Posted on 03/10/2006 2:06:13 PM PST by syriacus
Yup. If that don't do it...nothing will. :-)
Is this guy some sort of comedian?
No, the issue is that no American company had the resources to buy out P&O, or the ones that did have the resources didn't think it was a good deal. If you read carefully, these American companies, especially Eller, are banking on being able to buy these leases at large discounts, now that DPW can't operate the terminals themselves.
Think of this as Congress condemning these leases under international "eminent domain," in order to profit private businesses in their districts... Strangely, most everyone here condemned the Kelo decision, but we have just seen Kelo implemented on the international scale.
Do you think they've got the cash to buy out DP Worlds American contracts? I've heard quotes of 700 million....
*snicker* How very right you are.
"And get back to me when those same union thugs provide essential logistical support for the US Navy and US Armed services on the WOT that the UAE has."
Always back to a quid pro quo. I am certain that there are other ways to demonstrate our gratitude. The public uproar could have easily been anticipated by anyone who actually mingles with the general public here in the US for any length of time. Perhaps that is beneath every single person involved in this decision, as well as President Bush himself. But, I see no advantage in permitting that perception to gain currency; there is only downside, as his father discovered in his time.
What quid pro quo? DPWorld legitmately bought out P&O. It was an above board old fashioned business acquisition and the P&O shareholders accepted DPWorld's offer.
Unfortunaetly, with DPWorld playing by the rules, they got caught up in the ugliest corrupt crony DNC capitalism this country has seen in a long time.
There are no American companies that could compete on the scale of DP World. I don't recall anyone saying Americans were incapable of managing a terminal in a port. There just aren't any companies who operate on the same scale. The operators eyeballing DP World's American contracts are going to be in for a rude awakening if they think they're going to get a good deal on this. DP World has already announced they will not sell at a loss.
managing a terminal
Ahhh, you're playing at word games.
"Strangely, most everyone here condemned the Kelo decision, but we have just seen Kelo implemented on the international scale."
It's a stretch to drag Kelo into a business lease, don't you think?
"I don't recall anyone saying Americans were incapable of managing a terminal in a port."
I do, I do!
"I couldn't afford to pay Dr's wages for LSM."
They're already doing so, or else they've managed to elude the union with their existing terminal lease agreements. Sounds doubtful to me.
No, I do not. What does eminent domain do? It forces someone to sell a valuable asset, usually at less than market value, and without regard to the return the owner would receive if allowed to keep the asset. Under the Kelo decision, that power can be used to transfer the property (asset) to another private individual or company, enabling them to profit at the expense of the former owner. In this case, Congress is condemning the leases owned by DPW, and forcing them to sell them to another company, probably at a loss. This will allow the new owners of the leases to make a profit at the expense of the former owner.
BTW, the US companies currently under consideration are all big Dem contributors; is it any surprise that Schumer and company supported this?
Where do you see the difference?
"Where do you see the difference?"
They're leasing property that is already public, ergo to cite Kelo (governmental seizure of private property for public benefit via eminent domain) is more than a stretch. It just does not apply.
Sorry, the priciple is the same - taking something of value from the rightful owner, and giving it to someone else.
PSA (A Singapore company) got into the bidding at the last minute, but lost out.
Concern was growing last night over the sale of P&O, amid claims that a possible takeover by Singapore's state-owned ports business (PSA) would hand it and its Chinese allies an effective monopoly over Britain's container ports.Martin O'Neil, former chairman of the trade and industry select committee, said yesterday that he was concerned that the Singaporean group, PSA, and its strategic partners could gain control of more than 90% of Britain's deep-sea container docks. "
Which ones currently do it without collaborating with foreign companies?
Schumer, Clinton and King need to hear this; the LSM are not the only unintended consequences this is going to create.............
None of them because we have let foreign companies run so many terminals.
I bet Fed Ex could run them just fine, with no union. UPS could do it better than any and keep the union.
Personally, I can't figure out why some intermodal transport company doesn't step up and take a few terminals. They have the trucks, jets and rails now, and adding ocean freight would complete the picture.
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.