Posted on 02/23/2006 9:25:42 AM PST by finnman69
Nope, you dont get off so easy. Where are all the American terminal operators?
Guess what, the major American operators (Seal-Land, CSX) made their buisness decisions to sell off their terminal operations. The biggest remaining American terminal operator, SSA Marine, is in a joint ventuer with a state owned Chinese shipping company to run a Long Beach terminal.
Why is it the buisness owners understand the rationale for globalization but the Buchanan brigade isolationists do not?
Are you for all this NAFTA/CAFTA/FREE TRADE/OUTSOURSING? I was merely saying I hate it all and think it puts the USA in a very dangerous circumstance.
Do you want the US to subsidize shipping companies? P&O was not state subsidized. Neither is Hutchinson-Whampoa or PSA or Maersk.
Not that I have a particular dog in this fight, but perhaps because one worships the almighty dollar while the other doesn't? All being a good capitalist means is that you'd sell out your own mother if it made economic sense to do so. Ensuring the nation's security is not the sort of thing a public or private company does in order to make a profit.
I have yet to see a meaningful argument with evidence that a foreign based terminal operator does a worse job than a domestic based terminal operator when it comes to port security.
Where is the comparison between selling your mother for profit and CSX selling off their container terminal operations to focus on their domestic buisnesses? Show me where national security has been compromised?
Elaine: "You know, admitting another man is attractive doesn't mean you're gay."
George: "It doesn't help."
Having a foreign-government-owned or partially foreign-government-owned company anywhere near the controls of a major part of American infrastructure does not sit well with this conservative. It's especially unsettling when the governments involved (or its population) is hostile to the West in general, or to America specifically.
I didn't like it when COSCO took over in Long Beach, and I don't like this company taking over now. That there are no American companies willing to take on this business because they can be more profitable doing other things is not an argument for foreign companies to manage our ports---it's simply further proof that capitalists of any nationality are in business to make money. No capitalist is going to take on this sort of business, and lose money, because of altruism.
No, I don't think you are naive. However, I think you may be a bit off in your opposition to trade among nations.
Thomas Friedman examines the new "flat world" in his excellent book, The World is Flat. I think he is mostly correct in his analysis and I recommend this book (for both proponents and opponents of globalization and free trade).
National economies around the world are increasingly becoming codependent on each other for mutual prosperity and success. While some people may abhor globalization and utsourcing, it is a fact that U.S.-based companies (and stockholders who make up around 60% of the U.S. population) are also benefeciaries.
American companies and businesses (including one-person enterprises!!) are making money while American consumers are paying cheaper prices back home. The loss of any manufacturing base due to offshoring is balanced by increased access to fast-growing markets in Asia, E. Europe, and South America (mainly Chile and Brazil).
China and India had 10.5% and 9% annual growth rates in the last 5 years (at least). Isolationism and anti-globalization may deny these markets (which are so critical to Americans too) in a world that is increasingly becoming interconnected by communcation and technology.
Finally, despite the dire predictions by doomsdayers, globalization may only help America. America has the greatest advantages among all competing nations. These advantages include an excellent technology base, a very well-developed democracy, a rich tradition of capitalism, superb universities (and by extension, a scientific research base), and most importantly, an environment for innovation and risk taking.
With all these advantages, America cannot fail in the global economy. I understand why these concerns exist; Americans are a patriotic people who love their country and their fellow citizens. However, IMHO, these cornerns may prove to be ill-justified in the years ahead.
I am slightly confused w.r.t. the ports deal. As you can see, I believe in globalization and free trade. Trade with the Middle East is critical for American foreign policy, energy policy, and the WOT. Normally, I would be in favor of encouraging free trade with the capitalist element in the Middle East. In this case though, the UAE's prior (and current) pro-Islamic terror actions lead me to believe that American national security should take precedence over free trade.
"No capitalist is going to take on this sort of business, and lose money, because of altruism."
Why could an American company not take on this contract and be profitable? Just seems like another move to help bolster an Islamist nation's economy. We're already doing plenty of that in the crude import biz, IMHO.
No capitalist is going to take on this sort of business, and lose money, because they have a suicidal tendency to spread Islamist Jihad.
Probably because of labor unions.
That's not the whole reason. American firms bidding against a government-subsidized company from overseas. No privately-owned American firm could match the price and be profitable. Bid for less than the real cost of executing the contract.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.