On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 15:42:01 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 15:52:36 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 14:32:35 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:01:45 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

Thanks, House Republicans:

"GE closing U.S. engine plant, moving to Canada; cites lack of U.S.
export financing"

https://www6.lexisnexis.com/publishe...d=L:2452039359
---------------------------------
It is unclear if this is a gain or loss in the aggregate
sense, as the total costs and total benefits are so
difficult to calculate. GE has proven to be masters of cost
externalization and tax avoidance.
http://staging.weeklystandard.com/bl...ts_609137.html

This may well be a case where "don't let the door hit you in
the *** on the way out" applies.

Baloney. No Ex/Im bank, no big exports from the US. It's that simple.
The simple-minded fools in Congress are shooting us in the foot.
-------------------------
No question that without the Ex/Im bank that major exports
may well decline.

The question is how much do these exports do for the
aggregate economy? If every dollar of export costs 1.10 in
total, we are better off without the export. Unfortunately
the accounting is [purposely?] so convoluted, arcane, and
complex, in many cases involving non-monitary factors such
as national defense, no one knows.

I suggest that the question may be "how many jobs might be lost from
this loss in exports?"

The U.S. is the world's largest exporter of goods and services, some
$2.345 trillion in 2014, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has it that 38 million U.S. jobs depend
on exports and that one out of three acres are planted to support
exports.

By the way, I was only involved in one contract where the Ex/Em bank
was involved and, at least on that project, the Ex/Em didn't actually
finance anything. What they did was provide some sort of guarantee for
a private loan.
--
cheers,

John B.