• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GE to move turbine jobs to Europe, China due to EXIM bank closure

D

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,862
Reaction score
10,300
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From Reuters:

General Electric Co (GE.N) said on Tuesday it will move 500 U.S. power turbine manufacturing jobs to Europe and China because it can no longer access U.S. Export-Import Bank financing after Congress allowed the agency's charter to lapse in June.

The largest U.S. industrial conglomerate said France's COFACE (COFA PA) export agency has agreed to support some of GE's global power project bids with a new line of credit in exchange for moving production of heavy-duty gas turbines to Belfort, France, along with 400 jobs.
Click to expand...


GE to move turbine jobs to Europe, China due to EXIM bank closure | Reuters

This outcome illustrates that public policy choices that entail shrinking the pool of financing can have an adverse employment impact.
 
donsutherland1 said:
From Reuters:




GE to move turbine jobs to Europe, China due to EXIM bank closure | Reuters

This outcome illustrates that public policy choices that entail shrinking the pool of financing can have an adverse employment impact.
Click to expand...

naw it shows how big business is corrupting the political sphere by bribery and blackmail. GE should be fined for doing this pure and simple. No company in any country that is profitable should get any tax cuts or credits for doing their ****ing jobs. I am tired of subsidizing these bastards who generate billions in profits for their few often very wealthy shareholders.
 
I thought corporations didn't want to move to Europe because of the high taxes and union contracts....
 
joG said:
Of course subsidies help some people. But they harm more than they help. So it would make sense to include that type of subsidy in TTIP so that nobody wastes money on it anymore.
Click to expand...

yea, I think subsidies is the wrong word to use. Its not impressive but the bank actually makes a profit.

Over the past two decades, the Bank has generated nearly $7 billion more than the cost of its operations. That's money EXIM Bank generates for the American taxpayer, to help reduce the federal deficit.
The FACTS About EXIM Bank | EXIM.gov

Now I'm not going to dance in the streets over 7 billion over 2 decades but I'm not going to call it a subsidy. And "With nearly 60 other export credit agencies around the world trying to win jobs for their own countries" it just seems to me to be leveling the playing field. Now does GE need this bank of course not. neither does Boeing. And personally I think GE is lying and just using it as an excuse (remember how Obamacare "forced" employees to pay more for their healthcare?) but the fact is, the bank helped small businesses.

so how does republican justify something that was technically profitable and helping small businesses by shutting down the bank? that's easy, they lie and cling to ideology. Oh and the Koch brothers told them to do it. Lets face it, cons needed a sacrificial lamb to appease the tea party. Just more proof, republicans are unfit to govern
 
Vern said:
yea, I think subsidies is the wrong word to use. Its not impressive but the bank actually makes a profit.

Over the past two decades, the Bank has generated nearly $7 billion more than the cost of its operations. That's money EXIM Bank generates for the American taxpayer, to help reduce the federal deficit.
The FACTS About EXIM Bank | EXIM.gov

Now I'm not going to dance in the streets over 7 billion over 2 decades but I'm not going to call it a subsidy. And "With nearly 60 other export credit agencies around the world trying to win jobs for their own countries" it just seems to me to be leveling the playing field. Now does GE need this bank of course not. neither does Boeing. And personally I think GE is lying and just using it as an excuse (remember how Obamacare "forced" employees to pay more for their healthcare?) but the fact is, the bank helped small businesses.

so how does republican justify something that was technically profitable and helping small businesses by shutting down the bank? that's easy, they lie and cling to ideology. Oh and the Koch brothers told them to do it. Lets face it, cons needed a sacrificial lamb to appease the tea party. Just more proof, republicans are unfit to govern
Click to expand...

I never worked with EXIM Bank, but did closely with KFW (German equvalent) and some with the World Bank. In principal they all finance exports and projects in countries other than the money usually comes from. The financing by the WB is to make projects work that private investors would not do on their own, because risk and reward do not jell. The KFW's intent is to make a German company (Siemens) more competitive than a foreign company (GE). It is in this sense a dubious type of activity, as it moves the decision making away from market pricing in the direction of public influence. IT helps the country that gets the deal, but subsidizes the winner by reducing his requirement to reduce prices. In this way it does help the Project owner and the supplier at the cost of the taxpayer owning EXIM or KFW, if the project collapses.
 
we'll add twice as many jobs as are lost, they'll just be minimum wage. let the recovery continue!
 
joG said:
I never worked with EXIM Bank, but did closely with KFW (German equvalent) and some with the World Bank. In principal they all finance exports and projects in countries other than the money usually comes from. The financing by the WB is to make projects work that private investors would not do on their own, because risk and reward do not jell. The KFW's intent is to make a German company (Siemens) more competitive than a foreign company (GE). It is in this sense a dubious type of activity, as it moves the decision making away from market pricing in the direction of public influence. IT helps the country that gets the deal, but subsidizes the winner by reducing his requirement to reduce prices. In this way it does help the Project owner and the supplier at the cost of the taxpayer owning EXIM or KFW, if the project collapses.
Click to expand...

Very interesting stuff jog but you simply ‘wove a tapestry of rhetoric’ to salvage your narrative that the ExIm bank gets a subsidy. You are trying to do it with distracting and flowery rhetoric because you can’t do it with facts. There is no subsidy if the ExIm bank has returned 7 billion more to taxpayers than it cost. Hence your attempt is a fail. It was good, but still a fail.

Note: there is no reason for posters to read any further. I have easily refuted Jogs attempt to maintain his "subsidy" narrative. The rest of this post is for Jog. A post that good deserves to be shredded with dignity.

First, Let me praise the quality of your post. The first couple of sentences convey the sense that you are an expert. Good stuff. Very believable. Then you equate what the german equivalent of the ExIm does to what the World bank does, “”in principle financing exports and projects is the same”. But “financing exports” is not the same as “financing a dam in pakistan” in principal or otherwise . Guilt by association is always good and you did it so effortlessly you almost had me railing at the ExIm bank for trying to build a dam in Pakistan. Anyhoo, “financing exports” is the same as “supplying credit and insurance to businesses so they can take a bigger risk in trying to export their products.” What's “dubious” about that?

But you saved the best for last. Your rhetorical artistry is on full display. You use the “project” for the word “product” or "transaction" as a continuation your “same as WB” narrative. That’s real quality jog. And then learn from your example that if the “project” fails, the loss will be born by the taxpayer. Hooray, your subsidy narrative is saved. But jog, there is no loss to the taxpayer in your flowery rhetoric of an example if the "project" collapses and the loss is more than covered by the profits of the "projects" that don’t collapse. And we know, the ExIm bank has returned more money than it cost, hence its profitable, hence it’s not a subsidy.

It is in this sense a dubious type of post.
 
Vern said:
Very interesting stuff jog but you simply ‘wove a tapestry of rhetoric’ to salvage your narrative that the ExIm bank gets a subsidy. You are trying to do it with distracting and flowery rhetoric because you can’t do it with facts. There is no subsidy if the ExIm bank has returned 7 billion more to taxpayers than it cost. Hence your attempt is a fail. It was good, but still a fail.

Note: there is no reason for posters to read any further. I have easily refuted Jogs attempt to maintain his "subsidy" narrative. The rest of this post is for Jog. A post that good deserves to be shredded with dignity.

First, Let me praise the quality of your post. The first couple of sentences convey the sense that you are an expert. Good stuff. Very believable. Then you equate what the german equivalent of the ExIm does to what the World bank does, “”in principle financing exports and projects is the same”. But “financing exports” is not the same as “financing a dam in pakistan” in principal or otherwise . Guilt by association is always good and you did it so effortlessly you almost had me railing at the ExIm bank for trying to build a dam in Pakistan. Anyhoo, “financing exports” is the same as “supplying credit and insurance to businesses so they can take a bigger risk in trying to export their products.” What's “dubious” about that?

But you saved the best for last. Your rhetorical artistry is on full display. You use the “project” for the word “product” or "transaction" as a continuation your “same as WB” narrative. That’s real quality jog. And then learn from your example that if the “project” fails, the loss will be born by the taxpayer. Hooray, your subsidy narrative is saved. But jog, there is no loss to the taxpayer in your flowery rhetoric of an example if the "project" collapses and the loss is more than covered by the profits of the "projects" that don’t collapse. And we know, the ExIm bank has returned more money than it cost, hence its profitable, hence it’s not a subsidy.

It is in this sense a dubious type of post.
Click to expand...

Actually I was not interested in the EXIM Bank "getting a subsidy". And you do realize that a subsidy in particular cases can easily be compatible with an overall profit. The only thing is that it takes more insight to see it.

Sorrily, the quality of your analysis falls down, where you say that I "equate what the german equivalent of the ExIm does to what the World Bank does", which is where I became bored with your réplique. You might not like it, but do not seem to understand the way project finance works particularly well and I do not like the frustration of listening to frustrating tirades about something I made a living in for a number of years.
 
joG said:
Actually I was not interested in the EXIM Bank "getting a subsidy".
Click to expand...
You seemed interested enough to imply they get a subsidy and the tell us it's bad. And you seemed interested enough to "weave a tapestry of flowery rhetoric" few at this forum have ever seen (again, I really enjoyed it) to maintain your "subsidy bad " narrative.

Sorrily, the quality of your analysis falls down, where you say that I "equate what the german equivalent of the ExIm does to what the World Bank does",
Click to expand...
oh jog, first you try to claim you werent' interested in "exim bank subsidy" and now you try to claim you didn't try to "equate the KFW to the WB"? I'm sorry jog you did. Here read it again.

In principal they all finance exports and projects in countries other than the money usually comes from. The financing by the WB is to make projects work that private investors would not do on their own, because risk and reward do not jell.
Click to expand...

why do I need to know that the WB finances projects because "risk and reward do not jell"? Oh yea because you equated KFW and the WB. And KFW was your proxy for the Exim bank. And at the end with your flowery rhetoric of an example, you say "Project owner and the supplier at the cost of the taxpayer. " That's another WB reference. And of course the taxpayer lost money in your example. Hooray you saved your subsidy narrative again.


which is where I became bored with your réplique. You might not like it, but do not seem to understand the way project finance works particularly well and I do not like the frustration of listening to frustrating tirades about something I made a living in for a number of years.
Click to expand...

that's funny too. I'm not "tirading" about something you made a living in. I'm pointing out your false implication that the Exim bank gets a subsidy and your "tapestry of flowery rhetoric" to try to save that narrative.

It is in this sense a dubious type of post. (its deju vu all over again.)
 
PeteEU said:
naw it shows how big business is corrupting the political sphere by bribery and blackmail. GE should be fined for doing this pure and simple. No company in any country that is profitable should get any tax cuts or credits for doing their ****ing jobs. I am tired of subsidizing these bastards who generate billions in profits for their few often very wealthy shareholders.
Click to expand...

Like in the case of Luxembourg, the corruption and cheating was done by the political representatives of the country. It was Juncker and not Jobs. You will find this is often the case. The politicians then start screaming "catch the thief", but that is just to save their own skins by deceiving the street that readily takes up the call. The companies were only taking their legal mandates to do the best for their shareholders seriously. Had they not, they would have been negligent and should be prosecuted.
 
fmw said:
That assumes that you believe GE's statement of motivation.
Click to expand...

Words are cheap. That GE has, in fact, applied for similar funding from France suggests that GE was looking for export-related financing.
 
so how does republican justify shutting down something that was technically profitable and helping small businesses? that's easy, they lie and cling to ideology. Oh and the Koch brothers told them to do it. Lets face it, cons needed a sacrificial lamb to appease the tea party. Just more proof, republicans are unfit to govern
 
Hey, the Exim lowered the deficit directly via their profits and indirectly via the jobs it supported. now are republicans angry? outraged? mildly upset? somewhat miffed? anything?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom