It serves the function I describe, which is both necessary and useful.
So you think Ex Im Bank is "both necessary and useful".
This view is inconsistent with your cheering for Trump's attempted deregulation. Your position was that laws that result in regulations are bad because they interfere with commerce. Now you are saying that laws that take shape as direct monetary interference with commerce, as with Ex Im Bank and Boeing subsidies, are good.
So please explain to me, why regulations are bad and subsidies and taxpayers underwriting loans are good? How are these different?