Elizabeth Wsrren Speaks out about "Big BAnks" Your Taxpayer Money Used to Grow Profits for Big Banks!

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by lustylad

If we are ever going to correct this serious imbalance, then we need to be promoting our nation's exports and exporters as much as possible, not cutting off funds for one of the few US government entities operating under such a mission. I read the Daily Beast story trying to figure out what is so objectionable about the US Eximbank, which I always viewed as a boring, non-partisan backwater trade-boosting arm. I still have no idea how (after all these years) it suddenly became a poster child for crony capitalism.

The author claims that Eximbank loans and loan guarantees are tantamount to “export credit subsidies (that) will never raise the overall level of trade”. Really? So all the Eximbank-financed trade would have occurred anyway without its help? I call bullshit on that one. She never quantifies how much taxpayer money has been spent on the subsidies or what they consist of either. Are the loans made at below-market interest rates? Do they have a high default rate? Does the bank generate a profit? How much money are we talking about anyway? She mentions current legislation to raise the Eximbank's lending authority by $20 billion over 7 years. That's chump change! Total US exports in 2014 alone were over $1.6 trillion.

The author complains that 64% of Eximbank's loans benefit 10 large US companies. She mentions Boeing, GE and Caterpillar. What a SHOCK to learn that an agency tasked with boosting our nation's exports is working primarily with some of our largest exporters! Duh! Look, I am all in favor of teaching smaller US firms how to tap overseas markets and I'm pretty sure Eximbank tries to help them too. But you can't tell me they are being disadvantaged because Eximbank helps Boeing beat out Airbus on a sale, or works with GE against Siemens, or lets Caterpillar win a bid against Komatsu. I'm just happy we still know how to build a few things the world wants - like airliners, tractors and turbines. We're competing against a lot of other countries that subsidize the hell out of their exports. We can either file complaints with the WTO and lose a ton of business waiting 4 years for a ruling - or we can level the playing field with our own modest export assistance programs.

None of this means I am not in favor of reforming how Eximbank does business, making it more effective or telling it to devote more resources to small US companies that need to be educated about export opportunities. But IMO, out of all the parts of the federal government that are wasting our money and pissing away our tax dollars, it's not even in the top 30.

Although not unalterably opposed to Ex-Im in principle, I believe that its benefits should flow exclusively -- or nearly exclusively -- to less well-financed firms whose access to international markets is relatively difficult. It's my view that large, well-financed outfits such as GE aren't engaged in activities that need to be subsidized in any way -- especially in this day of a pancaked yield curve allowing them to borrow almost unlimited funds at near zero interest. Yet corruption within the political process and their cozy connections to the corridors of power mean that that's exactly what happens, and that therefore resources that would otherwise be available to boost the potential of smaller firms get crowded out. And I'm skeptical of the view that the disappearance of Ex-Im involvement would cost the Boeings and GEs of the world so much as a dollar's worth of lost sales. Hence, I see Ex-Im as just another crony capitalist shuffle, although I certainly agree that it's not something that's at the top of the list of things that need to be fundamentally reformed, fixed, or eliminated. (That's indeed a long, fat list!)

I appreciate your comments, but am afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree here. I'm with Ms. de Rugy on this one.

.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Although not unalterably opposed to Ex-Im in principle, I believe that its benefits should flow exclusively -- or nearly exclusively -- to less well-financed firms whose access to international markets is relatively difficult. It's my view that large, well-financed outfits such as GE aren't engaged in activities that need to be subsidized in any way -- especially in this day of a pancaked yield curve allowing them to borrow almost unlimited funds at near zero interest. Yet corruption within the political process and their cozy connections to the corridors of power mean that that's exactly what happens, and that therefore resources that would otherwise be available to boost the potential of smaller firms get crowded out. And I'm skeptical of the view that the disappearance of Ex-Im involvement would cost the Boeings and GEs of the world so much as a dollar's worth of lost sales. Hence, I see Ex-Im as just another crony capitalist shuffle, although I certainly agree that it's not something that's at the top of the list of things that need to be fundamentally reformed, fixed, or eliminated. (That's indeed a long, fat list!)

I appreciate your comments, but am afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree here. I'm with Ms. de Rugy on this one.

.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the Eximbank extend its loans/loan guarantees primarily to the buyers of Boeing 787s, GE turbines and Cat earthmovers? Our exporters benefit from increased sales, but the "subsidy" - if you can call it that - goes to the foreign buyer who is approved for the financing. If this is the case, the rates at which Boeing/GE/Cat can currently borrow are irrelevant. The Eximbank makes it easier for our banks to approve cross-border loans to foreign buyers, some of whom may not have stellar credit or ample access to dollars. Our banks step up to the plate because Eximbank guarantees the loans in whole or in part. That's why I was asking about the default rate on their loans. I can see beating up the Eximbank if they were making/guaranteeing too many bad loans, but if that's not the case what's the beef?

Also, I think there is a logical flaw in your argument that Eximbank's demise wouldn't cost US exporters a dollar's worth of lost sales. If that's the case, why don't the Boeings and GEs of the world just say go ahead and shut it down - we really don't need their export financing help anyway? Why would so-called "crony capitalists" want to keep a government program that's not making them any money?

If you want to see more smaller companies benefit from Eximbank, there are simple fixes. For instance, we could stipulate that a certain percentage of new loans are earmarked for exports by firms whose annual sales are below a certain level. Eximbank could also pay a bonus to employees whenever they bring in a smaller firm that uses its financing for the first time.

Don't worry about disagreeing with me. That's what makes a discussion board interesting. Few people here know what we're talking about anyway.

.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Please correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the Eximbank extend its loans/loan guarantees primarily to the buyers of Boeing 787s, GE turbines and Cat earthmovers? Our exporters benefit from increased sales, but the "subsidy" - if you can call it that - goes to the foreign buyer who is approved for the financing. If this is the case, the rates at which Boeing/GE/Cat can currently borrow are irrelevant. The Eximbank makes it easier for our banks to approve cross-border loans to foreign buyers, some of whom may not have stellar credit or ample access to dollars. Our banks step up to the plate because Eximbank guarantees the loans in whole or in part. That's why I was asking about the default rate on their loans. I can see beating up the Eximbank if they were making/guaranteeing too many bad loans, but if that's not the case what's the beef?

Also, I think there is a logical flaw in your argument that Eximbank's demise wouldn't cost US exporters a dollar's worth of lost sales. If that's the case, why don't the Boeings and GEs of the world just say go ahead and shut it down - we really don't need their export financing help anyway? Why would so-called "crony capitalists" want to keep a government program that's not making them any money?

If you want to see more smaller companies benefit from Eximbank, there are simple fixes. For instance, we could stipulate that a certain percentage of new loans are earmarked for exports by firms whose annual sales are below a certain level. Eximbank could also pay a bonus to employees whenever they bring in a smaller firm that uses its financing for the first time.

Don't worry about disagreeing with me. That's what makes a discussion board interesting. Few people here know what we're talking about anyway.

.

The second highlighted portion sounds a bit social for your taste, no? Government-fed bonuses to private companies for attracting buyers? Sounds like a government subsidy.

Your first highlighted portion is a little naive. In your previous post on it, you mentioned how small the budget was. You don't think a private bank wouldn't step in an assume that role? Theoretically, yes, the IEB are making deals that wouldn't otherwise get made because of the buyer's aversion to risk, but I don't know how you can say with any degree of certainty that they wouldn't get made at all if the Import/Export Bank went away.

As for the third and final highlighted portion; are you finished sucking your own dick yet? I bet you had wood the whole time you typed that. Didn't you?

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

The second highlighted portion sounds a bit social for your taste, no? Government-fed bonuses to private companies for attracting buyers? Sounds like a government subsidy.

Your first highlighted portion is a little naive. In your previous post on it, you mentioned how small the budget was. You don't think a private bank wouldn't step in an assume that role? Theoretically, yes, the IEB are making deals that wouldn't otherwise get made because of the buyer's aversion to risk, but I don't know how you can say with any degree of certainty that they wouldn't get made at all if the Import/Export Bank went away.

As for the third and final highlighted portion; are you finished sucking your own dick yet? I bet you had wood the whole time you typed that. Didn't you?

You had to come in and shit all over a polite, intelligent conversation between the Cap'n and me, didn't you undercunt? Thanks for making my point that dipshits like you have no idea what we're talking about. The bonuses would be paid to Eximbank loan officers, you dunce, not the private companies that would benefit from being introduced to its programs. Clearly you are a naive cocktard with zero business or banking experience. Even if a private bank is willing to provide export financing for a deal, it would charge more without an Eximbank guarantee. So the foreign buyer would choose a competing deal from Airbus or Siemens or Komatsu because it included cheaper financing guaranteed by the EU or Japan. That's the way things work in the real world. Like I said, you're obviously a naive fuck with no real world experience. Now run along and let the adults talk.

.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by lustylad

You had to come in and shit all over a polite, intelligent conversation between the Cap'n and me, didn't you undercunt? Thanks for making my point that dipshits like you have no idea what we're talking about. The bonuses would be paid to Eximbank loan officers, you dunce, not the private companies that would benefit from being introduced to its programs. Clearly you are a naive cocktard with zero business or banking experience. Even if a private bank is willing to provide export financing for a deal, it would charge more without an Eximbank guarantee. So the foreign buyer would choose a competing deal from Airbus or Siemens or Komatsu because it included cheaper financing guaranteed by the EU or Japan. That's the way things work in the real world. Like I said, you're obviously a naive fuck with no real world experience. Now run along and let the adults talk.

.

You know what wikipedia tells you. I don't believe I ever claimed to be an expert on international banking. Of course, this is the internet, so you would be excused in thinking so. Ignorance in international banking doesn't equate to being naive. But back to the topic at hand. In effect, nobody gets screwed unless everyone gets screwed. Yes? So you're in favor of this manipulation? And that's the way it works in the real world, isn't an acceptable answer. And, go fuck yourself.

PS - Capn' seems like a nice guy. You... not so much.

[WombRaider]

To get back to why this thread was started in the first place. If Warren is really a champion for the little guy, as she clearly wants her image to reflect, she should call for reforms. In 2013, 76% of the loans went to 10 borrowers. How is that helping the little guy? If the stated goal of the organization is to have businesses compete based on the quality of their product, why do the big corporations need help in this area?

PS - this is a public forum. If you want to have a private conversation with someone, you can PM.

[shanm]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

PS - this is a public forum. If you want to have a private conversation with someone, you can PM.

But...but...then how will the sniveling wimp show off his hours of binge internet research?

[shanm]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

To get back to why this thread was started in the first place. If Warren is really a champion for the little guy, as she clearly wants her image to reflect, she should call for reforms. In 2013, 76% of the loans went to 10 borrowers. How is that helping the little guy? If the stated goal of the organization is to have businesses compete based on the quality of their product, why do the big corporations need help in this area?

She is calling for reform. Did you check the video in the OP? The facts she presents against citi-group are damning.

There's only so much you can do as a Senator from Massachusetts. As President however.......

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Well Captain, I seem to recall just yesterday you were bemoaning all the red ink we keep spilling in our trade with the rest of the world:



If we are ever going to correct this serious imbalance, then we need to be promoting our nation's exports and exporters as much as possible, not cutting off funds for one of the few US government entities operating under such a mission. I read the Daily Beast story trying to figure out what is so objectionable about the US Eximbank, which I always viewed as a boring, non-partisan backwater trade-boosting arm. I still have no idea how (after all these years) it suddenly became a poster child for crony capitalism.

The author claims that Eximbank loans and loan guarantees are tantamount to “export credit subsidies (that) will never raise the overall level of trade”. Really? So all the Eximbank-financed trade would have occurred anyway without its help? I call bullshit on that one. She never quantifies how much taxpayer money has been spent on the subsidies or what they consist of either. Are the loans made at below-market interest rates? Do they have a high default rate? Does the bank generate a profit? How much money are we talking about anyway? She mentions current legislation to raise the Eximbank's lending authority by $20 billion over 7 years. That's chump change! Total US exports in 2014 alone were over $1.6 trillion.

The author complains that 64% of Eximbank's loans benefit 10 large US companies. She mentions Boeing, GE and Caterpillar. What a SHOCK to learn that an agency tasked with boosting our nation's exports is working primarily with some of our largest exporters! Duh! Look, I am all in favor of teaching smaller US firms how to tap overseas markets and I'm pretty sure Eximbank tries to help them too. But you can't tell me they are being disadvantaged because Eximbank helps Boeing beat out Airbus on a sale, or works with GE against Siemens, or lets Caterpillar win a bid against Komatsu. I'm just happy we still know how to build a few things the world wants - like airliners, tractors and turbines. We're competing against a lot of other countries that subsidize the hell out of their exports. We can either file complaints with the WTO and lose a ton of business waiting 4 years for a ruling - or we can level the playing field with our own modest export assistance programs.

None of this means I am not in favor of reforming how Eximbank does business, making it more effective or telling it to devote more resources to small US companies that need to be educated about export opportunities. But IMO, out of all the parts of the federal government that are wasting our money and pissing away our tax dollars, it's not even in the top 30.

.

In fiscal year 2013, it was actually 76 percent. In your call for the possible reformation of how they do business, you bemoan they aren't even in the top 30 insofar as how much they waste. Instead of looking at it that way, don't you think if they took the initiative to truly educate more small to medium companies about the export opportunities that exist, they could in turn provide these companies with a market opportunity they don't currently enjoy?

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

In fiscal year 2013, it was actually 76 percent. In your call for the possible reformation of how they do business, you bemoan they aren't even in the top 30 insofar as how much they waste. Instead of looking at it that way, don't you think if they took the initiative to truly educate more small to medium companies about the export opportunities that exist, they could in turn provide these companies with a market opportunity they don't currently enjoy?

You had to come back and flaunt your cluelessness again, didn't you undercunt? The 64% figure came directly from the Daily Beast article. If you want to quibble and say “it was actually 76%” then you should contact the author instead of thinking you caught me in an error. The number is skewed anyway because it is based on dollars, not loan numbers. The big boys like Boeing and GE sell big-ticket items so their average loan size is probably 10-20 times what a smaller firm typically needs.

The challenge of educating small and medium-size US companies about export opportunities is nothing new. The US is the world's biggest market, so many of these firms do not feel any compulsion to seek out new customers overseas. It is easier to “know your customer” at home than someone halfway around the globe. The credit risks, country risks, and difficulties in getting banks to issue confirmed irrevocable letters of credit are just a few of the deterrents they face. But like I already said, I am in favor of having the Eximbank teach smaller firms how to export more.

Originally Posted by WombRaider

In 2013, 76% of the loans went to 10 borrowers. How is that helping the little guy?

You show your cluelessness with every post you make here, undercunt. Look up how many people are employed by those 10 companies. Now look hard. Think you can find any “little guys” in there who benefit when the production lines are kept humming? Most of them are union guys too. They tend to vote Democratic and would not take kindly to seeing Elizabeth Warren try to burnish her faux populist image by slowing down their production lines.

.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Had to come back and flaunt your cluelessness again, undercunt? The 64% figure came directly from the Daily Beast article. If you want to quibble and say “it was actually 76%” then you should contact the author instead of thinking you caught me in an error. The number is skewed anyway because it is based on dollars, not loan numbers. The big guys like Boeing and GE sell big-ticket items so their average loan size is probably 10-20 times what a smaller firm typically needs.

The challenge of educating small and medium-size US companies about export opportunities is nothing new. The US is the world's biggest market, so many of these firms do not feel any compulsion to seek out new customers overseas. It is easier to “know your customer” at home than someone halfway around the globe. The credit risks, country risks, and difficulties in getting banks to issue confirmed irrevocable letters of credit are just a few of the deterrents they face. But like I already said, I am in favor of having the Eximbank teach smaller firms how to export more.




You show your cluelessness with every post you make here, undercunt. Look up how many people are employed by those 10 companies. Now look hard. Think you can find any “little guys” in there who benefit when the production lines are kept humming? Most of them are union guys too. They tend to vote Democratic and would not take kindly to seeing Elizabeth Warren try to burnish her faux populist image by slowing down their production lines.

.

Ignorance, can be fixed. But continue to browbeat my interest. I've been called worse by MUCH better than you. I didn't think I caught you in an error. I don't care where the number came from. Perhaps you're caught in error so much that it's a knee-jerk reaction by now. The fact is that in fiscal year 2013, 76 percent is the number. Which means that it's going the wrong direction when it comes to providing small and medium business with export opportunities. Skewed or not, the large companies receive a larger amount of the pie, period. Actually, basing it on loan numbers would skew it the other direction; making it look like you're helping them more than you actually are.

In fiscal year 2013, less than 7 percent of private sector workers were unionized. I don't think that would be considered 'most' by anyone's math.

[lustylad]

And by the way, here is Ms. de Rugy's breakdown for Eximbank's loan activity. If you knock out Boeing, it looks a helluva lot less concentrated!

[WombRaider]

that's a big if.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

I don't care where the number came from....The fact is that in fiscal year 2013, 76 percent is the number.

I don't care which number is correct, but I do know nobody is going to take YOUR word for it when you don't even post a source or link.

Originally Posted by WombRaider

In fiscal year 2013, less than 7 percent of private sector workers were unionized. I don't think that would be considered 'most' by anyone's math.

How many names on the above bar chart are non-union, dipshit?

Originally Posted by WombRaider

that's a big if.

You are stupidly argumentative, undercunt. Evidently you prefer to make an ass out of yourself instead of trying to interpret data intelligently.

.

[Yssup Rider]

This is PRECISELY why you're a fucking bush leaguer, IBJunior.

You can't take the slightest challenge, disagreement, criticism or mention of you sucking your own dick without CRYING LIKE A PUSSY!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!