Friend of our site

MMA Headlines


Bleacher Report

MMA Fighting

MMA Torch

MMA Weekly

Sherdog (News)

Sherdog (Articles)

Liver Kick

MMA Mania

Bloody Elbow

MMA Ratings

Rating Fights

Yahoo MMA Blog

Search this site

Latest Articles

News Corner

MMA Rising

Audio Corner


Sherdog Radio

Eddie Goldman

Video Corner

Fight Hub

Special thanks to...

Link Rolodex

Site Index

To access our list of posting topics and archives, click here.

Friend of our site

Buy and sell MMA photos at MMA Prints

Site feedback

Fox Sports: "Zach Arnold's Fight Opinion site is one of the best spots on the Web for thought-provoking MMA pieces."

« | Home | »

Offset Agreement En Francais

By Zach Arnold | April 10, 2021

Print Friendly and PDF

The United States is formally opposed to offsets. To date, the United States is the only country to prohibit authorities and employees and government agencies from participating in offset operations. Defense_Production_Act_Amendments_of_1992 Title_I Sec._123 wiki. The United States depends on foreign defence “prime” suppliers for less than 2% of its purchases of defence-related products. However, many countries believe that the Buy American Act is virtually equivalent to the offset policy of other countries. Often, defence compensation for personal or political reasons is more motivating than the acquisition of primary defence. It may sound irrational, but it is part of the trade. Adding to the prevailing political aspect of spending huge public funds on modern weapons, we must not underestimate the motivating importance of defence compensation in the current decision-making processes of democracies. [10] Major arms entrepreneurs are well aware of the power of offsets in the psychology of democracies. As everyone can understand, the seller will incorporate the cost of “B coverage,” i.e.

offset and capital gain to the buyer, into its total cost. In other words, the customer pays for the lag; This is not a free lunch. [11] However, the key question is: to what extent is the compensation proposal a factor in reviewing the defence firm`s offer during the evaluation and decision-making procedures? Transparency International clearly sums up that the use of offset as marketing tools makes offsets the “ideal playground for corruption”: here is a cursory survey of some countries` offset policy. It does not go into detail and, in essence, it gives: 1) the legal basis for the discrepancy; 2) the threshold at which a claim for compensation is made; 3) the “quantity” requested for compensation per country as a percentage of the market value; 4) applied multipliers that, by a number, describe revaluations of a certain type of offsets (the “credit value” of an offset is the “real value” by the multiplier); 5) and some specific observations or information, including the websites of national lag activities. A royal decree (6.2.1997 and amended-6/12/2001) forms the legal basis of the Belgian industrial benefits programme. The program is managed by the Industrial Benefits in the Field of Defense Procurement. The threshold is usually 11 million euros, but it is lower when it is not a public and open tender. The minimum required is 100%. Multipliers are not specified. The focus is on high technology and new or additional business flow.

The Belgian “offset” guidelines are very elaborate. One of the most important and obvious points is the so-called “newness” aspect: such export subsidies “clearly must create a new or additional trade flow to exports” for Belgian companies. Belgium distinguishes three forms of offset: direct, semi-direct and indirect. [46] Belgium has a specific problem with the industrial services programme, which refers to the de facto division of the country in Wallonia and Flanders. The Belgian compensation programme is more meticulous than other European countries, but Belgian citizenship is aware that the payment of compensation, rather than obtaining weapons at commercial prices, does not involve such transparent transfers of taxpayers` money to Belgian companies designated by political decisions. Such a transfer of compensation can rightly be considered a confidential public subsidy.

Topics: Uncategorized | No Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

Comments are closed.