Export-Import Bank Debate

#51
#51
n_huffhines said:
I am talking about all industries. Why do you only want to talk about Boeing?
Click to expand...

Probably because your article is very biased against it.

I mentioned Colt Defense as well. There's a reasonably smaller company that has plenty of competition both here and abroad. And they continue to sell because they make a superior product. However, they do not have the cornerstone on the market either here or abroad and probably rely on the Ex-Im Bank for foreign sales.

And if Widget Company Y gets into the market with a superior product that has the opportunity to go global, why should the government turn it's back on them when a foreign buyer has interest, but can't secure loan guarantees?
 
Last edited:
#52
#52
Honestly, the question should be, if the company makes a product that is successful and wants to go global by having demand for the product. Why should the government be involved in the first place? Shouldn't the company be allowed to succeed or fail on its own merits?
Keep in mind government has no money of its own, and produces nothing.

Government intervention in the market is always a bad thing.

Ludwig von Mises argues that monopolies are the direct result of government intervention and not the product of any inherent tendency within the capitalist system (1949) | The Portable Library of Liberty
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#53
#53
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Why should the government be involved in the first place? Shouldn't the company be allowed to succeed or fail on its own merits?
Keep in mind government has no money of its own, and produces nothing.

Government intervention in the market is always a bad thing.
Click to expand...

Why would you say that? What could go wrong with a well intentioned government program such as this?

Operation Choke Point Hearing Reveals DOJ Threats and Strong Arming | dailycaller.com

A Justice Department fraud prevention program came under fire Thursday for allegedly morphing into actively pressuring banks to deny financial services to businesses for political reasons.

....

“Operation Choke Point is one of the most dangerous programs I have experienced in my 45 years of service as a bank regulator, bank attorney and consultant, and bank board member. Operating without legal authority and guided by a political agenda, unelected officials at the DOJ are discouraging banks from providing basic banking services…to lawful businesses simply because they don’t like them,” said William M. Isaac, former chairman of the FDIC.
Click to expand...
 
#54
#54
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Honestly, the question should be, if the company makes a product that is successful and wants to go global by having demand for the product. Why should the government be involved in the first place? Shouldn't the company be allowed to succeed or fail on its own merits?
Keep in mind government has no money of its own, and produces nothing.

Government intervention in the market is always a bad thing.

Ludwig von Mises argues that monopolies are the direct result of government intervention and not the product of any inherent tendency within the capitalist system (1949) | The Portable Library of Liberty
Click to expand...

You really just don't get it...
 
#57
#57
Watch it

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZ6Pj05C1KE[/youtube]
 
#58
#58
Gramps said:
Some see through a set of blinders.
Click to expand...

I'm generally lost in most of the economic talk in this forum, but this is pretty clear cut to me. And honestly is a case that, if missing, would damage the US economy in a huge way.
 
#59
#59
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Honestly, the question should be, if the company makes a product that is successful and wants to go global by having demand for the product. Why should the government be involved in the first place? Shouldn't the company be allowed to succeed or fail on its own merits?
Click to expand...

US companies are "competing" against foreign companies that receive subsidies. It is not free competition. International markets do not fit the model of perfect competition.
 
#60
#60
I'll tell you what...

Let's do away with it. And see how long GE, Caterpillar, John Deere and Boeing last without someone helping FOREIGN companies buy their products.

And when those companies tank because other nations make those financial guarantees and you end up with a hundred thousand out of work citizens, I hope you're happy.
 
#61
#61
Grand Vol said:
I'll tell you what...

Let's do away with it. And see how long GE, Caterpillar, John Deere and Boeing last without someone helping FOREIGN companies buy their products.

And when those companies tank because other nations make those financial guarantees and you end up with a hundred thousand out of work citizens, I hope you're happy.
Click to expand...

:eek:lol:

Brilliant. Sarcasm, right?
 
#62
#62
n_huffhines said:
Watch it

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZ6Pj05C1KE[/youtube]
Click to expand...

I watched it. Now the question to you is, can you find something other than Reason.com videos and articles to cite?

And the whole principle of "may be liable" does not mean "are liable." Again, there is only a 1.5% default rate on the loans. That's a number most banks would be willing to live with compared to other default rates.
 
#64
#64
Grand Vol said:
Can you offer a counter retort?
Click to expand...

I assumed you were being sarcastic. It's silly to argue that anywhere close to 100% of any of those companies' foreign business is financed by a $150B credit line.

The hundred thousand jobs claim are hysterics that I thought were only reserved for LG.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#66
#66
I think crony-capitalism has to end. It's supported in large part by the Republican party. Democrats share some of the blame, too. This falls into the crony-capitalism category, and that's why I don't support it.

It's a government program funded by tax payers with dollars directed by politicians and their lobbyists. Just because people project their own desired positive outcomes on the program doesn't change that.

You can see that here with people shifting who the program should serve. "Well, for small and medium sized businesses....I'm in!"

To Gramps and others who are accusing people of "not getting it", it's not that we don't get it. We just don't look at a government funded program run by politicians as a necessity to do business. I promise, if funding is a problem to some countries, the free market CAN - and if there is sufficient benefit, WILL - solve that problem.

Here's proof that the fund is driven off of a political agenda: US Won't Fund a Massive Coal Plant in Vietnam | motherjones.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#67
#67
DC_Vol said:
I think crony-capitalism has to end. It's supported in large part by the Republican party. Democrats share some of the blame, too. This falls into the crony-capitalism category, and that's why I don't support it.

It's a government program funded by tax payers with dollars directed by politicians and their lobbyists. Just because people project their own desired positive outcomes on the program doesn't change that.

You can see that here with people shifting who the program should serve. "Well, for small and medium sized businesses....I'm in!"

To Gramps and others who are accusing people of "not getting it", it's not that we don't get it. We just don't look at a government funded program run by politicians as a necessity to do business. I promise, if funding is a problem to some countries, the free market CAN - and if there is sufficient benefit, WILL - solve that problem.

Here's proof that the fund is driven off of a political agenda: US Won't Fund a Massive Coal Plant in Vietnam | motherjones.com
Click to expand...

No you cannot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#68
#68
Grand Vol said:
I watched it. Now the question to you is, can you find something other than Reason.com videos and articles to cite?

And the whole principle of "may be liable" does not mean "are liable." Again, there is only a 1.5% default rate on the loans. That's a number most banks would be willing to live with compared to other default rates.
Click to expand...

Then why does Boeing need these loans guaranteed by government? Why won't Chase Bank step up and take this risk?

Your faith in government is too strong for me to overcome, in this case. You seem to have picked your side.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#70
#70
Grand Vol said:
And this has what to do with the subject at hand?

Exactly nothing...

Before you actually try to talk intelligently about a subject, try researching it first.
Click to expand...

You are talking about tax dollars correct? You cannot separate the two. Stolen money is stolen money, how you divvy up the loot makes no difference. Keep in mind once again that gov has no money of it's own.

Perhaps you're too much of statist to realize that.
 
#71
#71
n_huffhines said:
Then why does Boeing need these loans guaranteed by government? Why won't Chase Bank step up and take this risk?
Click to expand...

We aren't talking about a house loan here you know. The orders for things like aircraft run into the billions. As I stated before, a baseline 747-8 runs over $350+ million.

How many commercial banks can cover an order of 10 of those? And again, the international angle to it. I'm not sure about the banking regulations and whether or not they can actually loan money to a foreign government or company that's not represented in the States.

There is a middle man factor here I agree, but if we are talking about a multi-billion dollar loan, you're hard pressed to find any commercial bank that can or will cover that.

n_huffhines said:
Your faith in government is too strong for me to overcome, in this case. You seem to have picked your side.
Click to expand...

I think you'll find my faith in many things government tends to be along the same lines as yours. However, this is a case of making a mountain out of a molehill. Look, if this entity was wasteful, losing money right and left and completely inefficient, I'd be inclined to agree with you. But from what I've seen so far, there isn't really any major cause for concern that I've seen.
 
#72
#72
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
You are talking about tax dollars correct? You cannot separate the two. Stolen money is stolen money, how you divvy up the loot makes no difference. Keep in mind once again that gov has no money of it's own.

Perhaps you're too much of statist to realize that.
Click to expand...

lulz

Come back and talk rationally when you actually are educated on more than the fact I represented "da man!"
 
#73
#73
Grand Vol said:
lulz

Come back and talk rationally when you actually are educated on more than the fact I represented "da man!"
Click to expand...

It's no secret that I hate cops and the state in general. That's a given, but you shouldn't let that tarnish this discussion.

How can you approve of one theft and not the other? I find that to be very unprincipled.
 
#74
#74
Grand Vol said:
We aren't talking about a house loan here you know. The orders for things like aircraft run into the billions. As I stated before, a baseline 747-8 runs over $350+ million.

How many commercial banks can cover an order of 10 of those? And again, the international angle to it. I'm not sure about the banking regulations and whether or not they can actually loan money to a foreign government or company that's not represented in the States.

There is a middle man factor here I agree, but if we are talking about a multi-billion dollar loan, you're hard pressed to find any commercial bank that can or will cover that.
Click to expand...

You should at least be consistent in your argument.

Grand Vol said:
So could it be reformed like Abe just suggested for smaller start up companies that are trying to break into the international market or just do away with it all together? Like restrictions on the size of the company and all?

I agree that companies like Boeing and Lockheed-Martin could probably exist without it, but for smaller companies it could be beneficial. The article tends to be pretty biased towards the big corporations, but for the little guy, it seems like a pretty helpful tool. And when you're competing globally against other nationally subsidized industries, any advantage can help.
Click to expand...
 
#75
#75
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
It's no secret that I hate cops and the state in general. That's a given, but you shouldn't let that tarnish this discussion.

How can you approve of one theft and not the other? I find that to be very unprincipled.
Click to expand...

You were the one that brought the whole "statist" moniker into the discussion.

So what can you tell me about the Ex-Im bank? I had to educate myself today about it so I could talk rationally about it with Huff. And we haven't been at each other's throat for a change. He disagrees with the principle. I don't and I think we've agreed to disagree.

You on the other hand are having a hard time separating out your hatred for government and looking at something objectively. You see "government" and "bank" and somehow have made the connection with the bailouts.

It's kind of like talking about cars and all the sudden you start mentioning Pluto. Your connection doesn't really apply here.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top