Replies

It might help to actually read the text of the letter. It does not advocate subsidizing American jobs."

No, it advocates limiting the competition within the IT industry. Such limits means that American corporations will have to pay more for goods and services. This is a transfer of income from some Americans to other Americans. Most would call that a subsidy.

No, it advocates limiting the competition within the IT industry. Such limits means that American corporations will have to pay more for goods and services. This is a transfer of income from some Americans to other Americans. Most would call that a subsidy.

Please provide a quote where the letter has at any time advocated limiting competition in the IT industry. Go nback to DU you lying socialist.

People were trying to get rid of this junk in July 1, 1997. **** OPIC claims to boost exports and create American jobs. But the top purchasers of U.S. products, such as Japan, Mexico and South Korea, have no OPIC-backed investments. Of America’s $835 billion in exports, OPIC tries to take credit for a tiny portion — only one percent. Yet OPIC-related trade comes at the expense of countless job and export opportunities that are lost when OPIC alters the market’s allocation of capital.

Along with foreign policy, politically-correct environmental and labor standards take precedence over financial prudence at OPIC. While these niceties score points with Vice President Gore, they do not foster a better world. In fact, extraneous political considerations are used to steer capital away from sound investments. The higher risk factor produces a higher failure rate, the biggest enemy of the environment and workers. In addition, the uncertainty of coverage in a politicized risk allocation system means less stability and predictability for investors.

Through OPIC’s activities, the federal government has exposed the taxpayer to enormous risks. Should the $19.8 billion OPIC scheme prove to be as shaky as federal deposit insurance, it will need a costly bailout.

Foreign investment is too important to leave to bureaucrats. The free market should determine where and how much to invest. Congress should make a hard-headed business decision, and end government intervention in overseas private investment.

http://www.cei.org/gencon/005,01252.cfm