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.
No, it isn't. I never say that all regulation is bad, but even so, this is not a regulatory act.
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.
As stated previously, the charter of the Ex Im Bank states that loans are made on a non interference basis when the private sector is unable or unwilling to provide financing.
So please explain to me, why regulations are bad and subsidies and taxpayers underwriting loans are good? How are these different?
Not all regulations are bad, but the operations of the Ex Im Bank are not regulatory in nature. Your basic premise is flawed.