From President Obama's State of the Union Speech this past January:
nations like China and India realized that with some changes of their own, they could compete in this new world. And so they started educating their children earlier and longer, with greater emphasis on math and science. They’re investing in research and new technologies. Just recently, China became the home to the world’s largest private solar research facility, and the world’s fastest computer.
So, yes, the world has changed. The competition for jobs is real. But this shouldn’t discourage us. It should challenge us. Remember -– for all the hits we’ve taken these last few years, for all the naysayers predicting our decline, America still has the largest, most prosperous economy in the world. (Applause.) No workers -- no workers are more productive than ours. No country has more successful companies, or grants more patents to inventors and entrepreneurs. We’re the home to the world’s best colleges and universities, where more students come to study than any place on Earth.
...
The future is ours to win. But to get there, we can’t just stand still. As Robert Kennedy told us, “The future is not a gift. It is an achievement.” Sustaining the American Dream has never been about standing pat. It has required each generation to sacrifice, and struggle, and meet the demands of a new age.
And now it’s our turn. We know what it takes to compete for the jobs and industries of our time. We need to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world. (Applause.) We have to make America the best place on Earth to do business. We need to take responsibility for our deficit and reform our government. That’s how our people will prosper. That’s how we’ll win the future. (Applause.) And tonight, I’d like to talk about how we get there.
The first step in winning the future is encouraging American innovation. None of us can predict with certainty what the next big industry will be or where the new jobs will come from. Thirty years ago, we couldn’t know that something called the Internet would lead to an economic revolution. What we can do -- what America does better than anyone else -- is spark the creativity and imagination of our people. We’re the nation that put cars in driveways and computers in offices; the nation of Edison and the Wright brothers; of Google and Facebook. In America, innovation doesn’t just change our lives. It is how we make our living. (Applause.)Our free enterprise system is what drives innovation. But because it’s not always profitable for companies to invest in basic research, throughout our history, our government has provided cutting-edge scientists and inventors with the support that they need. That’s what planted the seeds for the Internet. That’s what helped make possible things like computer chips and GPS. Just think of all the good jobs -- from manufacturing to retail -- that have come from these breakthroughs.
Half a century ago, when the Soviets beat us into space with the launch of a satellite called Sputnik, we had no idea how we would beat them to the moon. The science wasn’t even there yet. NASA didn’t exist. But after investing in better research and education, we didn’t just surpass the Soviets; we unleashed a wave of innovation that created new industries and millions of new jobs.
This is our generation’s Sputnik moment. Two years ago, I said that we needed to reach a level of research and development we haven’t seen since the height of the Space Race. And in a few weeks, I will be sending a budget to Congress that helps us meet that goal. We’ll invest in biomedical research, information technology, and especially clean energy technology -– (applause) -- an investment that will strengthen our security, protect our planet, and create countless new jobs for our people.
It's a big vague, but it certainly sounds like the government will be spending a good deal of money to help American businesses compete with foreign businesses.
Now look at this passage from the U.S. - Aircraft panel report:
7.1704 The Panel considers that its analysis of the nature of the U.S. federal aeronautics subsidies at issue needs to be viewed in the context of their overall policy objectives. Numerous statements on record demonstrate that a key objective of these subsidies was the enhancement of the competitiveness and increase of the market share of the U.S. industry, and Boeing in particular, vis-à-vis its international competitors.
7.1705 For example, NASA's Langley Director has stated:
"The reason there is a NASA Langley and the other aeronautics centers is to contribute technology to assure the pre-eminence of U.S. aeronautics. When Boeing brings out a flagship product like the 777, that uses as many products of NASA technology as are on this plane, it reaffirms the reason that we exist and is very gratifying to us."
...
7.1765 A further factor that we consider to be relevant to our evaluation of whether the aeronautics R&D subsidies have caused serious prejudice to the interests of the European Communities by reason of their "technology effects" concerns the particular conditions of competition in the LCA industry. As explained by the United States' economic consultants, NERA Consulting, the real competition between Airbus and Boeing occurs through their respective investments in R&D to build better airplanes: "The essence of the intense competition between Boeing and Airbus is to design and build better airplanes – improved versions of existing models as well as new models."
...
7.1769 It is clear to us that the conditions of competition in the LCA industry are such that a subsidy that enhances an LCA manufacturer's ability to develop innovative technologies for application to its aircraft will potentially give rise to a significant competitive advantage to that manufacturer.
...
7.1773 The Panel concludes that the aeronautics R&D subsidies contributed in a genuine and substantial way to Boeing's development of technologies for the 787 and that, in the light of the conditions of competition in the LCA industry, these subsidies conferred a competitive advantage on Boeing. …
...
7.1797 In conclusion, the Panel finds that the effect of the aeronautics R&D subsidies is a threat of displacement and impedance of European Communities' exports from third country markets within the meaning of Article 6.3(b) of the SCM Agreement, with respect to the 200-300 seat wide-body LCA product market, and significant lost sales and significant price suppression, within the meaning of Article 6.3(c) of the SCM Agreement with respect to that product market, each of which constitute serious prejudice to the interests of the European Communities within the meaning of Article 5(c) of the SCM Agreement.
(emphasis added) It definitely seems that talk about competitiveness can come back to hurt you later on in a WTO subsidies dispute.
