The New Protectionists

opinionjournal ^ | March 10, 2006 | WSJ

[groanup]

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

The New Protectionists - How to create a real security crisis.

Friday, March 10, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

Dubai Ports World finally threw in the kaffiyah on its American operations yesterday, agreeing to sell them "to a U.S. entity." We hope that entity turns out to be Halliburton, if only for the torment that would cause certain eminences on Capitol Hill.

Dubai Ports was susceptible to this political stampede because it was an Arab-owned company buying port operations, which Democrats have played up as uniquely vulnerable. But this is also the second such mugging of a foreign investor in recent months, following last year's demagoguery against a Chinese company's bid to buy Unocal, a middling American oil company. If Members of Congress want a real security crisis--a financial security crisis--they'll keep this up.

What's especially dangerous here is that we're seeing the re-emergence of the "national security" protectionists. They were last seen in the late 1980s, when Japan in particular was the target of a political foreign-investment panic. The Japanese were buying Pebble Beach and Rockefeller Center, and so America was soon going to be a colony of Tokyo. A Japanese bid for Fairchild Semiconductor of Silicon Valley was seen as a threat to American defense. Those fears seem laughable now. But here we go again, with new targets of anxiety.

snip

[unseen]

China is trying that experiment as we speak. Russia is also trying that experiment with less success. Saudi Arabia, UAE come to mind.

[1rudeboy]

Interesting that your Arab choices are the closest to satisfying your hypothesis, and if it wasn't for oil, they wouldn't be close.

[Hop A Long Cassidy]

Bush and his close acolytes were completely out of touch on the mood of the country on this kind of issue. This is another big embarrassment that has cost him needed political capital here at home. I'm sure there must have been some quid pro quo with the UAE, but he wasn't thinking about destroying his base at home.

Once he declared a WAR ON TERROR, how could he think of allowing (supporting, blessing) an Arab government shell company to have any kind of position regarding a port system already criticised for lacking security.

Either there is a War on Terror, or there is not.

We can get an approximate forecast how well the Coast Guard would oversee the UAE's operations by comparing it to other federal programs -- take the border patrol as an example. Our borders are sealed tight as a drum. Hah!

Trying to wrap this sweet-heart deal around the flag of free trade is a real travesty. So is the associated WSJ claim of jingoistic protectionism.

Bush has a lot of work cut out for him in regaining the credibility he once had on foreign affairs. If he had put a dictator in Iraq after the war, or if he had partitioned Iraq, we could have had our troops refreshed and ready for trouble with Iran.

Bush needs to move within the constraints of the War on Terror that he himself started. He allowed the Democrats to make hay of an self-exposed position. Neither the Democrats nor protectionism is at fault. I think Bush can do better in this second term, and I hope he does. We are counting on him to make wise decisions. I hope his decisions on Iraq save him (and conservatives and Republicans) by election time.

[OKIEDOC]

Yes I have numbers and here they are:

BR8-459.

Takeovers are like cockroaches.

If you see or hear about one then there are probably a thousand others you haven't heard about.

Time to get the raid and spray a few globalists.

[Toddsterpatriot]

BR8-459.

What's that?

[Hop A Long Cassidy]

>>>Google Hong Kong. If you don't, or if you think I am an idiot, fine, you lose. There is nothing more powerful than a society that is free and has a very low tax base. Nothing else matters.

When Hong Kong was going from a back water gambling den to a world powerhouse and most economically free nation in the world... their security forces captured and returned thousands (millions?) of illegal aliens (Chinese swimming to freedom). Why can't we protect our borders and ports too? Do you want to talk about security protections in Singapore during their rise to greatest also?

[unseen]

That is the free traders line of BS. Companies will sell their product at a profit. Companies that get their taxes lowered do not go out and reduce their prices overnight. They keep prices as high as possible for as long as possible to maximize their profits. Look let me put this in Capitalist language. If you have a State Fair, you do not let the sellers come in and set up their stalls for free. You charge them for the space. The fair operators charge as much as the market will bare. It's called the law of supply and demand. The operators would be negligent if they did not maximize their profit. The US marketplace is the biggest, richest Fair in the world and instead of charging full price we give this prime retail location away for free. It's like when it comes to trade Republicans turn socialist as far as the avg. American citizen is concerned. Now of course this free trade gives the rich a lot of money by lowering labor cost and enabling the companies to disregard environmental regulations, and social programs expense. So free trade allows companies to get all the benefits of our marketplace with none of the expenses and the American Joe gets screwed by higher taxes. The soviet Union did not practice protectionism. In fact they had free trade between their satellite countries. The problem with the Soviet Union was there was no profit motive for people to work thus people did crappy work or no work.

[1rudeboy]

The soviet Union did not practice protectionism.
In fact they had free trade between their satellite countries.

[Toddsterpatriot]

The soviet Union did not practice protectionism. In fact they had free trade between their satellite countries.

I thought Marx said free trade was bad?

[OKIEDOC]

Toddsterpatriot wrote:
BR8-459.
What's that?

REPLY:
Äåïîçèòû þðèäè÷åñêèõ ëèö â áåëîðóññêèõ áàíêàõ â íàöèîíàëüíîé âàëþòå çà ÿíâàðü-èþíü óâåëè÷èëèñü íà 11,1%, â èíîñòðàííîé - íà 4,9%

Äåïîçèòû þðèäè÷åñêèõ ëèö â áåëîðóññêèõ áàíêàõ â íàöèîíàëüíîé âàëþòå çà ÿíâàðü-èþíü 2005 ãîäà óâåëè÷èëèñü íà 11,1% è íà 1 èþëÿ ñîñòàâèëè Br1788,2 ìëðä., â èíîñòðàííîé âàëþòå - âîçðîñëè íà 4,9% äî Br1971,3 ìëðä. â ýêâèâàëåíòå.  öåëîì ðóáëåâûå è âàëþòíûå äåïîçèòû ñóáúåêòîâ õîçÿéñòâîâàíèÿ çà ïåðâîå ïîëóãîäèå óâåëè÷èëèñü íà 7,8% äî Br3759,6 ìëðä.

Êàê ñîîáùèëè êîððåñïîíäåíòó ÁÅËÒÀ â óïðàâëåíèè èíôîðìàöèè Íàöèîíàëüíîãî áàíêà Áåëàðóñè, íà äîëþ äåïîçèòîâ â ñâîáîäíî êîíâåðòèðóåìîé âàëþòå ïðèõîäèòñÿ 90,1% âñåõ èíâàëþòíûõ âêëàäîâ þðèäè÷åñêèõ ëèö, â îãðàíè÷åííî êîíâåðòèðóåìîé âàëþòå - 9,9%. Ïðè ýòîì 75,3% ñðåäñòâ ïðåäïðèÿòèé íàõîäèòñÿ íà òåêóùèõ (ðàñ÷åòíûõ) ñ÷åòàõ è èíûõ ñ÷åòàõ äî âîñòðåáîâàíèÿ, 24,7% - íà ñðî÷íûõ âêëàäàõ

Translated:

It's the international telephone number for Junior Samples Hooterville car lot as advertised on Hee Haw, circa 1969 to 1971.

[unseen]

free trade was bad with their enemies. Cuba and Soviet Union had a free trade pact, SU and east Germany, poland, Baltic states. All free trade but then again the soviet union had de facto control over them also. Free trade does do that also(i.e lose national control over your borders.)

[Greenpees]

Bush said it himself.

"Your'e either with us or your'e against us"

Our answer; Even if you've decided to be with us, we'll be against you anyway!

STUPID DECISION.

How can we expect anything better than what we get from our dreaded enemies, when we treat moderate, capitalistic, Arabs like this.

If we all thin Arabs are ubtrustable to run TERMINALS, under direct supervision at OUR OWN PORTS, then why the hell are we placing our own troops with Iraqi battalions as advisors?

Why do we claim to hope for a democratic Iraq, or have positive feelings when Iraqi troops take down a terrorists cell in Iraq, when we won't do business with them when they finally come into thier own?

Dubai may not be angelic, but they're better than the rest of the lot. I think they should be valued for that fact alone. We truly spit in thier faces.

[Clemenza]

1980s: "The Japanese er Takin' er Jahbs!"

1990s: "The Mexicans er Takin' er Jahbs!"

2000s: "The Chinese er Takin' er Jahbs!"

I guess in the near future, we will be hearing the same about the Arabs...

Thanks to the head up their a-s wing of the GOP, we have PO'd one of the few Arab countries that actually believes in free markets and has a relatively pro-American foreign policy.

If only you folks could actually visit Dubai (as I have). You would come away with a new perspective apart from the propaganda spewed by Michael Thavage and Pretty Boy Sean.

[unseen]

as Thomas Paine said in Common Sense. Government is a necassary evil.


It should be as small as possible with as little power as needed to get the job done. The Constitution was written with this view in mind. Sadly the politicians have used the commerce clause and the Supreme Court to gain untold power.

[MissouriConservative]

"the arguments about this being "protectionism", are laughable."

From the article....

"In recent weeks Members of Congress have suggested that the foreign-ownership ban should apply to: roads, telecommunications, airlines, broadcasting, shipping, technology firms, water facilities, buildings, real estate, and even U.S. Treasury securities. If this keeps up, we'll soon arrive at France, where even food and music are "protected" from foreign influences as a matter of national survival."

Seems the laughable part is not so laughable after all. The democrats have played the public like a fiddle and now those who were played look like fools. Take a look at the Washington Post today.

"For an example of the industry's international nature, consider Inchcape Shipping Services, a London-based company that provides ship agency services -- arranging the smooth arrival and departure of vessels -- at 200 ports around the world, including more than two dozen in the United States. Inchcape was purchased in January by a Dubai company whose chief executive, Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, also heads Dubai Ports World.

Or consider Maersk, a Danish shipping giant. Its U.S. subsidiary operates much of the commercial fleet that serves the U.S. Navy, which means that its vessels transport items such as fuel and ammunition to U.S. military operations abroad.

Theoretically, such arrangements involve security risks. Terrorist operatives might infiltrate Inchcape or Maersk and send strategic information about ship or fleet movements to enemy forces. Many maritime security experts consider those risks small, especially compared with the lack of reliable policing at dozens of ports in poor countries that send goods to the United States.

But whatever the security ramifications, foreign ownership dominates the maritime industry, including the U.S. facilities where giant ships dock and unload thousands of containers filled with products for U.S. consumers.

"There is no other part of our critical infrastructure that is owned by foreign interests the way the maritime infrastructure is," said Stephen E. Flynn, a former Coast Guard commander and a port security expert at the Council on Foreign Relations."

LINK

That article alone should make people think. This deal was destroyed by politics played by Schumer and Clinton who owe their allegiance to longshoremen unions. DPW is not friendly to unions and the longshoremen know that. Wonder why the suit brought by a Miami company was tossed out in London? The could see the politics of unions being played. The American public that "rose up in anger" over this deal are suckers that were played by the likes of Chuckie Schumer and Hillary Clinton.

[unseen]

How's that free trade working for those wine growers?


US Trade Representative Rob Portman (news, bio, voting record) and EU Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel sealed the deal in London ahead of two-day global trade talks with their counterparts from Australia, Brazil, India and Japan.

Friday's deal, signed at the Austrian embassy in the British capital, caps 20 years of on-off negotiations on the labelling and manufacturing of wine.

The United States and the EU had signed up to a preliminary agreement regulating their 2.8-billion-dollar (2.4-billion-euro) annual wine trade in Washington last September.

The EU has long been struggling to protect the names of wines related to geographic regions in Europe.

Under the new agreement, US winemakers are to limit their use of 17 wine names such as Burgundy, Champagne, Chablis and Chianti.

In return, EU wine imported into the United States will not have to be accompanied by a certificate attesting that the wine is made in accordance with US practices.

The US market accounts for some 40 percent of the total sales of European wine, with imports totalling over 2.0 billion dollars per year.

US wine makers, meanwhile, exported a total of 487-million-dollars worth of wine into Europe in 2004. That was over half the country's total wine exports.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060310/pl_afp/euusdrinkwinetrade


seems that Europe is selling about 4 times more wine in the US as we are in Europe. Hmmmm got to love that. From the story it seems like we got one hell of a deal here. Let's see Europe got what it wants we can't use 17 names and in return Europe doesn't have to have to make wine by US practices. Hmmm looks like we won! What exactly did America get from this deal again?

[LowCountryJoe]

I would rather be labeled a "National Defense Protectionist" than a Globalist!

Okay, how 'bout this: central planning versus capitalism? Now, which one do you prefer? I have my suspicions.

[LowCountryJoe]

Look at the debt level of American families before Free trade and look at it after free trade. But since you are tired of facts I will not bore you with any more. Just keep saying to yourself....free trade is good, free trade is good and don't let little facts get in the way of your world-view.

Speaking of "facts getting in the way", try looking at Real Net Wealth. In case you need a refresher of the concept of "real" and "net" as they pertain to wealth, may I suggest this article to jog your memory?

[LowCountryJoe]

The increase in trade debt gives American weatlh flowing out of America.

This means that the capital to fuel business expansion remains here and allows Americans to have access to it at very low rates of interest.

[hawkiye]

"Nah, you can trade with us on our terms, when we say, how we say and you can't have any ownership of any of our assets. Ain't freedom great? Aren't you glad you're our free trading partners?"

Yeah heaven forbid we should not trust Totalitarian slave trading Arab dictatorships to mind the store. Of course they are open to free trade as long as it's between us and the dictator but not the slaves... Sigh!