Quote from: NewLiberty on September 16, 2014, 01:33:12 PM

Quote from: itsAj on September 07, 2014, 04:44:02 AM

Quote from: NewLiberty on August 26, 2014, 06:11:47 PM

Quote from: itsAj on August 26, 2014, 02:12:30 AM

Quote from: NewLiberty on August 25, 2014, 04:01:09 AM

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.