Chapter 23 · pp. 717–730 ·
Veronique de Rugy, Jennifer Hazelton
What this chapter is about
This chapter does not agree with itself. It is two essays by two people. One says the Export-Import Bank should be closed. The other says it should be kept to compete with China. The book prints both and does not pick.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: legislationIn: The Export–Import Bank Should Be Abolished · Veronique de Rugyp. 723 in the PDF
What the document says
“The Export–Import Bank should be abolished because it wastes taxpayer money, adversely affects American businesses, and does not promote economic growth”
This is the conclusion of the first of the chapter's two essays. It argues that the bank's support is concentrated among a small number of large firms, that it disadvantages American companies that do not receive it, and that it does not add to growth overall.
What the document actually says
“The Export–Import Bank should be abolished because it wastes taxpayer money, adversely affects American businesses, and does not promote economic growth”
That sentence, in plain words
Close the Export-Import Bank. It wastes public money and does not help the economy.
What this is about
This bank helps American firms sell abroad. It lends money or backs loans. The first essay says it wastes public money. It says the bank should close.
What is disputed
What this means is contested
The chapter itself contains the opposing case. The second essay, by Jennifer Hazelton, argues the bank should be kept and strengthened to counter China. Neither essay is presented as the chapter's conclusion.
The document says “will fail”Who acts: CongressHow: not specifiedIn: The Export–Import Bank Should Be Abolished · Veronique de Rugyp. 724 in the PDF
What the document says
“any attempts to reorient the agency and make it a weapon with which to fight against China are going to fail. Economic fights and national security fights are not won with subsidies.”
This answers, in advance, the argument the chapter's second essay goes on to make. The first author holds that the case for the bank as a counter to Chinese export credit will not work on its own terms.
What the document actually says
“any attempts to reorient the agency and make it a weapon with which to fight against China are going to fail. Economic fights and national security fights are not won with subsidies.”
That sentence, in plain words
Some want to use this bank against China. The first essay says that will not work.
What this is about
China lends heavily to other countries. Some say America should do the same. This essay says subsidies do not win that fight.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: legislationIn: The Case for the Export–Import Bank · Jennifer Hazeltonp. 726 in the PDF
What the document says
“To ignore these changes and leave the United States without its own export financing weapon is to resign the United States to a reduced role in world geopolitical affairs”
This is the case made by the chapter's second essay. It argues that China's export credit activity exceeds that of the G7 combined, that China is the world's largest official creditor, that it does not follow the rules-based order governing export credit, and that allied export credit agencies have drawn manufacturing away from American soil. It records that President Reagan opposed the bank as a candidate and changed his position in office.
What the document actually says
“To ignore these changes and leave the United States without its own export financing weapon is to resign the United States to a reduced role in world geopolitical affairs”
That sentence, in plain words
Without this bank, America would count for less in the world. That is the second essay's case.
What this is about
China lends huge sums to other countries. So do allies. This essay says America needs the same tool. Without it, American firms lose deals.
What is disputed
What this means is contested
The chapter itself contains the opposing case. The first essay, by Veronique de Rugy, argues the bank should be abolished and that using it against China will fail. Neither is presented as the chapter's conclusion.
Both essays. Each proposal records which essay it comes from and who wrote it.
The detailed financial figures each author uses to support their case.
This chapter contains no single position. It prints an argument for abolishing the bank and an argument for keeping it, by different authors, one after the other. Both are indexed, and neither is the chapter's conclusion.
