Export-Import Bank defenders often say we can’t abandon Ex-Im because foreign governments, in order to do business with U.S. companies, often demand the U.S. company get U.S. government backing.
As the U.S. Chamber of Commerce put it: “For U.S. companies even to bid on many big foreign projects, Ex-Im support is required.”
The Chamber, on its blog, used the example of the Sadara energy project in Saudi Arabia, writing “Why can’t financing for huge projects such as Sadara be left entirely to the private sector? As noted above, bids often require support from an export credit agency such as Ex-Im.”
The foreign buyer in this case is a joint venture, between a state-owned oil company in Saudi Arabia and Dow Chemical, a U.S. company.
So, which is worse:
A) A U.S. company (Dow) going overseas and then demanding a U.S. subsidy if it’s going to do business with other U.S. companies;
or
B) The King of Saudi Arabia demanding subsidies from the U.S. taxpayers;
or
C) The U.S. giving into these demands?
Foreign companies and governments often make unjust demands of companies — such as asking for bribes. The U.S. government doesn’t aid and abet foreign corruption. Why should it aid and abet the King of Saudi Arabia’s demands that we subsidize their energy project which the CEO of Saudi Aramco sees as “supporting Saudi Arabia’s ambition to be a magnet for downstream manufacturing investments?”
