The Export-Import Bank

[itsAj]

How is it preventing oversupply?  It is just a re-seller of that supply, if it consumes nothing productively, it is just an intermediary middleman centralizing foreign counterparty risk at the expense of the national treasury?  It merely adds waste to the economic system in which it operates.

The ex-im bank is able to release the supply at a slower pace then the original producer would be able to. The producer would have to pay it's employers and it's suppliers; if it's buyer is not able to pay then it would need to rush it's now unsold goods to the market in order for it to pay it's bills.

Then why (over)claim that it reduces supply when you clearly state it doesn't do anything more than put it on a shelf to rot and become obsolete, just like it would on the producer's shelf, and perhaps ultimately be sold?  This is not reducing supply, only productive use does that.  This is not a public good, it is the opposite, a public taking.
It is a politically controlled market distortion at public expense for private benefit, subject to lobbyist influence and plain corruption.  Government ought not be in this business, it is wrong and a misuse of power.

I was in the "What is it?" / "I don't care" camp until all these ExIm apologists came along with these mealy-mouthed justifications.  The more they write, the more reprehensible it seems.  Should just stop and hope that folks don't see it for what it is.  The more you explain, the worse it appears.

Not much patience for all this lipstick on a pig.

You fail to recognize that the export-import bank takes a fee for every loan/order they guarantee payment for. They do not necessarily need to sell all of the goods they purchased because a foreign company defaulted on an order because of this. They are a way of spreading the risk of foreign companies' defaulting around the US economy.

[1714151031]

1714151031

[1714151031]

1714151031

[1714151031]

1714151031

[1714151031]

1714151031

[1714151031]

1714151031

[NewLiberty]

How is it preventing oversupply?  It is just a re-seller of that supply, if it consumes nothing productively, it is just an intermediary middleman centralizing foreign counterparty risk at the expense of the national treasury?  It merely adds waste to the economic system in which it operates.

The ex-im bank is able to release the supply at a slower pace then the original producer would be able to. The producer would have to pay it's employers and it's suppliers; if it's buyer is not able to pay then it would need to rush it's now unsold goods to the market in order for it to pay it's bills.

Then why (over)claim that it reduces supply when you clearly state it doesn't do anything more than put it on a shelf to rot and become obsolete, just like it would on the producer's shelf, and perhaps ultimately be sold?  This is not reducing supply, only productive use does that.  This is not a public good, it is the opposite, a public taking.
It is a politically controlled market distortion at public expense for private benefit, subject to lobbyist influence and plain corruption.  Government ought not be in this business, it is wrong and a misuse of power.

I was in the "What is it?" / "I don't care" camp until all these ExIm apologists came along with these mealy-mouthed justifications.  The more they write, the more reprehensible it seems.  Should just stop and hope that folks don't see it for what it is.  The more you explain, the worse it appears.

Not much patience for all this lipstick on a pig.

You fail to recognize that the export-import bank takes a fee for every loan/order they guarantee payment for. They do not necessarily need to sell all of the goods they purchased because a foreign company defaulted on an order because of this. They are a way of spreading the risk of foreign companies' defaulting around the US economy.

This is not a function of good government.  Government interferes in what should be private business.  This should be done by private insurance and be competitive.  There is no state interest here other than the capitalization on political power.  Get elected, and then use the power of the state to enrich those who elected you.
It is simple corruption.  It should be private or ended, not government subsidized.

My argument is not that this should not be done.  Just that it should not be done by governments, especially not the US which ought be above such nonsense.  Its bad enough that the government thinks it is the insurance company for its citizens and banks and random companies that are too-big-too-fail, but throwing its weight into the international trade to pick favorites among the exporters is unnecessarily corrupt.

[itsAj]

How is it preventing oversupply?  It is just a re-seller of that supply, if it consumes nothing productively, it is just an intermediary middleman centralizing foreign counterparty risk at the expense of the national treasury?  It merely adds waste to the economic system in which it operates.

The ex-im bank is able to release the supply at a slower pace then the original producer would be able to. The producer would have to pay it's employers and it's suppliers; if it's buyer is not able to pay then it would need to rush it's now unsold goods to the market in order for it to pay it's bills.

Then why (over)claim that it reduces supply when you clearly state it doesn't do anything more than put it on a shelf to rot and become obsolete, just like it would on the producer's shelf, and perhaps ultimately be sold?  This is not reducing supply, only productive use does that.  This is not a public good, it is the opposite, a public taking.
It is a politically controlled market distortion at public expense for private benefit, subject to lobbyist influence and plain corruption.  Government ought not be in this business, it is wrong and a misuse of power.

I was in the "What is it?" / "I don't care" camp until all these ExIm apologists came along with these mealy-mouthed justifications.  The more they write, the more reprehensible it seems.  Should just stop and hope that folks don't see it for what it is.  The more you explain, the worse it appears.

Not much patience for all this lipstick on a pig.

You fail to recognize that the export-import bank takes a fee for every loan/order they guarantee payment for. They do not necessarily need to sell all of the goods they purchased because a foreign company defaulted on an order because of this. They are a way of spreading the risk of foreign companies' defaulting around the US economy.

This is not a function of good government.  Government interferes in what should be private business.  This should be done by private insurance and be competitive.  There is no state interest here other than the capitalization on political power.  Get elected, and then use the power of the state to enrich those who elected you.
It is simple corruption.  It should be private or ended, not government subsidized.

My argument is not that this should not be done.  Just that it should not be done by governments, especially not the US which ought be above such nonsense.  Its bad enough that the government thinks it is the insurance company for its citizens and banks and random companies that are too-big-too-fail, but throwing its weight into the international trade to pick favorites among the exporters is unnecessarily corrupt.

The reason the government is involved in the export-import bank is because other countries could economically attack the US if they were to engage in a trade war. If a country (say China) were to get it's companies to order a lot of American products with no intention of paying for them nor taking delivery of them then the US government can use it's political influence to get this to stop and reverse this policy of China (in this scenario). The private sector would not be able to exert this influence.

[NewLiberty]

The reason the government is involved in the export-import bank is because other countries could economically attack the US if they were to engage in a trade war. If a country (say China) were to get it's companies to order a lot of American products with no intention of paying for them nor taking delivery of them then the US government can use it's political influence to get this to stop and reverse this policy of China (in this scenario). The private sector would not be able to exert this influence.

The ex-im bank is in no way required for political action regarding this concern.

[zorke]

The reason the government is involved in the export-import bank is because other countries could economically attack the US if they were to engage in a trade war. If a country (say China) were to get it's companies to order a lot of American products with no intention of paying for them nor taking delivery of them then the US government can use it's political influence to get this to stop and reverse this policy of China (in this scenario). The private sector would not be able to exert this influence.

The ex-im bank is in no way required for political action regarding this concern.

If the ex-im bank is going to take a loss because a country is cancelling orders from US companies in mass, then the US government would likely contact the country via diplomatic channels to try to get these order cancellations to stop.

[NewLiberty]

The reason the government is involved in the export-import bank is because other countries could economically attack the US if they were to engage in a trade war. If a country (say China) were to get it's companies to order a lot of American products with no intention of paying for them nor taking delivery of them then the US government can use it's political influence to get this to stop and reverse this policy of China (in this scenario). The private sector would not be able to exert this influence.

The ex-im bank is in no way required for political action regarding this concern.

If the ex-im bank is going to take a loss because a country is cancelling orders from US companies in mass, then the US government would likely contact the country via diplomatic channels to try to get these order cancellations to stop.

I'm baffled as to why you think the government needs the ex-im bank for an excuse to do this.
If this is the reason we need it, it is the flimsiest justification for it yet. 
Creating a intermediary bureaucracy so that it can lose money in order to give a reason for foreign policy action?

Even the more obvious justification is better, as a means to extract donations from corporations to political campaigns, and a way to channel the extracted wealth of citizens to advance those interests.  At least there is some perverse logic to that.

[zorke]

The reason the government is involved in the export-import bank is because other countries could economically attack the US if they were to engage in a trade war. If a country (say China) were to get it's companies to order a lot of American products with no intention of paying for them nor taking delivery of them then the US government can use it's political influence to get this to stop and reverse this policy of China (in this scenario). The private sector would not be able to exert this influence.

The ex-im bank is in no way required for political action regarding this concern.

If the ex-im bank is going to take a loss because a country is cancelling orders from US companies in mass, then the US government would likely contact the country via diplomatic channels to try to get these order cancellations to stop.

I'm baffled as to why you think the government needs the ex-im bank for an excuse to do this.
If this is the reason we need it, it is the flimsiest justification for it yet. 
Creating a intermediary bureaucracy so that it can lose money in order to give a reason for foreign policy action?

Even the more obvious justification is better, as a means to extract donations from corporations to political campaigns, and a way to channel the extracted wealth of citizens to advance those interests.  At least there is some perverse logic to that.

It will not lose money. It can use the influence of the government to prevent it from losing money. Private sector insurers would not have this influence.

[NewLiberty]

The reason the government is involved in the export-import bank is because other countries could economically attack the US if they were to engage in a trade war. If a country (say China) were to get it's companies to order a lot of American products with no intention of paying for them nor taking delivery of them then the US government can use it's political influence to get this to stop and reverse this policy of China (in this scenario). The private sector would not be able to exert this influence.

The ex-im bank is in no way required for political action regarding this concern.

If the ex-im bank is going to take a loss because a country is cancelling orders from US companies in mass, then the US government would likely contact the country via diplomatic channels to try to get these order cancellations to stop.

I'm baffled as to why you think the government needs the ex-im bank for an excuse to do this.
If this is the reason we need it, it is the flimsiest justification for it yet. 
Creating a intermediary bureaucracy so that it can lose money in order to give a reason for foreign policy action?

Even the more obvious justification is better, as a means to extract donations from corporations to political campaigns, and a way to channel the extracted wealth of citizens to advance those interests.  At least there is some perverse logic to that.

It will not lose money. It can use the influence of the government to prevent it from losing money. Private sector insurers would not have this influence.

That people think this is a good thing is also astounding..
How far we have fallen.

[toleng]

The reason the government is involved in the export-import bank is because other countries could economically attack the US if they were to engage in a trade war. If a country (say China) were to get it's companies to order a lot of American products with no intention of paying for them nor taking delivery of them then the US government can use it's political influence to get this to stop and reverse this policy of China (in this scenario). The private sector would not be able to exert this influence.

The ex-im bank is in no way required for political action regarding this concern.

If the ex-im bank is going to take a loss because a country is cancelling orders from US companies in mass, then the US government would likely contact the country via diplomatic channels to try to get these order cancellations to stop.

I'm baffled as to why you think the government needs the ex-im bank for an excuse to do this.
If this is the reason we need it, it is the flimsiest justification for it yet. 
Creating a intermediary bureaucracy so that it can lose money in order to give a reason for foreign policy action?

Even the more obvious justification is better, as a means to extract donations from corporations to political campaigns, and a way to channel the extracted wealth of citizens to advance those interests.  At least there is some perverse logic to that.

It will not lose money. It can use the influence of the government to prevent it from losing money. Private sector insurers would not have this influence.

That people think this is a good thing is also astounding..
How far we have fallen.

How would this not be a good thing? The government protecting the american economy from foreign governments can only be a good thing unless you wish to see the economy fail/decline

[NewLiberty]

The reason the government is involved in the export-import bank is because other countries could economically attack the US if they were to engage in a trade war. If a country (say China) were to get it's companies to order a lot of American products with no intention of paying for them nor taking delivery of them then the US government can use it's political influence to get this to stop and reverse this policy of China (in this scenario). The private sector would not be able to exert this influence.

The ex-im bank is in no way required for political action regarding this concern.

If the ex-im bank is going to take a loss because a country is cancelling orders from US companies in mass, then the US government would likely contact the country via diplomatic channels to try to get these order cancellations to stop.

I'm baffled as to why you think the government needs the ex-im bank for an excuse to do this.
If this is the reason we need it, it is the flimsiest justification for it yet. 
Creating a intermediary bureaucracy so that it can lose money in order to give a reason for foreign policy action?

Even the more obvious justification is better, as a means to extract donations from corporations to political campaigns, and a way to channel the extracted wealth of citizens to advance those interests.  At least there is some perverse logic to that.

It will not lose money. It can use the influence of the government to prevent it from losing money. Private sector insurers would not have this influence.

That people think this is a good thing is also astounding..
How far we have fallen.

How would this not be a good thing? The government protecting the american economy from foreign governments can only be a good thing unless you wish to see the economy fail/decline

A few companies in the pockets of a few government employees !== the US economy.
If the US economy is threatened, the ex-im bank is not a significant factor other than as a measurement tool.
It should not be a government entity.
It should not be subject to political influence and corruption.

It is as wrong when we do it as when "the other guy" does it.
Why be in a race to burn moral authority for no marginal gain and only increased moral hazards?

[snappa4ever]

The reason the government is involved in the export-import bank is because other countries could economically attack the US if they were to engage in a trade war. If a country (say China) were to get it's companies to order a lot of American products with no intention of paying for them nor taking delivery of them then the US government can use it's political influence to get this to stop and reverse this policy of China (in this scenario). The private sector would not be able to exert this influence.

The ex-im bank is in no way required for political action regarding this concern.

If the ex-im bank is going to take a loss because a country is cancelling orders from US companies in mass, then the US government would likely contact the country via diplomatic channels to try to get these order cancellations to stop.

I'm baffled as to why you think the government needs the ex-im bank for an excuse to do this.
If this is the reason we need it, it is the flimsiest justification for it yet. 
Creating a intermediary bureaucracy so that it can lose money in order to give a reason for foreign policy action?

Even the more obvious justification is better, as a means to extract donations from corporations to political campaigns, and a way to channel the extracted wealth of citizens to advance those interests.  At least there is some perverse logic to that.

It will not lose money. It can use the influence of the government to prevent it from losing money. Private sector insurers would not have this influence.

That people think this is a good thing is also astounding..
How far we have fallen.

How would this not be a good thing? The government protecting the american economy from foreign governments can only be a good thing unless you wish to see the economy fail/decline

A few companies in the pockets of a few government employees !== the US economy.
If the US economy is threatened, the ex-im bank is not a significant factor other than as a measurement tool.
It should not be a government entity.
It should not be subject to political influence and corruption.

It is as wrong when we do it as when "the other guy" does it.
Why be in a race to burn moral authority for no marginal gain and only increased moral hazards?

In reality, the only entity that can protect the US economy from other government aggressors is the US government. This has nothing to do with domestic politics. The ex-im bank protects the US economy from trade war with other countries. You are implying that AIG and other insurance companies should be able to protect itself and fight in War with other countries.

[NewLiberty]

In reality, the only entity that can protect the US economy from other government aggressors is the US government. This has nothing to do with domestic politics. The ex-im bank protects the US economy from trade war with other countries. You are implying that AIG and other insurance companies should be able to protect itself and fight in War with other countries.

The only thing that can protect the US Economy are those that are productively participating in that economy.  To the extent people involved in governing skew the economy for and against particular participants, it damages it.

In "reality" the US government is the greatest enemy of the US economy, and the entity best able to wreck it despite its good intentions.

You're suggestion that the ex-im bank is an instrument of war is not so persuasive in justifying it.

Its like cutting off your arm to use as a weapon, sure it extends your reach for the matter at hand, but afterward you are one-armed and there are more fights ahead.  There are better tools to achieve your goal then undue market influence by those subject to political influence.  Yes, even AIG is better, its only partially a government agent, apparently on an as-needed basis.

Crypto currency is also among those better tools.  Government would be better served getting the hang of what it offers before its left behind.

[ScreamnShout]

Crypto currency is also among those better tools.  Government would be better served getting the hang of what it offers before its left behind.

How would crypto currencies better protect US companies from a foreign government placing large orders at US companies and then not paying? It is a standard practice to not pay for goods ordered until delivery (or sometime thereafter) when dealing on a B2B basis.

All a crypto currency would do is provide another payment method when the foreign government does decide to pay (and is not engaging in a trade war)

[NewLiberty]

Crypto currency is also among those better tools.  Government would be better served getting the hang of what it offers before its left behind.

How would crypto currencies better protect US companies from a foreign government placing large orders at US companies and then not paying? It is a standard practice to not pay for goods ordered until delivery (or sometime thereafter) when dealing on a B2B basis.

All a crypto currency would do is provide another payment method when the foreign government does decide to pay (and is not engaging in a trade war)

You are familiar with crypto currency basics, yes?

In addition to another payment method, it is also a better payment method.
Some of the more applicable merits include.
Proof of funds
Validated low friction escrows
Smart contracting

This could provide contract enforcement for order cancellations.  
Cancel an order and still pay some %.  Manufacturer still has the goods and can sell, and also receives compensation for unfair business practice.

Folks whine about not having consumer protections, but they are there for anyone that wants to use them, what is missing isn't the protection, its just missing the protection racket.

I'm no expert in ex-im bank stuff, but these things just seem to be such obviously better mechanisms for solving the problems.  Save the big guns for when they are absolutely needed.  State department has enough to worry about.

[Traffic4u]

Crypto currency is also among those better tools.  Government would be better served getting the hang of what it offers before its left behind.

How would crypto currencies better protect US companies from a foreign government placing large orders at US companies and then not paying? It is a standard practice to not pay for goods ordered until delivery (or sometime thereafter) when dealing on a B2B basis.

All a crypto currency would do is provide another payment method when the foreign government does decide to pay (and is not engaging in a trade war)

You are familiar with crypto currency basics, yes?

In addition to another payment method, it is also a better payment method.
Some of the more applicable merits include.
Proof of funds
Validated low friction escrows
Smart contracting

This could provide contract enforcement for order cancellations.  
Cancel an order and still pay some %.  Manufacturer still has the goods and can sell, and also receives compensation for unfair business practice.

Folks whine about not having consumer protections, but they are there for anyone that wants to use them, what is missing isn't the protection, its just missing the protection racket.

I'm no expert in ex-im bank stuff, but these things just seem to be such obviously better mechanisms for solving the problems.  Save the big guns for when they are absolutely needed.  State department has enough to worry about.

In order for this to work the foreign company would need to be willing to put a certain amount of the sale price into (what is effectively) escrow. This is not something that is standard to do today, so any company that asks a foreign company to put money into escrow will be at a disadvantage