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

[Walkin Man]

A Japanese bid for Fairchild Semiconductor of Silicon Valley was seen as a threat to American defense.

Anyone who equates the Japanese with barbaric Islamic regimes is a total and complete idiot!

Having said that I and many other Americans are getting sick of chunks of the USA being broken off and sold to the highest bidder.

I guess our middle-class jobs aren't enough for the free traitor globalists, now they want to sell the very land out from under our feet to our enemies no less!

[hershey]

According to a panel of experts before the House foreign relations committee this past week, Dubai has been a major smuggling port for years. Money to and fro from Jihadists/terrorists, and in one case in '03, switches for nuclear bombs were passed, illegally to their intended destination, Islamabad, (Pakistan), despite protests by US customs agents. We were told to stuff it.

[groanup]

I remember the panicked headlines about Japan buying Pebble Beach and Rockefeller Center. The point the article is trying to make is that this type of protectionism has been seen before. It was just as foolish then as it is now.

I thought the idea of private property was that one could sell it to whoever one wished.

Would you not like it if I sold my house to a Japanese company?

[groanup]

I don't see how that pertains. The same security exists in our now port that would exist after the deal.

[hershey]

It's complicated. Clearly, the Emirates been of invaluable help tracking terrorists, they've cooperated in many, many ways, allowing our ships to dock there, planes, and God only knows what else. And they walk a fine line, probably under daily threat from Jihadists.

[mississippi red-neck]

How nice. We all used to ride horses too.

Most of us no longer do. I use a air -conditioned pick-up truck. What kind of horse do you ride?

How many F-16's should I put you down for?

Well let's suppose I'm a throw back KKK member and hate Jews , Blacks and consider them an inferior race of monkey's and dogs that need to be wiped off the face of the earth.

Now, how many F-16's are you willing to sell me just so you can make a buck?

[Walkin Man]

Would you not like it if I sold my house to a Japanese company?

No I'm good with that.

Just don't sell strategic ports of entry to the enemy in wartime.

Did we give control of our ports of entry to the Nazi's in WW2?

The USSR during the Cold War??

The North Vietnamese during the Vietnam War???

But somehow its a good idea to sell them to a dictatorial Muslim regime that votes against the best interests of the USA 99 percent of the time in the UN and supports a boycott of the only REAL friend we have in the middle east, Israel.

DUHHHHHH!!

[1rudeboy]

Dunno. How important is it to me to keep my F-16 assembly-line running?

[groanup]

Not in your wildest dreams did anyone propose to sell our ports.

[LowCountryJoe]

Since the terrorism we are fighting is not home grown, but the product of an international movement, harboring extreme prejudice against nations that give money or other support to the terrorists is also logical.

Did you know that you, as an American taxpayer, give a portion of your taxes as monetary aid to organizations in countries that sponsor terrorism (such as the PLO)? We do this without even getting goods or services in return. At least in Dubai's port, they service our ships and equipment...yet you'd kind of like for that to stop too I imagine. After all, you're the logical thinker.

[LowCountryJoe]

Hence the reason China's economic power is growing in relation to ours.

Dude, they're growing because they're in the midst of liberalizing their economy and also since they now add the production of Hong Kong and Taiwan. Ever heard of the Catch-up Effect?

You know these free Economics lessons I've been giving to you? There's a Professor of Economics somewhere out there, I'm sure, that believes I'm the one who's engaging in 'predatory trade' for letting this knowledge go on the cheap without you having to spend your hard earned money on it. But you're ungrateful. [/sigh]

[hedgetrimmer]

Did you know that you, as an American taxpayer, give a portion of your taxes as monetary aid to organizations in countries that sponsor terrorism (such as the PLO)?

Golly! A little isolationism sure would take care of that problem in a hurry!

[hedgetrimmer]

they're in the midst of liberalizing their economy

but yet their political system remains communist. See my tagline.

[unseen]

I disagree some limited form of government is necessary and thus taxes also. If for no other reason than national defense.

[LowCountryJoe]

If they were to trade with us instead of us allowing them to be on the dole, they might just reform and learn to appreciate markets. Then again, they could also run away from markets - like you apparently enjoy doing - and go stick their heads in the sand and hope that the free lunch comes back.

[unseen]

Your post is laced with elitism. You automatically toss everyone you does not believe in your point of view in the "uneducated sheeple" group. What you fail to understand in your world economic view is that all economies are not the same. There is a major difference between China's or Mexico's standard of living and the USA. Because of this difference in standard of living we as a country have additional costs that other countries do not. Up until several years ago the majority of these costs was born by the business community due to the labor movement in the last century. To compete with these other countries which has no labor laws to speak of one of two things must happen. either they must raise their standard of living or we must decrease our standard of living. Since they do not have a freely elected democratic government and they do not need to listen to the people, these countries will listen to the "power" which is the ruling elite who has no interest in raising the standard of living for the masses because that directly affects their power base. So therefore for globalization to work in an unfree undemocratic world we must lower our standard of living to compete on price. This means a loss in pensions, health care, sick days, pay and an increase in taxes by the government that must increasingly shoulder the costs of retirement, health care etc because we do live in a democratic country and our leaders must listen to us they will continue to vote to keep our standard of living for as long as they can which means higher and higher taxes.

[unseen]

LOL great post.....

[unseen]

Now we start to see where you value system is based. there are more important things in life than money. You do understand that? Don't you?

[1rudeboy]

Quit the girl-talk. What is my national security consideration? Is it more important to me to keep my F-16 line running, or to keep my F-16 out of the hands of the U.A.E.? Answer my question and it won't be necessary to wait for an answer to mississippi red neck's silly hypothetical.

[unseen]

Since the terrorism we are fighting is not home grown, but the product of an international movement, harboring extreme prejudice against nations that give money or other support to the terrorists is also logical.

What you fail to mention is that free trade and globalization has to some degree spread the radical islam threat. Today because of free trade Demark and Europe are afraid to post stories about radical islam, hollywood is afraid to make movies depicting the truth of radical islam for fear of boycotts and loss of revenue, Google and yahoo practice censorship in the name of free trade and globalization. Freedom of speech is under attack, freedom of religion is under attack, and freedom of expression is under attack.