Congress Kills 81 year old EXIM Bank-US Jobs fleeing to France, China, etc.

[g5000]

Seriously, read the first two posts I made in my topic about Ex-Im: The Export-Import Bank | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Open your eyes.

Are we throwing the baby out with the bath water? Was there no chance of reform and adjustment that could have preserved the original intent but gotten rid of the corruption or 'corporate welfare'?

You just whined about GE losing access to Ex-Im. I am still waiting to hear you explain why a multi-billion dollar company deserves a government handout.

The fact you whined about GE not getting a handout any more is exactly why there is no chance of reform.

I wasn't whining and I don't think GE should be getting corporate welfare. I also don't think an entire program and agency needs to be shut down because Congress hasn't been doing it's job and overseeing to make appropriate changes and reforms. They could have very easily put restriction on the bank so that they would not be allowed to give huge loans to huge companies that don't need or deserve to welfare.

You did whine about GE, right in your OP. You provided GE as a case study of why Ex-Im should not go away!

I referred to what the Reuter article link was as quoted by GE in an article from that morning. That is not whining. You said yourself that the article supported your opinions and side of the controversy. The second link gave some background information on the topic. The link and comments in the OP were meant to open a discussion on the topic.
No one has said or post links to anything that changes my impression that this issue is a turf battle between the congress and the executive branch.

At the loss of the Ex-Im, you said "jobs fleeing". That's an obvious whine in support of the Ex-Im. Then as evidence for "jobs fleeing", you cited GE sending 500 jobs overseas.

The executive branch has had control of the EXIM and the Republican congress led by the Tea Party has trashed the program without replacing it with anything.

Why should this utterly corrupt institution be replaced?

 

[bendog]

I don't think there's dispute that the net effect of the Bank is that tax dollars are used to subsidize jobs. But, it also seems other post-industrial countries do essentially the same. So, the dispute would seem to be whether the net effect on taxpayers in general is positive or negative. I've never seen an answer to that that was really persuasive.

 

[Camp]

Are we throwing the baby out with the bath water? Was there no chance of reform and adjustment that could have preserved the original intent but gotten rid of the corruption or 'corporate welfare'?

You just whined about GE losing access to Ex-Im. I am still waiting to hear you explain why a multi-billion dollar company deserves a government handout.

The fact you whined about GE not getting a handout any more is exactly why there is no chance of reform.

I wasn't whining and I don't think GE should be getting corporate welfare. I also don't think an entire program and agency needs to be shut down because Congress hasn't been doing it's job and overseeing to make appropriate changes and reforms. They could have very easily put restriction on the bank so that they would not be allowed to give huge loans to huge companies that don't need or deserve to welfare.

You did whine about GE, right in your OP. You provided GE as a case study of why Ex-Im should not go away!

I referred to what the Reuter article link was as quoted by GE in an article from that morning. That is not whining. You said yourself that the article supported your opinions and side of the controversy. The second link gave some background information on the topic. The link and comments in the OP were meant to open a discussion on the topic.
No one has said or post links to anything that changes my impression that this issue is a turf battle between the congress and the executive branch.

At the loss of the Ex-Im, you said "jobs fleeing". That's an obvious whine in support of the Ex-Im. Then as evidence for "jobs fleeing", you cited GE sending 500 jobs overseas.

The executive branch has had control of the EXIM and the Republican congress led by the Tea Party has trashed the program without replacing it with anything.

Why should this utterly corrupt institution be replaced?

The article from Reuter's and the link to the commentary at Lee Ham suggested jobs would be leaving in large numbers. My interpretation was that fleeing was a good description.
You began with some academic and informative post, albeit, with a little attitude. Now you seem to be hung up on some kind of ego thingy. Maybe you reached the limits of your knowledge on the topic and are left with nothing more than politicizing.

 

[Camp]

I don't think there's dispute that the net effect of the Bank is that tax dollars are used to subsidize jobs. But, it also seems other post-industrial countries do essentially the same. So, the dispute would seem to be whether the net effect on taxpayers in general is positive or negative. I've never seen an answer to that that was really persuasive.

That seems to be the dilemma. Without our own bank to level the playing field the American companies find themselves in unfair competition because other countries are using their banks to subsidize their own businesses that compete with the US. We are damned if we do and damned if we don't. Sure, companies like GE and Boeing can get loans elsewhere, but can they get them for the competitive prices the competition can get them? The answer is no, they can not. The French bank or the Chinese bank will undercut the private banks and subsidize, hence the American companies are forced to be controlled by foreign interest. What the Congress has done is throw their hands in the air and given up because they can't work with each other or make compromises. They can not govern.

 

[bendog]

I don't think there's dispute that the net effect of the Bank is that tax dollars are used to subsidize jobs. But, it also seems other post-industrial countries do essentially the same. So, the dispute would seem to be whether the net effect on taxpayers in general is positive or negative. I've never seen an answer to that that was really persuasive.

That seems to be the dilemma. Without our own bank to level the playing field the American companies find themselves in unfair competition because other countries are using their banks to subsidize their own businesses that compete with the US. We are damned if we do and damned if we don't. Sure, companies like GE and Boeing can get loans elsewhere, but can they get them for the competitive prices the competition can get them? The answer is no, they can not. The French bank or the Chinese bank will undercut the private banks and subsidize, hence the American companies are forced to be controlled by foreign interest. What the Congress has done is throw their hands in the air and given up because they can't work with each other or make compromises. They can not govern.

Well, there are two approaches, and I'm not sure which is right. First, there's no economic dispute that the greatest econ efficiency will result from unsubsidized markets. That is, mftr stuff where it's cheapest without govts affecting price. So, in a perfect world we should kill the bank, and penalize (tariff) the cost of goods produced overseas with subsidized labor.

Second, is that really feasible? How do we identify the products and how do we calculate the value of the subsidy? If we cannot, then I'd say killing the bank was not a good thing.

 

[whitehall]

Progressives allege that they want to move forward with innovative programs but they prefer to keep antiquated banking regulations created during FDR's "great depression". Remember when congress had it's own post office? Politicians stole everything that wasn't nailed down. Fannie Mae collapsed when democrats were in charge and the chairperson of the House Banking Committee told us it was solvent. Was Barney Frank inept or just stupid? Politicians can't run banking institutions any better than they ran Fannie Mae. Can't we do better than an ancient government program created during a time when Americans were standing in soup lines?

 

[g5000]

That seems to be the dilemma. Without our own bank to level the playing field the American companies find themselves in unfair competition because other countries are using their banks to subsidize their own businesses that compete with the US.

"If we don't do it, someone else will" is the very voice of corruption rationalizing itself.

"If we don't make these subprime loans, another bank will."

"If we don't take this bribe donation, another Congressman will."

I'm sick of this shit.

 

[bendog]

Progressives allege that they want to move forward with innovative programs but they prefer to keep antiquated banking regulations created during FDR's "great depression". Remember when congress had it's own post office? Politicians stole everything that wasn't nailed down. Fannie Mae collapsed when democrats were in charge and the chairperson of the House Banking Committee told us it was solvent. Was Barney Frank inept or just stupid? Politicians can't run banking institutions any better than they ran Fannie Mae. Can't we do better than an ancient government program created during a time when Americans were standing in soup lines?

That's not it at all. The question is whether tax dollars should go to subsidizing jobs because competitor nations use taxpayer dollars to subsidize jobs. And the I/E "bank" is not really a bank so much as a subsidy provider. You attempt to make a partisan issue about what is really an economic and policy issue on which even the gop in not unanimous. And, I suspect some dems, such as blacks from poor districts, care much one way or the other.

It's more about GE v. Mises Inst.

 

[bendog]

That seems to be the dilemma. Without our own bank to level the playing field the American companies find themselves in unfair competition because other countries are using their banks to subsidize their own businesses that compete with the US.

"If we don't do it, someone else will" is the very voice of corruption rationalizing itself.

"If we don't make these subprime loans, another bank will."

"If we don't take this bribe donation, another Congressman will."

I'm sick of this shit.

Yet, say for instance, if Airbus was getting tax dollars to subsidize jobs of assembling planes that otherwise would be cheaper to assemble here, what should the US do?

 

[g5000]

By the way, the Ex-Im is not dead. It's charter can be renewed at any time. It was supposed to be renewed three months ago, but was blocked by Tea Partiers like Ted Cruz.

It's just resting.

 

[g5000]

That seems to be the dilemma. Without our own bank to level the playing field the American companies find themselves in unfair competition because other countries are using their banks to subsidize their own businesses that compete with the US.

"If we don't do it, someone else will" is the very voice of corruption rationalizing itself.

"If we don't make these subprime loans, another bank will."

"If we don't take this bribe donation, another Congressman will."

I'm sick of this shit.

Yet, say for instance, if Airbus was getting tax dollars to subsidize jobs of assembling planes that otherwise would be cheaper to assemble here, what should the US do?

The US government should not intervene in private markets.

The US government has been more and more heavily involved in the health care market for 80 years. How's that been working out?

 

[BluesLegend]

Breaking: Dumb ass liberal tax increases and thousands of regulations destroy millions of US jobs, liberals shrug their shoulders.

 

[bendog]

That seems to be the dilemma. Without our own bank to level the playing field the American companies find themselves in unfair competition because other countries are using their banks to subsidize their own businesses that compete with the US.

"If we don't do it, someone else will" is the very voice of corruption rationalizing itself.

"If we don't make these subprime loans, another bank will."

"If we don't take this bribe donation, another Congressman will."

I'm sick of this shit.

Yet, say for instance, if Airbus was getting tax dollars to subsidize jobs of assembling planes that otherwise would be cheaper to assemble here, what should the US do?

The US government should not intervene in private markets.

Ah, but if France is selling subsized goods in the US, it's not a free market.

 

[g5000]

That seems to be the dilemma. Without our own bank to level the playing field the American companies find themselves in unfair competition because other countries are using their banks to subsidize their own businesses that compete with the US.

"If we don't do it, someone else will" is the very voice of corruption rationalizing itself.

"If we don't make these subprime loans, another bank will."

"If we don't take this bribe donation, another Congressman will."

I'm sick of this shit.

Yet, say for instance, if Airbus was getting tax dollars to subsidize jobs of assembling planes that otherwise would be cheaper to assemble here, what should the US do?

The US government should not intervene in private markets.

Ah, but if France is selling subsized goods in the US, it's not a free market.

And Korea undermined our steel industry with subsidies. China is killing our solar market with astronomical subsidies.

A million wrongs don't make a right. Adding more corruption makes the chance of the survival of capitalism that much less likely, and handicaps its ability to correct these evils.

"If we don't do it, someone else will". How'd that work out with subprimes?

 

[g5000]

One of the purposes of a trade bill is to counter these foreign subsidies. They contain counteracting tariffs and import limitations.

 

[The Rabbi]

That seems to be the dilemma. Without our own bank to level the playing field the American companies find themselves in unfair competition because other countries are using their banks to subsidize their own businesses that compete with the US.

"If we don't do it, someone else will" is the very voice of corruption rationalizing itself.

"If we don't make these subprime loans, another bank will."

"If we don't take this bribe donation, another Congressman will."

I'm sick of this shit.

Yet, say for instance, if Airbus was getting tax dollars to subsidize jobs of assembling planes that otherwise would be cheaper to assemble here, what should the US do?

Nothing. Airbus is a European company. If France wants to bankrupt itself by subsidizing inefficiency and corrpution we should encourage them, not emulate them.

 

[g5000]

A government subsidy means a government expense. If you are spending money to artificially prop up a bogus business model, do you think that is sustainable forever?

In the long run, they are hurting themselves.

 

[g5000]

That seems to be the dilemma. Without our own bank to level the playing field the American companies find themselves in unfair competition because other countries are using their banks to subsidize their own businesses that compete with the US.

"If we don't do it, someone else will" is the very voice of corruption rationalizing itself.

"If we don't make these subprime loans, another bank will."

"If we don't take this bribe donation, another Congressman will."

I'm sick of this shit.

Yet, say for instance, if Airbus was getting tax dollars to subsidize jobs of assembling planes that otherwise would be cheaper to assemble here, what should the US do?

Nothing. Airbus is a European company. If France wants to bankrupt itself by subsidizing inefficiency and corrpution we should encourage them, not emulate them.

Exactly.

 

[The Rabbi]

A government subsidy means a government expense. If you are spending money to artificially prop up a bogus business model, do you think that is sustainable forever?

In the long run, they are hurting themselves.

People dont get that. If China wants to subsidize US consumers by keeping their costs artificially low we should let them. We should encourage them. They are literally spending money to keep from going broke. Japan did just that and has suffered 20 years of slow growth and recession with booming debt.

 

[bendog]

That seems to be the dilemma. Without our own bank to level the playing field the American companies find themselves in unfair competition because other countries are using their banks to subsidize their own businesses that compete with the US.

"If we don't do it, someone else will" is the very voice of corruption rationalizing itself.

"If we don't make these subprime loans, another bank will."

"If we don't take this bribe donation, another Congressman will."

I'm sick of this shit.

Yet, say for instance, if Airbus was getting tax dollars to subsidize jobs of assembling planes that otherwise would be cheaper to assemble here, what should the US do?

The US government should not intervene in private markets.

Ah, but if France is selling subsized goods in the US, it's not a free market.

And Korea undermined our steel industry with subsidies. China is killing our solar market with astronomical subsidies.

A million wrongs don't make a right. Adding more corruption makes the chance of the survival of capitalism that much less likely, and handicaps its ability to correct these evils.

"If we don't do it, someone else will". How'd that work out with subprimes?

I think to an extent we can ameliorate the damages to US firms through intl law, but the legal system isn't perfect enough to allow a total free market system. The I/E bank is probably a historical anachronism. For example, in Asia GE sells MRI machines for a fraction of what we pay for them simply because that's all some Asian countries are willing to pay. That is, there's no basis on which to justify subsidy.

But,

Exclusive: EU may challenge $8.7 billion U.S. tax breaks in Boeing-Airbus trade dispute - sources