[SauronOfMordor]

Now the corporations being somewhat rational are not going to invest in a higher risk investment without either risk mitigation or a vastly higher rate of return. Thus OPIC with the insurance it provides mitigates the risk. The corporation could make money no matter where they invested. The rate of return would be different based upon location but in the final analysis it would be balnced by risk.

The US govt has no business subsidizing a company's relocation of jobs overseas (which is what insurance at below-market rates is). A company relocating its facilities overseas should either absorb the whole risk itself, get insurance on the private market, or stay here

[harpseal]

The US govt has no business subsidizing a company's relocation of jobs overseas (which is what insurance at below-market rates is). A company relocating its facilities overseas should either absorb the whole risk itself, get insurance on the private market, or stay here

I totally agree with that statement. If providing this insurance is actuarially sound and profitable then the uS government has no business whatsover in this field of endeavor. It is socialism at its worst. My only question is why do not those who argue for deregulation and a tax structure beneficial to development not argue against this once they know?

I have never argued for all teh regulation and the conficatorey taxes on those who produce. I do admit I would consider possibly raising some tarriffs against those nations that have tarriffs on American produced goods and services. I, further recognize that our historical reality is that from our founding until the 1990's protective tarriffs were in place in the USA. It is during that time we went from being an economic backwater to the preminent economic and military power.

I do not deny that in theory free trade has benefits for the USA but we have yet to enter a free trade envirornment.