The Ex‐Im Bank claims to correct market failure, but it introduces distortions into the economy and inserts politics into what should be purely commercial decisions. By diverting resources from the private sector, the bank’s activities produce a less‐efficient economy and lower general standard of living than would occur in a free market for export finance.
The bank makes contradictory claims about the nature of its activities. While maintaining that it does not displace private‐sector activity, the bank argues that it takes a conservative approach to lending and finance. But if the bank’s transactions were “sure bets,” then the private sector would — and should — be expected to step in. If, on the other hand, the private sector wouldn’t finance a transaction, it is a signal that taxpayers should not be exposed to the risk, either.
The claim that the bank supports U.S. exporters who face unfair competition from subsidized firms abroad is unverifiable, as the bank does not publish figures regarding the extent of this countervailing activity. The bank should be statutorily required to do so, and its activities should be limited only to that activity as an interim step to being wound down altogether.