Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Will the Ex-Im Bank Enable Boeing's Deal With Iran?

President-elect Trump could kill the bank, just to be sure.

TrumpAlbin Lohr-Jones/SIPA/NewscomAfter months of negotiations and political maneuvering, Boeing finally sealed a $17 billion deal with Iran. The cash will buy 80 aircraft to replace some of the 400 outdated state-owned Iran Air planes. The sale to the Iranian carrier is a direct result of a nuclear accord that removed sanctions on Tehran.

There is no doubt that this is a great deal for Boeing's bottom line because the company will be able to expand its reach and profits to a new and lucrative market. Also, though commerce doesn't end wars, we know from history that trading countries have stronger incentives to stay as far away from conflict with each other as possible and that protectionism tends to induce conflicts. As 19th-century economist Frederic Bastiat said, "when goods don't cross borders, soldiers will." In other words, selling aircraft to Iran won't fundamentally change the Iranian leaders' despicable behavior, but it may make them think twice before they act up.

That being said, there are two things I know for sure:

First, the Boeing deal makes President-elect Donald Trump's promise to tear up the Iranian deal much harder. As the Cato Institute's Chris Preble told me, if Trump were to tear up the nuclear deal, he would be "taking money out of Boeing's coffers," and you can be sure the company will put up a terrible fight by claiming that workers would be hurt. Preble summed it up nicely: "This sale adds to the political costs of reimposing sanctions."

Second, we must make sure that no taxpayer money will be involved in the process—and unfortunately, that's not out of the question. Boeing is the No. 1 beneficiary of the Export-Import Bank of the United States, an agency that issues taxpayer-backed loans and insurance products to foreign consumers to buy U.S. goods. Its critics even call it the "Bank of Boeing."

Ex-Im Bank supporters claim that these fears are unfounded because the Foreign Assistance Act makes it illegal for the bank to do business with state sponsors of terrorism. But that can be changed. After all, as we saw with the Carrier debacle, many Republicans, led by Trump, seem friendly to the idea that it's the role of the federal government to actively create or retain jobs in America through aggressive intervention and targeted government-granted privileges. As such, we can expect that they will fall prey to the illusion that Ex-Im loans for Iran to buy Boeing planes could boost jobs and help workers in America, making a change to the law justifiable.

Do you think this would never happen because Iran is a terrorist state? Then explain why, when Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., offered an amendment in 2015 that would have prohibited the Ex-Im Bank from doing business with any country on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism, 63 Republicans joined with almost all Democrats to defeat it.

Another argument for allowing Ex-Im to back Boeing sales to Iran is that European governments are doing it. The Wall Street Journal already reported that "the British export-credit agency in January said the organization was 'open for business' in Iran, echoing a sentiment at other European government lending institutions." With Airbus having a similar deal for jet sales to Iran pending, it won't be long until Boeing comes crying to Congress that it's unfair for Airbus to be subsidized when it isn't.

These subsidies will be good for Airbus and Boeing, but they'll be a net negative for the overall economy. (I assume there will be plenty of lawmakers willing to lift the restriction for such heavyweight political contributors as Boeing, the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers. In 2015, they spent roughly $40 million lobbying on Ex-Im-related issues.)

Finally, even if the restriction on subsidizing deals with Iran were not to be lifted, we wouldn't be able to verify that the bank is actually following the law. The data made available by Ex-Im to the public and to lawmakers are incredibly bad. Many of the foreign buyers' countries aren't listed, except as "multiple countries." A third of the foreign buyers are labeled "unnamed."

And many of the U.S. beneficiaries aren't listed, either. It's hard to trust when you can't actually verify.

Of course, there is a way out of all these questions: President-elect Trump could kill the Ex-Im Bank, causing all these concerns to immediately go away.

COPYRIGHT 2016 CREATORS.COM

Photo Credit: Albin Lohr-Jones/SIPA/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Interesting article

  • kbolino||

    I thought it was illegal to give U.S. dollars to Iran. Has that restriction been lifted? Or did it only apply to certain things?

  • CampingInYourPark||

    I'm of the impression that in this case they're buying, not selling planes

  • kbolino||

    Ah, yeah, the money is moving in the other direction. Still, one does wonder how it gets exchanged.

  • I can't even||

    In crates and pallets of large denomination bills?

  • kbolino||

    Do they still have krugerrand?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    On a dark and quiet tarmac in austria.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    There's actually a page on the treasury dept web site to apply for a license to trade with sanctioned countries. Reason doesn't like the link so I can't post it

  • John||

    Also, though commerce doesn't end wars, we know from history that trading countries have stronger incentives to stay as far away from conflict with each other as possible and that protectionism tends to induce conflicts.

    No actually we don't. We had two World Wars between countries that had extensive trade ties. Saying that trade makes war less likely is just one of those untrue things stupid people say when they are trying to sound smart.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "incentives"

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "incentives"

  • John||

    Nations don't go to war because of economic calculations. if they did, there would be few if any wars. Nations go to war for much more complex and emotional reasons. "It is will cost us money" isn't something that is going to deter them.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    Nations don't go to war because of economic calculations

    This might be the dumbest thing you're ever written

  • CampingInYourPark||

    *you've

  • John||

    And you might be the dumbest person I have ever met for thinking that. Wars are always economic disasters. They cost a fortune in both material and human capital. Counties do not go to war hoping to get rich. Maybe 400 years ago but not now. Not with modern warfare.

    Have you ever picked up a history book? Do you know anything?/ Are you retarded? Did you take a marijuana this afternoon? It is one thing to be pig ignorant but to be that way and be smug about it is pretty amazing.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    And you might be the dumbest person I have ever met for thinking that

    For thinking that might be the dumbest thing you ever wrote? I could be wrong. You've probably written other things even more stupid.

  • John||

    Thanks for adding so much to the conversation. If what I said was so wrong, it should be easy to explain why. Being a moron, you of course don't do that. Why don't you do us a favor and let the adults talk for a while. You can embarrass yourself on some other thread.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    Thanks for adding so much to the conversation. If what I said was so wrong, it should be easy to explain why

    Here's an easy way to prove your point. Give an example of a war that wasn't fought over a party protecting a resource or trying to take one from someone else.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    The war on xmas, of course.

  • John||

    Give an example of a war that wasn't fought over a party protecting a resource or trying to take one from someone else.

    It doesn't surprise me that you are a Marxist who thinks all wars relate to resources. And what you call resources, the rest of the world calls territory. And yes wars are nearly always fought over territory. But the reasons why one country wants the territory so much they are willing to go to war over it isn't because they think war is a winning economic proposition.

    Why did Germany go to war in World War I? Do you think it was because they wanted more land in France? No one else does. They went to war because they figured if they didn't they would eventually be so weak their enemies would then and they would lose.

    Did Prussia go to war with France in 1871 to take Alsace and Loraine? No. They took Alsace and Lorraine after they won the war as a price. But they didn't go to war for them.

    The most you can say is that countries go to war to loot other countries. And that is certainly true. But trade isn't going to somehow stop the desire to loot and steal from your neighbors. Trade doesn't prevent wars because trade is the product of peace. Peace is not the product of trade. You have the causality backwards.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    You have the causality backwards.

    I didn't make that claim. I claimed your statement that nations don't go to war for economic reasons was...well, not correct and I'm still convinced it's not correct.

  • John||

    Okay, fair enough. The don't go to war for strictly economic reasons and the existence of trade doesn't make them going to war any less likely.

  • MikeT1986||

    John, this here is part of your problem, you have this tendency to insanely overstate things.

    Accurate statement:

    Trade doesn't Preclude war

    Defensible statement:

    Trade is not a strong deterrent to war.

    John statement:

    Trade has no effect on likelihood of war.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    It doesn't surprise me that you are a Marxist who thinks all wars relate to resources.

    WTF? I didn't make any sweeping claims. You said countries don't go to war for economic reasons, which is retarded bullshit. That's the only claim I made. You have a reading comprehension issue.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    Counties do not go to war hoping to get rich

    The desire to "become rich" is just one reason that would be an economic one.

    If you think the US invaded Iraq, or protected Kuwait other than to keep the region stable for our own economic benefit then I'd say you might be dumber than Tony. Those are just 2 modern wars.

  • PapayaSF||

    Did you take a marijuana this afternoon?

    John, I love you, man, but... LOL

  • JEP||

    But economics used to at least put a limit on wars. Ron Paul's written a lot about how changing to a fiat monetary system allows a government to fund war without explicit permission from the people and they can do it indefinitely. When there was a gold standard, a government had to least weigh the possible consequences of starting a war - even if they won, they might go into so much debt that their creditors could then control the government.

  • John||

    even if they won, they might go into so much debt that their creditors could then control the government.

    The creditors don't control the government unless they have guns. And the allied powers sans the US bankrupted themselves in World War I and again in World War II. The gold standard didn't save them or stop them. The gold standard doesn't prevent nations from devaluing their currency.

  • JEP||

    Well, some would mark the establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913 as the beginning of the fiat system.

    And yes, creditors would need guns. Back in the day, creditors could hire mercenaries to collect their debt.

  • John||

    The Gold standard in theory prevents countries from devaluing their currency. But the Gold Standard doesn't prevent countries from abandoning it when they want to devalue their currency, which is exactly what nations did. The Gold Standard is only as good as the country's will to stay on it. And if the nation had the will to stay on the gold standard, there wouldn't be a problem even if it used fiat money.

  • JEP||

    My point in all that was that since the fiat system was put into place, it's easier for governments to finance war so it's become less important. The justifications have also changed, most wars used to be fought over natural resources or (usually politicized) religion. I've heard people refer to WWI was unique because at the end of the war, the victors didn't take possession of all the loser's land. Some boundaries were redrawn (especially in the middle east), but Germany was left mostly in tact - so that they could repay all the debt from the war.

  • {|}===[|}:;:;:;:;:;:;:>||

    Consider the Rothschild family. You don't need guns as a creditor if you are the primary creditor to everyone with guns. One government risking default places the others credit instruments at risk, they might go to war with the government in default merely to restore the creditor. The creditor then has opportunity to influence the victor by extending further credit.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Nations go to war, but nations' elites decide when the nations go to war. Nations might be impoverished by war, doesn't mean their elites are.

  • kbolino||

    de Rugy overplays her hand, but it can be both true that trade makes war less likely and also that it doesn't prevent war altogether.

  • John||

    Name me one example where it has? The argument gets the causality backwards. Nations don't get along well because they trade. They trade because they get along well.

  • kbolino||

    I would say it's more of a feedback loop rather than one causes the other, but regardless it's not an all-powerful effect. As to examples, U.S.-Canada and U.S.-Mexico come immediately to mind. But the situation is more complex than just trade = peace.

  • John||

    The US went to war with Canada in 1812 and almost did again in the 1840s. The US has been to war with Mexico as recently as 1916. Trade ties did nothing to stop those wars.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    They were fighting because they didn't like the strange accents, no economic reason like territory or anything like that...nosiree

  • CampingInYourPark||

    the situation is more complex than just trade = peace

    repeated for the reading impaired

  • kbolino||

    Right. And we haven't been at war with either for a long time, while our trade ties have grown much stronger. That was my point.

  • John||

    And that proves my point. We get along well so we trade more. If we hadn't gotten along well we wouldn't be trading. Again, good relations create trade not the other way around. Trade is a product of peace. Peace is not a product of trade.

  • kbolino||

    It doesn't prove your point any more than it proves mine. Trade may not be the leading indicator, but it's hard to measure amicability. Sometimes countries trade out of necessity rather than friendliness and it's not hard to fathom that such trade can, in a diffuse way, foster better relationships.

  • John Titor||

    The U.S. went to war with Canada partially in response to British naval policy towards U.S. trade with France.

  • John||

    Yes John. nations go to war over economic conflicts and disputes. Why on earth would that fact mean that trade makes war less likely. In that case trade made war more likely. Had it not been for the importance of international trade, the US and UK would not have had anything to disagree over.

  • John Titor||

    Yes John. nations go to war over economic conflicts and disputes. Why on earth would that fact mean that trade makes war less likely.

    Because for your premise to be true mutually beneficial trade must naturally lead to a decrease in the likelihood of war?

  • Pan Zagloba "The Stickler"||

    *shrug*

    President Trump abolishes NAFTA and builds a wall tomorrow. Think Canada will go to war? Even though such a thing would be existential-level threat to Canadian state (seriously, put sanctions on Canada and we're well and truly fucked).

    Power disparity of US vs its neighbors makes any talk of war not initiated by the US itself silly.

  • John Titor||

    Think Canada will go to war?

    Well, since we freaking can't, no.

  • Tundra||

    Since half your population is already here playing hockey, it seems like a bad plan, anyway.

    Peace through hockey?

  • Longtobefree||

    Puck that.

  • Pan Zagloba "The Stickler"||

    Hence the "power disparity" bit.
    Compounded by the fact the US doesn't ever have to invade Canada or Mexico to bring them to their knees. We can't even get US soldiers within reach in a terrain where their advantages can be negated.

  • kbolino||

    Yeah, trade isn't the only or even the most important factor in whether or not to wage war.

  • Eternal Blue Sky||

    The whole history between the two countries is long and complex and features multiple wars, times of conflict, and times of peace, but there are periods of time when Ottoman Turkey and Venice were ONLY putting up with each other because both needed the other for reasons of economic trade.

    There, one example.

  • John Titor||

    Hitler was aiming for an autarkic system and their trade policy reflected that, and Japan specifically attacked the U.S. because they cut off the oil trade (the merits of this are arguable of course, the Chinese probably didn't appreciate the Japanese stomping around on the mainland regardless of U.S. trade policy).

  • John||

    No. Hitler was looking to loot the countries around him and create living space for the Germans. Yes, countries do invade each other to loot. But trade isn't going to prevent that or even make it less likely. Germany traded with Europe and that didn't stop it from wanting to loot its neighbors.

    And Japan only had an issue with the US because it was invading and looting China. Yes, we were trading with Japan. But that didn't stop Japan from being an aggressive and militaristic nation. Trade doesn't create peace.

  • John Titor||

    Germany traded with Europe and that didn't stop it from wanting to loot its neighbors.

    No, Nazi Germany restricted and decreased trade with foreign countries around them and traded for required materials with either far-off countries or those too economically weak to resist them. Germany specifically did this because trading with these powers would lead to dependency on goods from countries they wanted to go to war with. I.E. Mutually beneficial trade would necessitate peace.

  • Eternal Blue Sky||

    "Yes, we were trading with Japan. But that didn't stop Japan from being an aggressive and militaristic nation."

    Literally, the ONLY reason they attacked us is because we were NOT trading with them, and when they sent ambassadors to convince the US government to let our corporations trade with the Japanese, the US government did nothing but antagonize the ambassadors.

    "And Japan only had an issue with the US because it was invading and looting China."

    Bullshit. We wouldn't have cared if caring hadn't served FDR's purposes. The fat socialist fuck wanted to join WWII, the US and its people had no interest in war, and so he wanted to openly provoke the Axis powers into taking the first strike. Caring about Japanese war crimes (while continuing to ignore the war crimes of nations that wouldn't help get the US into WWII, like Russia which was doing much of the same as Japan).

    If Japan hadn't been a part of the Axis, Americans in general wouldn't have given a flying fuck about Japan's war atrocities, JUST AS WE DIDN'T GIVE A SINGLE DAMN about Russian aggression, expansion, militarism, and war atrocities until after WWII.

  • Eternal Blue Sky||

    *Caring about Japanese war crimes was only a means to the ends of socialist-led entry into a vicious war we didn't need to be a part of.

  • John||

    Obama just allowed the US sanctions to become law. Iran already got its $150 billion or whatever it was bribe from Obama. So, Iran is going to walk away from the deal and renew its nuclear program. So the deal is dead and really was never alive in the first place. Thinking Iran would negotiate away its nuclear program is one of those things that is so stupid only intellectuals could believe it.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Very well, I suppose we'll have to repossess the money.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Why bother, we'll just print more!

  • Pro Libertate||

    Repossession is better, especially when you add in finance and service charges.

  • ||

    I vote we sell it to a collections agency for 25% now and call it done.

  • Pro Libertate||

    You're right. Send Obama over.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Look, every conflict has only two solutions: treaties (or treaty-like things that are in no real srnse of the word a treaty) or thermonuclear devastation. There are no other options. Everyone knows this.

  • John||

    Why would Iran give up its nuclear program? It is in its national interest to have nuclear weapons. And its really in its national interest to have nuclear weapons and sucker some idiot US President into giving them a few hundred billion dollars on the false assurance they will stop.

    It is really that simple. Pretending that other nations somehow will always want peace or to act that way you wish if only you are nice to them is pretty fucking stupid.

  • ant1sthenes||

    It assumes they actually did believe it, which is not nearly cynical enough.

  • Sour Kraut||

    The Republican establishment had control of congress and couldn't even manage to kill the Ex-Im bank. It was a sitting duck and they still couldn't bring themselves to do it. That's some real commitment to small government there.

  • John||

    They did kill it I thought but then brought it back. Most of them liked it and were just pretending otherwise. I don't think it will die. I am not even sure the public dislikes it. And even if it does, who is going to change their vote based on it? Meanwhile, a lot of connected people and politicians get rich from it.

  • Lee Genes||

    I am not even sure the public dislikes it.

    The public in general doesn't care. The Ex-Im Bank is something that only committed small government and free market types care about enough to want to snuff out. Everybody else either doesn't know what it is, doesn't give a shit, or is profiting from it.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Reverse nut massage:

    The firing of a King County sheriff's deputy — who was arrested in Newcastle on New Year's Eve 2013 after being found asleep in his patrol car and showing signs of impairment — has been overturned by an arbitrator.

    Arbitrator Michael Cavanaugh, in a decision issued last month, ordered that Deputy Whitney Richtmyer be reinstated and paid back wages.

    Richtmyer has returned to duty and assigned to the records unit as a result of his appeal brought by the King County Police Officers Guild.

    The deputy, who joined the Sheriff's Office in 1998, was fired in July 2014 for violations involving criminal conduct and dishonest statements related to his actions the previous New Year's Eve, as well as an investigation that found paperwork, including citations, in his car hadn't been turned in over a four-year period.

    Higher standards.

  • Pan Zagloba "The Stickler"||

    In other words, selling aircraft to Iran won't fundamentally change the Iranian leaders' despicable behavior, but it may make them think twice before they act up.

    How? I mean, there's the weasel word "might" doing all the work in there, but why the fuck would buying planes (i.e. being the one who delivers money to some asshole who is investing his capital to build the stupid things, with money only happening at the end) prevent them from acting up when they decide they want to.

    Seriously, I know counter-factuals are hard to prove, but which wars could have been prevented with "more trade"? Germanic invasion of Roman Empire (more trade was one of the things Goths demanded)? US Civil War, if more trade in slaves went from South to North? I guess, War of 1812 was officially over "Free Trade and Sailors' Rights", so maybe that one?

    Oh, and I'm with Thucydides - "fear, honor, self-interest." His triad explains why nations go to war better than modern "oh, it's always about rational interest, if you stretch the definition real hard".

  • John||

    They bought airplanes from us Pan. That will make them better. Because trade is magic or something.

    DeRugy is in her own way as stupid Chapman or Dalmia. How can she write this shit with a straight face?

  • Pan Zagloba "The Stickler"||

    To quote one of my favorite Bullshit episodes, "everyone's got a gris-gris".

    I am as guilty of oversimplifying complex phenomena as anyone else, I'd just like to see historical examples cause I think history is neat and recognize that my knowledge of it is cursory and limited to particular areas and periods at best.

  • John Titor||

    Some of China's conflicts, but sometimes it's hard to determine what is 'trade' and 'tribute' with the Middle Kingdom. Trade dependency kept a lot of East Asian 'states' in line. I guess more trade would have also stopped Perry from threatening to start firing on Japanese harbours.

    Anglo-Dutch relations?

  • Pan Zagloba "The Stickler"||

    Ooh, Opium Wars! Good one!

  • CampingInYourPark||

    The word "might" is necessary because nations(those controlling them), just like individuals are not always trustworthy. There is no magic potion to prevent thievery or greed

  • John||

    No shit. And Iran is untrustworthy and ran by a bunch of religious lunatics. Selling them airplanes isn't going to change that.

  • Christophe||

    Pakistan vs. India sabre-rattling had immediate financial consequences for both countries the last few times it happened. In their case not so much because of direct trade between the countries, as due to having foreign investments pulled out (or threatened to be pulled out) in response.

    Of course both countries probably have nukes, so it's not clear that trade is necessary to keep them from going to war.

  • John||

    I am pretty sure the threat of mutual nuclear destruction had a bigger deterrent effect than loss of investment. Think of it this way, if the two countries were not so militarily equal and one much stronger than the other, do you really think the threat of losing investment would keep the stronger one from stomping the weaker one given the history between them? I don't.

  • You ARE a Prog (MJG)||

  • Pan Zagloba "The Stickler"||

    Ah, that brightened up my day!

    Dammit, Fox, why you gotta police YouTube clips?

  • Tundra||

    "Now which way to the welfare office?"

    Awesome.

  • John||

    Yes there were. But the fact that economic disputes and rivalries contribute to conflict and help cause war means that trade can cause wars not that it prevents them.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    President-elect Trump could kill the bank, just to be sure.

    Take off and nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

  • PapayaSF||

    This article has at least a fragment of what I think Reason should be doing, when it suggests, almost as an afterthought, that Trump end the Ex-Im Bank. Yes, duh. But that should be Reason's focus regarding Trump: find areas where a libertarian solution would appeal to him, and push that. Too much of Reason has consisted of whining about things they don't like about Trump, or worries about bad things he might do. Instead, think positive! Make lemonade from those lemons! Remember the Fabian socialists! Incrementalism! Push for what you can get!

  • ||

    My answer to GILMORE(tm) is also germane to this post, Papaya.

    Also, I would like info on a possible Meet & Greet in San Franpsycho, as Family Maximus is coming to the USA in May of next year (I have to appear before The Board), and one of the places Dr. ZG really wants to visit is SF (one of her hobbies is architecture appreciation; I joke with her that she just wants to see Commie-topia done - temporarily - right), and there are a number of you in the Bay area that we would like to meet, notably you, Playa M, and for me especially, C. Anacreon. Apparently, Sevo doesn't do these little shindigs, yes?

  • tarran||

    Any plans to swing by New England, doc?

  • ||

    We're flying in to LGA, actually (I hate JFK with a bonecrushing passion), so's it is a possibility. Tentatively, the itinerary is OK, TX, AZ, NM, and CA. She primarily wants to tour the Southwest, and desperately wants to see the Grand Canyon and Painted Deserts.

  • ||

    I know there are quite a few of us in Texas. Some in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area, others around Houston, and Hamster of Doom in god-knows-where.

  • {|}===[|}:;:;:;:;:;:;:>||

    We've got Taliesin and Arcosanti if she digs on those guys, both within day trip range of the Phoenix metro area.

  • Yusef Adama||

    Painted Desert Yum.... Beautiful, can't get enough

  • PapayaSF||

    Sounds good, Groovus. Email me at my handle @ Gmail.com and I'll put you on the list. I believe Playa Manhattan is in Southern California, but up here we have Derpetologist and Suell and Sevo (who has declined so far) and some lurkers and less frequent posters.

    Re your other comment: I agree.

  • Sour Kraut||

    Does Trump end the Ex-Im Bank or Congress? I don't know my civics very well...

  • kbolino||

    I don't think the Ex-Im Bank has a permanent charter, so the President can "end" it by simply vetoing its funding, like how Jackson ended the national bank in the 1830s. How we even got to the point where things like the Federal Reserve can be permanently chartered, I do not know.

  • Eternal Blue Sky||

    I remember thinking positive about Obama. Like "at least we'll end torture, Guantanamo, and get out of pointless foreign wars."

    After eight fucking years of ramping up the torture, Guantanamo, and pointless foreign wars, from now on I'm waiting until I see Trump do something I like rather than expecting it.

    Problem is seems to be that politicians are never actually interested in scaling anything back, so libertarians never win any incremental victories. Anything that'd involve actually scaling the state back will never come about.

    But I'd, of course, love to be proven wrong. Maybe Trump will keep his foreign policy promises where Obama and Bush did not. That'd be great!! And if it happens, I'll be praising Trump for that action. But after 16 years of people who campaigned on peace deciding to only increase the wars, yeah... I'm a bit cynical Trump will be different.

  • JayU||

    Over one third of Detroit precincts had more votes than voters.

    Hmmmmmmm...

  • ant1sthenes||

    THE POPULAR VOTE SHOWS THAT HILLARY WON!1!!!

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Apparently, the vote was very popular indeed!

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Wow, the State Elections Director:

    Well, it is unusual when you open a ballot box and find 50 ballots when there should be 370.

    http://tinyurl.com/j6cu2ld

  • Pan Zagloba "The Stickler"||

    Also this bit

    As such, we can expect that they will fall prey to the illusion that Ex-Im loans for Iran to buy Boeing planes could boost jobs and help workers in America, making a change to the law justifiable.

    Soo...if instead of Ex-Im, Iran gets a loan from a private bank, is it still an illusion that such a loan could boost jobs and help workers? And if we replace Iran with, say, consortium of airlines buying in bulk, using private credit? Still an illusion?

  • Mainer2||

    People were sharing childhood Christmas traditions in another thread, which is now dead. So I'm gonna share this here just because my mom was so cool.

    When I was about 4 or 5 we were pulling in the driveway and Mom and Dad saw Santa Claus coming out of the front door of our house. They were excited and pointing and telling me to look ! look ! but I was too slow, I didn't see him. BUT. In his haste to get away, he had shut the door too soon and there, caught in the door, was the torn off corner of his coat. A corner of red cloth with white fur on it.

  • tarran||

    What did you do with the holy relic of the torn cloth?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    She primarily wants to tour the Southwest, and desperately wants to see the Grand Canyon and Painted Deserts.

    Sounds like she (and you) might like southern Utah. Try to get to Zion, if you can.

  • ||

    Honest to God, Brooksie, I tried to talk her into MT, but I was vetoed. Hard. We only have so much time, and not only are the kiddos in tow, but the In-Laws as well.... As per usual, wifey wins.

    IT'S A RU-KRAINIAN INVASION!

  • Pan Zagloba "The Stickler"||

    Mor Slavs, make US better. Is known!

  • Yusef Adama||

    If you can make it to Socal,Playa, Myself and many lurkers would love to Meet and Hang out, Cheers!

  • Jerryskids||

    Ultracrepidarianism.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    So? Sell the Boeings, then impose sanctions.

  • Longtobefree||

    So Boeing is going to sell airplanes to Iran, the number one state sponsor of terrorism.
    Where are all those "activist" investors who rant and rave to get corporations to pull out of places with laws they don't like? Where are all the news stories of "responsible" investors dumping their stock in Boeing? Where are the union leaders refusing to work on planes going to terrorists?
    Any company choosing to do business with Iran is aware of the financial risk in working with terrorists; as long as the investors and unions go along with the gag, it is legal for the moment. At least as far as has been reported, Boeing is not building factories or anything actually IN Iran for confiscation later. Since I have already purchased all the airliners I can use, I cannot personally boycott Boeing, so there is nothing to do but whine and cry on posts.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online