Obama wants to renew the Export Import Bank

[ElectionsGuy]

As part of a broader transportation funding bill. It expired weeks ago. It includes a loan program to big corporations like Boeing payed for by tax dollars.

But... but I thought Democrats were against corporate welfare.

[bedstuy]

The Export-Import Bank turns a profit.  How is something welfare if it actually makes money?

[Torie]

The Export-Import Bank turns a profit.  How is something welfare if it actually makes money?

Because it's a subsidy in the sense that the big corporations get lower interest rates, then they would from a private lender. It only makes money if one ignores the time value of money, to wit that the Feds could earn interest on the money other loaned. And in an omega, economic collapse situation, that hits every 10-20 years or so, the scheme could lose a lot of money. Shorter term profits are not a good indicator of the long term financial return of this sort of program.

[bedstuy]

The Export-Import Bank turns a profit.  How is something welfare if it actually makes money?

Because it's a subsidy in the sense that the big corporations get lower interest rates, then they would from a private lender. It only makes money if one ignores the time value of money, to wit that the Feds could earn interest on the money other loaned. And in an omega, economic collapse situation, that hits every 10-20 years or so, the scheme could lose a lot of money. Shorter term profits are not a good indicator of the long term financial return of this sort of program.

How investments do in an economic collapse is not a good indicator of their value either.  In the long-run, the ex-im bank is in the black, right?

The question is whether these programs are worth the investment and whether they have an positive impact on the US economy.   The consensus view seems to be that it's a large net-plus.  And, the proof is that almost every other country has a government entity with the same function.  The only argument against it is that it goes against libertarian principles and it helps private businesses.  In my book, both are worthy objectives for any government program.

[Comrade Funk]

As part of a broader transportation funding bill. It expired weeks ago. It includes a loan program to big corporations like Boeing payed for by tax dollars.

But... but I thought Democrats were against corporate welfare.

But...but....progressives have been saying Democrats have been right-wing/centrist and too pro-Wall Street for decades. The Democrats knows who pays for their sh**tty campaigns and votes.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

And we at AFP will likely lead a grassroots campaign to shut it down.

[Torie]

The Export-Import Bank turns a profit.  How is something welfare if it actually makes money?

Because it's a subsidy in the sense that the big corporations get lower interest rates, then they would from a private lender. It only makes money if one ignores the time value of money, to wit that the Feds could earn interest on the money other loaned. And in an omega, economic collapse situation, that hits every 10-20 years or so, the scheme could lose a lot of money. Shorter term profits are not a good indicator of the long term financial return of this sort of program.

How investments do in an economic collapse is not a good indicator of their value either.  In the long-run, the ex-im bank is in the black, right?

The question is whether these programs are worth the investment and whether they have an positive impact on the US economy.   The consensus view seems to be that it's a large net-plus.  And, the proof is that almost every other country has a government entity with the same function.  The only argument against it is that it goes against libertarian principles and it helps private businesses.  In my book, both are worthy objectives for any government program.

I would be interested to see more on this "consensus" thing. Consensus of economists? Is that really true? Being in the black (even if it were in the black overall having taken some omega event economic hits), does not mean that it does not cost money, because it presumably still earns less profit than the the money saved by having less treasury bill interest to pay, adjusted for risk. And it's still a subsidy to big corporations no matter how you cut it. If it were not, then corporations would just get financing from the private sector. But I am open to data based arguments, that this is one of those rare instances where corporate "welfare" is justified. Color me skeptical though

[Indy Texas]

The Export-Import Bank turns a profit.  How is something welfare if it actually makes money?

Because it's a subsidy in the sense that the big corporations get lower interest rates, then they would from a private lender. It only makes money if one ignores the time value of money, to wit that the Feds could earn interest on the money other loaned. And in an omega, economic collapse situation, that hits every 10-20 years or so, the scheme could lose a lot of money. Shorter term profits are not a good indicator of the long term financial return of this sort of program.

The corporations aren't getting the loans. Foreigners are getting loans to buy goods from the United States. Every other country does this.

[Torie]

The Export-Import Bank turns a profit.  How is something welfare if it actually makes money?

Because it's a subsidy in the sense that the big corporations get lower interest rates, then they would from a private lender. It only makes money if one ignores the time value of money, to wit that the Feds could earn interest on the money other loaned. And in an omega, economic collapse situation, that hits every 10-20 years or so, the scheme could lose a lot of money. Shorter term profits are not a good indicator of the long term financial return of this sort of program.

The corporations aren't getting the loans. Foreigners are getting loans to buy goods from the United States. Every other country does this.

Oh, so foreigners are getting below market loans, or loans they could not otherwise get, as a subsidy, to buy US goods. Great. I guess maybe it's just to keep up with the competition, and if so, it's really a trade agreement issue between nations, a form of unfair competition. So well - it's complicated. I find as I grow older, that things seem ever more complicated. Less and less is an easy call, particularly on esoteric issues, rather than profound moral issues, like SSM, or the suck education poor kids are getting in the US.

Thanks for the post. I learned something.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I wouldn't mind seeing the ExIm Bank go away, but as noted, it would need to be done as part of an international agreement rather than unilaterally.

[MaxQue]

And we at AFP will likely lead a grassroots campaign to shut it down.

So, AFP is a front of foreign entreprises, seeking to put US businesses at a disadvantage against foreign competition (who get support from equivalent structures in their own country)?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

And we at AFP will likely lead a grassroots campaign to shut it down.

So, AFP is a front of foreign entreprises, seeking to put US businesses at a disadvantage against foreign competition (who get support from equivalent structures in their own country)?

I thought you wanted to jail conspiracy theorists.

[bedstuy]

The Export-Import Bank turns a profit.  How is something welfare if it actually makes money?

Because it's a subsidy in the sense that the big corporations get lower interest rates, then they would from a private lender. It only makes money if one ignores the time value of money, to wit that the Feds could earn interest on the money other loaned. And in an omega, economic collapse situation, that hits every 10-20 years or so, the scheme could lose a lot of money. Shorter term profits are not a good indicator of the long term financial return of this sort of program.

The corporations aren't getting the loans. Foreigners are getting loans to buy goods from the United States. Every other country does this.

Oh, so foreigners are getting below market loans, or loans they could not otherwise get, as a subsidy, to buy US goods. Great. I guess maybe it's just to keep up with the competition, and if so, it's really a trade agreement issue between nations, an form of unfair competition. So well - it's complicated. I find as I grow older, that things seem ever more complicated. Less and less is an easy call, particularly on esoteric issues, rather than profound moral issues, like SSM, or the suck education poor kids are getting in the US.

Thanks for the post. I learned something.

The biggest opponent of the Ex-Im bank is actually Delta Airlines.  They don't like that their international competitors are getting assistance buying Boeing airliners.

[ElectionsGuy]

The Export-Import Bank turns a profit.  How is something welfare if it actually makes money?

Because it's a subsidy in the sense that the big corporations get lower interest rates, then they would from a private lender. It only makes money if one ignores the time value of money, to wit that the Feds could earn interest on the money other loaned. And in an omega, economic collapse situation, that hits every 10-20 years or so, the scheme could lose a lot of money. Shorter term profits are not a good indicator of the long term financial return of this sort of program.

The corporations aren't getting the loans. Foreigners are getting loans to buy goods from the United States. Every other country does this.

I like how this is supposed to be a valid point in defense. Well, if most countries do it, than it must be right!

[MaxQue]

The Export-Import Bank turns a profit.  How is something welfare if it actually makes money?

Because it's a subsidy in the sense that the big corporations get lower interest rates, then they would from a private lender. It only makes money if one ignores the time value of money, to wit that the Feds could earn interest on the money other loaned. And in an omega, economic collapse situation, that hits every 10-20 years or so, the scheme could lose a lot of money. Shorter term profits are not a good indicator of the long term financial return of this sort of program.

The corporations aren't getting the loans. Foreigners are getting loans to buy goods from the United States. Every other country does this.

I like how this is supposed to be a valid point in defense. Well, if most countries do it, than it must be right!

The point is than US stopping to do it won't stop the other countries doing it. So, it's putting American businesses at a disadvantage.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Yeah, I thought right-wingers opposed unilateral disarmament?

[Torie]

The Export-Import Bank turns a profit.  How is something welfare if it actually makes money?

Because it's a subsidy in the sense that the big corporations get lower interest rates, then they would from a private lender. It only makes money if one ignores the time value of money, to wit that the Feds could earn interest on the money other loaned. And in an omega, economic collapse situation, that hits every 10-20 years or so, the scheme could lose a lot of money. Shorter term profits are not a good indicator of the long term financial return of this sort of program.

The corporations aren't getting the loans. Foreigners are getting loans to buy goods from the United States. Every other country does this.

I like how this is supposed to be a valid point in defense. Well, if most countries do it, than it must be right!

The point is that if other nations do it, and the US is a lone wolf in not doing it, it puts US exporters at a competitive disadvantage due to foreign government subsidies of the exports of their nations. It is really a trade issue, like tariffs, currency manipulation and exchange rates, giving tax incentives by nations for export sales, and so forth. In a perfect world, I agree, nobody should subsidize exports by whatever means, nor have tariffs for that matter. But we don't live in a perfect world.

[RINO Tom]

Yeah, so?  So do most Republicans.

Ted Cruz and his warped idea of populism are just loud.

[Classic Conservative]

Yeah, so?  So do most Republicans.

Ted Cruz and his warped idea of populism are just loud.

What the. It's corporate welfare in its entirety, how can't RINOS understand this.

[Green Line]

Yeah, so?  So do most Republicans.

Ted Cruz and his warped idea of populism are just loud.

What the. It's corporate welfare in its entirety, how can't RINOS understand this.

So what? Only poor people deserve welfare?

[Classic Conservative]

Yeah, so?  So do most Republicans.

Ted Cruz and his warped idea of populism are just loud.

What the. It's corporate welfare in its entirety, how can't RINOS understand this.

So what? Only poor people deserve welfare?

Businesses don't need this, especially the Chamber of Crony Capitalism and their like.

[Rockefeller GOP]

The Export-Import Bank turns a profit.  How is something welfare if it actually makes money?

Because it's a subsidy in the sense that the big corporations get lower interest rates, then they would from a private lender. It only makes money if one ignores the time value of money, to wit that the Feds could earn interest on the money other loaned. And in an omega, economic collapse situation, that hits every 10-20 years or so, the scheme could lose a lot of money. Shorter term profits are not a good indicator of the long term financial return of this sort of program.

The corporations aren't getting the loans. Foreigners are getting loans to buy goods from the United States. Every other country does this.

I like how this is supposed to be a valid point in defense. Well, if most countries do it, than it must be right!

The point is than US stopping to do it won't stop the other countries doing it. So, it's putting American businesses at a disadvantage.

So you are ok with corporate welfare? Ok

Corporate welfare is simply what liberals started calling pro-business policies.  Apparently now the Ted Cruz crowd is on board.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I'd much rather the focus be on killing the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, which gives loans to foreigners to pay Bechtel to develop foreign countries.

[Simfan34]

And we at AFP will likely lead a grassroots campaign to shut it down.

So, AFP is a front of foreign entreprises, seeking to put US businesses at a disadvantage against foreign competition (who get support from equivalent structures in their own country)?

I thought you wanted to jail conspiracy theorists.

That's not a conspiracy theory. That's a logical explanation for such a self-defeating strategy.

[ElectionsGuy]

I'd much rather the focus be on killing the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, which gives loans to foreigners to pay Bechtel to develop foreign countries.

That expires Sep 30 and would be another good thing to get rid of.

The Export-Import Bank turns a profit.  How is something welfare if it actually makes money?

Because it's a subsidy in the sense that the big corporations get lower interest rates, then they would from a private lender. It only makes money if one ignores the time value of money, to wit that the Feds could earn interest on the money other loaned. And in an omega, economic collapse situation, that hits every 10-20 years or so, the scheme could lose a lot of money. Shorter term profits are not a good indicator of the long term financial return of this sort of program.

The corporations aren't getting the loans. Foreigners are getting loans to buy goods from the United States. Every other country does this.

I like how this is supposed to be a valid point in defense. Well, if most countries do it, than it must be right!

The point is than US stopping to do it won't stop the other countries doing it. So, it's putting American businesses at a disadvantage.

So you are ok with corporate welfare? Ok

Corporate welfare is simply what liberals started calling pro-business policies.  Apparently now the Ted Cruz crowd is on board.

No, pro-business policies for example are having no minimum wage or getting rid of regulations that prevent entrepreneurship. Corporate welfare, on the other hand, is giving aid to corporations as if they desperately need it, and more specifically giving them special treatment like subsidies and foreign loans. There's a reason the Ted Cruz crowd is on board, its because this is an example of cronyism getting in the way of the free market.