Megan McArdle is cheering on the demise of the Export-Import Bank on the premise that it will be a blow against “corporate welfare.” There seems to be a bipartisan consensus growing that the Department of Commerce should just be eliminated and its responsibilities should either be shifted to other departments or simply done away with.
In early 2012, the Obama administration made a proposal along those lines, but they did not intend to eliminate the federal government’s role in promoting international trade or boosting U.S. exports. Quite the opposite, actually.
McArdle doesn’t think killing the Export-Import Bank will matter much one way or the other, but she likes the symbolism.
The economic impact of this agency is slight. Oh, its impact on specific companies can be large: Boeing will be hurt if the government declines to reauthorize Ex-Im, while domestic air carriers will probably benefit a bit because their foreign competition will no longer receive subsidies from the U.S. government. But overall, its demise would not have any effect large enough to notice, either on the federal government’s budget or on the U.S. economy. Exports will probably decline somewhat, but that will be offset by freeing up a similar sum for expenditure in other sectors. Overall, kind of a statistical yawn.
But if the economic impact is slight, the symbolic impact is huge: Conservatives are taking a run at a major dispenser of corporate subsidies, while Democrats have suddenly discovered a deep love of government-financed corporate expenditures. It just got a little bit harder to argue that Republicans are the party of big business.
On this issue, I’m with the symbolists. The government should not be directly subsidizing purchases of American goods, and no, I don’t care if all the other kids at the World Trade Organization get to do it.
It seems to me that there are bigger issues at play here than just the fate of the Export-Import Bank. The idea that the government should not promote commerce is novel, but it has support on both the right and the left. That doesn’t mean it is wise.
To answer the question, yes it should promote commerce, I’m just not sure the Export-Import Bank is the way to do it, considering everyone/everything that seems to benefit from it doesn’t need any “promotion”.
There is something odd about the right-wing suddenly discovering “corporate welfare”, so I am suspicious that there is something else that they are not stating:
from what I’ve read the IE Bank helps small businesses get a foothold, so yes, the corporate interests would be against encouraging competition from small businesses. Sad day to see the closing of a gov agency that helps small businesses
Doubt that any of those “small businesses” aren’t also corporations of one form or another.
Also appears that the Ex-Im bank only does approximately 20% business with small businesses.
yes, some small businesses are incorporated., inc and not llc. what else is new?
Are we against all corporations now, big and small?
If anything at all could be read into my comment is was the opposite of what you seem to have read. Likely filtered through your erroneous lens of who I am. That makes it difficult for me to correct a mistaken assumption. In this case, I was responding to this comment:
It’s not an issue of corporate v. non-corporate but large corporate v. small corporate. And if you read my other comment wrt my first hand experience with a small corporation that used Ex-Im Bank, you would be better able to see how ludicrous your accusation is.
I was actually responding to this line
That’s where my perception came from, not anything else.
Maybe you should have read my second sentence before leaping to your erroneous conclusion. Better yet would have been to follow the conversation:
Two factual errors in that comment that I addressed in my response:
You could have also noted my first comment in this thread where I suggested that 100% of Ex-Im bank business could be directed to “small business.” The obvious implication would be that I support “small business,” and my other comment indicates that I’m informed enough to know that such “small business” operations are also corporations.
How you got from that to
Could be a reading comprehension failure. Or going to any lengths to diss my comments because I’m not a proper Democrat toeing to some imaginary middle-way economic perspective. For future reference, I’m a leftie but not a kneejerk leftie. As all my conservative business school profs discovered.
Wonder how they could have gotten that impression? Possibly by noting the high number of foreign sounding last names of the owners of minority owned businesses? Would be surprised if even half of those owners weren’t Republicans.
Bingo. Plus, the Tea Party nihilists are very up in arms about “corporate welfare” and, luckily for the Republican establishment, don’t have a clue what it is, so this fake populism (from Megan McArdle!!!) helps bring them in line.
“Conservatives are taking a run at a major dispenser of corporate subsidies”
That’s certainly one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is that it’s yet another front in the battle between the Tea Party and the Chamber of Commerce taking place within the GOP.
How about changing the Ex-Im Charter from “not less than 20%” for small business to “not less than 100%” for small business.
Once had some business dealings with a small business owner that served in an advisory capacity on the Ex-Im bank. The business was in a small, niche market with little competition, will never be large, and is globally useful. The Ex-Im Bank was helpful to this company and by extension to their US based employees.
GPS Fareed Zakaria’s CNN show this morning with repeat at 1 today had a segment on this. Worth watching.
McCardle’s track record at being wrong is impressive, so I’m gonna say she’s whiffing on the effects.
Besides, if the domestic terrorist teabagger GOP wants something, then you know it’s bad.
I hate to be that reductionist, but, yeah, if McArdle is against it, I tend to be for it. Her legendary innumeracy also makes me question the “lack of impact” ending the Ex-Im bank would have.
Every developed country subsidizes and supports its businesses and economy. And there is a reason why. That doesn’t argue that all subsidies are bad, but it also means that when you do end a subsidy, you need a better reason than “symbolism” to do so.
Whenever I come across conservatives who lament, “What about the debt and deficit? It will destroy this country!” I point out that austerity if it ever was an option certainly it isn’t one now. Just do the math.
The only option is to grow the economy to keep up with it and that isn’t too crazy because as a nation we have proven ability to do that.
That is provided the nation invests in education, infrastructure, a middle (consumer) class, competitive world class research and industry, etc., and collects enough taxes.
Whether or not the IE bank helps that enough (and isn’t just corporate welfare that benefits a few rich people today) is the question, not whether the government should be in the business of helping business.
evidently it helps small businesses get a start. there was an interview with the owner of one last week [NYTimes iirc, maybe I can find it] lamenting the possible closing of IEBank
It is precious that McArdle believes that the Republican Party will gain campaign benefits from attempting to create the demise of the Export-Import Bank. I had literally never heard of this Bank until a week ago. The average voting American still has never heard of it.
As long as the Republican Party continues to be seen trying to keep wages for workers AND taxes for rich people as low as possible, that will have a much more direct impression on your average voter. But, please, Republican-supporting campaign consultants, run lots of ads on the f***ing Export-Import Bank.
Also noticeable here is that McArdle is rooting for the Republican Party to gain in the P.R. war here. She even places the policy difference as a distant second to the political difference. So much for her claim to be a nonpartisan libertarian, eh?
Also noticeable here is that McArdle is rooting for the Republican Party to gain in the P.R. war here. She even places the policy difference as a distant second to the political difference. So much for her claim to be a nonpartisan libertarian, eh?
What are 90% of Libertarians? People too cool to call themselves GOPers. And don’t forget how McArgleBargle got her trust fund. I’ll just leave these two links(as a refresher):
http://shameproject.com/report/megan-mcardle-portrait-libertarian-taxpayersubsidized-brat/
http://shameproject.com/profile/megan-mcardle/
General contractors and public works contractors are mostly Republicans and they spout frequently libertarian sounding nonsense b/c they believe that government played no role in their fortunes. Plus they hate unions that support Democrats. McArdle may have sat on Daddy’s lap during too many meetings with contractors.
Boo, discussing the IEBank in terms of promoting or not promoting commerce is playing into the t talking points – the bank makes loans for fsm’s sake it’s not corporate welfare, but to be sure the mega corps would love to get rid of the competition it promotes. A student loan system “promotes commerce” because it helps them advance in life.
The Department of Commerce comprises the following organizations:
United States Secretary of Commerce
United States Deputy Secretary of Commerce
Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs
Economics and Statistics Administration (ESA)
Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
Bureau of the Census
Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade
International Trade Administration (ITA)
Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security
Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)
Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
National Weather Service (NWS)
National Ocean Service (NOS)
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Corps (NOAA Corps)
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property
Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Economic Development Administration (EDA)
Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA)
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
Just which of these functions do the folks wanting to shut down the Department of Commerce want to shut down?
If I had to guess the department under the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere because you know it has science in there and scientists are perpetuating a hoax on the American people about climate change.
We learned in 2010 that the Census Bureau is going to round up conservatives and put them in FEMA camps so that can go too.
I’m sure there’s an argument for the rest, I just can’t think of it right now.
I’m thinking it’s this one for sure.
(I have no idea about any of the others.)
There’s a pretty strong case to be made that the fundamental purpose of our current federal government is precisely to promote commerce. If you look at the concerns that led to the constitutional convention, the two main ones were national defense and the economy, which was dead in the water. And then when the new government got down to work, Hamilton’s programs were all about those same two things, which were really the same thing in his mind.
Of course Jefferson was against it all, so a modern libertarian can always argue that Jefferson was right and we’d all be better off if he got his way. But then you have to prove that the United States would look anything like it does today without Hamilton’s programs. How, for instance, would Jefferson have been able to buy Louisiana if Hamilton hadn’t put the nation’s credit on a solid foundation?
The inescapable fact is that the foundations of the capitalist economy were laid by the federal government. Of course, like you say, that leaves open the question of whether it was a good idea to build capitalism, but the libertarians would have you believed it just happened because freedom.
This is fucking ridiculous.
Without the government there is an entirely unrecognizable brand of commerce. It would be anything but a “free market,” which is a fantasy.
Without regulated commerce there is a free market economy. It is called Somalia.
I think that’s what the Koch bros have in mind
Yes, the Government should promote Commerce.
McArdle is an unqualified hack, and it’s ridiculous that she has a national platform.
The federal government is still subsidizing investment in Europe. Sixty nine years after the end of WWII. Yeah, I know, weird.