Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The New Protectionists
opinionjournal ^ | March 10, 2006 | WSJ

Posted on 03/10/2006 12:33:17 PM PST by 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

(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial
KEYWORDS: dpworld; dubai; newprotectionists; oldsellouts; ports; protectionism; wsj
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 581-590 next last
To: Shermy

Man you really have a twisted logic, don't you?!


21 posted on 03/10/2006 1:56:34 PM PST by jveritas (Hate can never win elections.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706
We'll buy and sell from you freely but you're not going to own or manage the store.

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?

So how many of you trust George Bush on fighting terror?

What's that?

crickets

22 posted on 03/10/2006 2:54:25 PM PST by groanup (Shred for Ian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: jess35

give up trying to argue this issue over parsing of words - "buying", "operating", "ports", "terminals" - we all know the details.


23 posted on 03/10/2006 5:14:51 PM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: groanup

SOME commerce is off limits. 95% is available to them.

what we should be asking ourselves is, why do they want these specific things? why do they want to buy a company that produces turbines for military engines? why not buy a casino instead, or a soft drink company, or a department store chain.

enquiring minds want to know.


24 posted on 03/10/2006 5:17:31 PM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Abbeville Conservative

no, in fact your scenario is ridiculous. the idea of using a ports operation company to facilitate shipment of a single device into a major US city, is not.


25 posted on 03/10/2006 5:19:06 PM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
Okay, I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you misstated your words earlier. Now you've certainly cleared up the "details". Your earlier parsing was intentional and you knew you were throwing out a completely innacurate comparison.

The question now, is why? Why is it so important to you that people believe the UAE was trying to "buy" the ports when you know (because you've been told repeatedly) it is not true?

26 posted on 03/10/2006 5:27:09 PM PST by jess35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: jess35

here is my original post:

"
concerns over infrastructure and defense related entities - are real.

if the UAE had wanted to buy Applebees, would anyone have cared? no. they own alot of manhattan real estate, did anyone complain? no. if they want to buy a casino, do we care? no.

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

where do I say anything about them "buying the ports". I am simply pointing out that they could spend their money in plenty of other places. let's say they want to "buy a contract to operate Applebees", if that makes you happy.


27 posted on 03/10/2006 5:33:48 PM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
enquiring minds want to know.

Why? Why did the NASDAQ bid for the London Stock Exchange today? Why did Merril Lynch sell its money management business? Beeeeecaaaauuusse..., it was a business decision.

You say that 95% of American commerce is available to them. How do you know that? What does that mean? Can they buy 95% of Haliburton? Or Lockheed? General Dynamics?

You say: "why not buy a soft drink company?" Okay. Which one? Which one will give them a better return on their 6 billion than the ports deal? Which department store chain will give them a better return?

You seem to think that they sat around an oil rig and discussed which American company they should buy. Business decisions are so far removed from your implications that I hesitate to engage you for fear that I might be caught up in 5th grade economics.

Do you honestly think that investors are going to part with 6 billion dollars on a whim?

Hey, oceanview thinks we should buy a chain of restaurants. Okay, let's do it. Please.

28 posted on 03/10/2006 7:09:12 PM PST by groanup (Shred for Ian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
I am simply pointing out that they could spend their money in plenty of other places.

Yeah. They could "spend" their money on Las Vegas slot machines.

Jeez. Do you have any idea how much research went into a 6 billion dollar deal? No, you don't have a clue. You seem to think that the UAE can just as well buy a few MacDonalds franchises.

29 posted on 03/10/2006 7:12:25 PM PST by groanup (Shred for Ian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
Laughable yes, but the WSJ at least learned its lesson and omitted the "free trade" argument - Dubai doesn't practice anything of the sort.

US, UAE postpone free-trade talks amid ports row

30 posted on 03/10/2006 7:16:35 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: groanup

they want to invest money. McDonalds makes plenty of profits. So do the casinos. So does Applebees. suddenly, only ports and companies that make defense components are profitable, and therefore worthy of investment by the UAE? give me a break.

if you are so wise, tell us why they want to buy a US company that makes turbines for military engines? what interest could they possibly have in that?


31 posted on 03/10/2006 7:19:49 PM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
Do you have any idea the amount of feasibility study that goes into a deal of this size? (I know that you don't know the answer to that question.) They probably had 100-200 engineers, accountants, economists, managers and any number of other professionals looking at it. To spend 6 billion you first spend a few million to figure out why. To suggest that they could buy Applebees instead is not only naive' it is simply blind.

You say "suddenly" as if this was an ambush by UAE to invoke terror attacks. I think if you'll do a little research you'll find out that UAE planes land in the US all day every day. Why wouldn't they just use one of them and send it into the Sears Tower? Or use it to drop a bomb on its approach to O'Hare?

Seems to me that to spend 6 billion dollars to effect a terror attack would be quite wasteful if one already had air power.

32 posted on 03/10/2006 7:27:50 PM PST by groanup (Shred for Ian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot; Mase; expat_panama

I found out the most interesting little fact. The USTR reports that the U.S. enjoyed a 3 billion dollar trade surplus with the U.A.E. in 2004.


33 posted on 03/10/2006 7:32:02 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: groanup

again you are missing the point.

there are plenty of other profitable US industries in which they could invest, or purchase outright, across a wide range of industries. and for 95% of those, no questions regarding the purchase would be asked.

why do they want to buy a company that makes engine parts for the military? answer the question - WHY! That's what CFIUS is supposed to be asking, instead of being some beauracratic rubber stamp.


34 posted on 03/10/2006 7:32:37 PM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
Sign me up also. Since the end of the WW2 we have had this free trade crap forced on us in the name of global security. In that time we have gone from a one wage earner family with a good standard of living to a two income family living from pay-check to paycheck. With record debt all while we try to keep our standard of living forget about increasing that standard of living. Enough is Enough. I don't want my children to have to work to keep up our standard of living. At this rate we will have to 4 family wage earners to stay at the present standard of living. Sounds alot like the present day immigrants doesn't it.
35 posted on 03/10/2006 7:39:42 PM PST by unseen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706
Very thin indeed. From the reactions of the globalists it appears we have many closet liberals in the business elite.
36 posted on 03/10/2006 7:42:32 PM PST by unseen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: groanup
hmmm... by not doing business with dictators like the UAE government, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen would be a good start. You are confusing commerce with government. China has a big economy and trades with the Mid-east. It does not have a republic. Commerce is one thing government is another. I think you globalists confuse the two way too much.
37 posted on 03/10/2006 7:46:55 PM PST by unseen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: unseen

I'm so tired of that line of argument. If you want to live at the 1950 standard-of-living level, you can do it on one income today. Knock yourself out.


38 posted on 03/10/2006 7:49:50 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
again you are missing the point.

there are plenty of other profitable US industries in which they could invest, or purchase outright, across a wide range of industries. and for 95% of those, no questions regarding the purchase would be asked.

No, my dear (I think you are female, I could be wrong, if so, so sorry). Why do you have this THING that the UAE was looking for an investment in the USA? Let me clue you in. They were looking for the best bang for their buck. If the company that is doing the deal has a lot of infrastructure and expertise in port management it would naturally look for a similar company to acquire.

What do you think a billion dollars does? It looks for investments. It looks for good investments. That is all that is at work here. But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

We have told the Arab states that their oil is good enough for us to buy but their money is not good enough to invest in our country.

Let me tell you something. We are going to pay a sad and deep price for this stupidity. We were winning the war and the philosophical argument, especially with the Iraqis. But now we have people like you and a lot of others on this thread who are missing the point big time and have won the argument. The deal is dead.

So now we have to explain to these countries that we are trying to convert to freedom that we will not trade with them. What is freedom if it isn't the ability to conduct commerce to make money? To tell them that we want them to be a free republican government but that we won't be a party to their wealth creation is absolutely and unequivocably the STUPIDIST thing I have ever witnessed on Free Republic. You are an abettor in a crime.

39 posted on 03/10/2006 7:54:12 PM PST by groanup (Shred for Ian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Shermy

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


40 posted on 03/10/2006 7:54:22 PM PST by panaxanax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 581-590 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson