than individual customers' internal redistribution of general funds which may or may not be spent with a specific producer.

I think this is somewhere in the middle. All boat builders get some subsidy/tax break from the government because yachts building is a major industry in Italy. Filippi has found a loophole that has allowed them to apply it to rowing shells.

At least that is the way it was explained to me.

Not interested in how the Italians do it. As a concept it has no USA comparison to Vespoli or any other rowing shell maker getting redistributed funds from individual colleges making independent decisions to take revenue sports money and apply to nonrevenue sports.

"Not too unlike how college revenue sports support rowing which in turn supports Vespoli etc."

NO. Exactly UNLIKE that. Not remotely in the same universe like that. Government subsidy is not the same as market customers making strategic decisions resulting in revenue

Federal policy, called Title IX (which I support), created a market place where Vespoli competes. This is a pattern, along with contracts, tax incentives, and subsidies, (Neoliberalism) that cut across many US industries.

Steven M-M wrote:Federal policy, called Title IX (which I support), created a market place where Vespoli competes. This is a pattern, along with contracts, tax incentives, and subsidies, (Neoliberalism) that cut across many US industries.

No. And no again.

Title IX created an obligation of institutions to achieve equality. Schools can meet it many different ways. That one of the ways increased the number of rowers and thus the need for more boats IS NOT THE SAME AS A DIRECT GOVERNMENT SUBSIDY TO A SPECIFIC COMPANY.

Those increased market dollars can go ANYWHERE in a program's budget---salaries, trips, scholarships, etc. The government subsidy to Filippi (if true) goes to...wait for it...Filippi.

The subsidy EXPLICITLY lowers Filippi's operating costs, and they can use that to lower prices if they so wish.

General market demand from more programs does not necessarily lower costs. Depending on economies of scale, it may increase, decrease or do nothing to a specific company's expenses. It all depends where they are on their optimal production curve.

FREE CASH always lowers operating costs. Period.

Do I sense a closed mind? Of course, there are differences in forms of direct and indirect subsidies. The economic and practical differences are less than you acknowledge.

A funnel is NOT a sprinkler.

rowing's kinda spot on for this. the Italian government giving Filippi free money to build their boats is not the same as a college paying full RIP for a boat. Creating a market is not the same as directly paying players to partake in a market. The government can create legislation that mandates a specific action, but that in itself is not directly putting cash in any manufacturer's coffers; that's CREATING a market. if the government directly paid a specific company cash for whatever reason, and that cash allowed them to offer lower prices in the market, that's a subsidy.

Look at the oil industry as a loose example - there's a reason why Standard Oil based companies became globally dominant, and it wasn't because the government required a particular type of gasoline to be used in vehicles; it was because there were subsidies to prospecting that were offered by the US government.

A subsidy is literally just giving money in the form of either direct payments or reduced tax burden to a company. There's no actual exchange of goods. With Title IX passage, there's literally no comparison - the government didn't provide any discounts or any direct cash payouts to any manufacturers of any kind of sporting equipment. There's no indirect subsidy because there's no daisy chain of funds moving anywhere.

Follow the money. If you want to know who benefits, and who suffers, just follow the money. Filippi got the contract because to them, it literally costs nothing to do so. USRowing got Filippi because they found a sucker in the form of the Italian Government to toss them a boatload of cash for no good reason at all.

I guess I will look forward to the 2024 Olys when the US team will present themselves as the most fit team to win the trailer race. As far as I can see, USRowing has adopted the "Mariner's baseball" business model, where winning doesn't matter as long as the ledger shows black ink at the end of the year.

Caustic (& Rowing), I don't disagree with your points, even if I find them black & white on a topic that is decidedly gray. I also don't know enough about the economics of boat building in Italy or the US to offer a more evidence-based response. What I do know is that the US economy, like all developed economies, is deeply enmeshed with government policy, spending, and tax expenditures, the many funnels and sprinklers.

Steven M-M wrote:Caustic (& Rowing), I don't disagree with your points, even if I find them black & white on a topic that is decidedly gray. I also don't know enough about the economics of boat building in Italy or the US to offer a more evidence-based response. What I do know is that the US economy, like all developed economies, is deeply enmeshed with government policy, spending, and tax expenditures, the many funnels and sprinklers.

Awesome.

So, comparing TWO developed economies, deeply enmeshed with government policy, spending, and tax expenditures, with many funnels and sprinklers....

ONE hands cash to a company. The OTHER knows a guy who knows a guy.....maybe he's still around, maybe not...in any case, good luck!

Lots of "funnels' in the US; just ask Elon Musk.