[Poohbah]

Very well said. The influence of OPIC which uses the full faith and credit to subsidize overseas investment must also be considered in all these discussions. The companies investing in offshore provision of goods and service will be reimbursed by the Americna taxpayer if they lose their investment due to currency manipulations or political risk (nationalization, war etc.) If this is such a good idea why don't they absorb the risk themselves or pay for private insurance. I note there are no private insurers offering such coverage at a rate that would make such investments feasable becuase of the high risk involved.

OPIC massively undercuts private insurers, as do all government-subsidized businesses.

With OPIC out of the picture, there will be a competitive market for this insurance, and you're going to still have substantial offshoring.

[harpseal]

OPIC massively undercuts private insurers, as do all government-subsidized businesses.

With OPIC out of the picture, there will be a competitive market for this insurance, and you're going to still have substantial offshoring.

If a private market evolves for such insurance so be it. I have no objections becuase the part I object to is the government subsidy. Since you freely admit that the rates are amssively undercut then you also realize that having to pay for this insurance privately will increase the costs of offshoring. alternatively the companies will invest without such insurance therby assuming the risks themsleves. Of course the decision to make such investment might thebe altered by having to assume that risk. I am not seeking an end to all offshore investment as clearly some of it is reaonably justifiable.