Thank You, Dubai Ports

The first-rate Emirates-based firm that, fair and square, tried to buy the operations of several U.S. ports? They were reviled as terrorists, a public outcry followed and then U.S. Congress stuck its nose into the whole business, baselessly condemning the company for no good reason until they were ignominously forced to withdraw from those plans. It was totally unfair to them, they didn’t deserve that kind of treatment, and it sent an incredibly bad message to the rest of the world that the U.S. was flamingly hypocritical. That whole debacle made me ill.

Anyway, this setback hasn’t driven the good company down. Today, Dubai Ports has gotten a new contract to develop Puerto Callao, in Peru, creating a vibrant container terminal where none existed, so that Peru can export its natural gas reserves and anything else would like to export, and get rich doing it. After all, they’ve got a free trade pact with the U.S., they might as well use it!

This port is extremely critical for Peru’s development and will serve as a beachhead from which Peru can challenge the energy export supremacy of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez and his little Bolivian minime, Evo Morales. From this new port, tons of new energy will flow to the U.S.’s, Mexico’s and Asia’s markets, adding to world supply, driving down the prices, and in the end doing its part to put these dictators out of business.

He has a bad habit of being dragged, kicking and screaming, to the truth and then never admitting he was wrong.

I always knew these were U.S. leases held by a British firm. Penninsula & Orient. I've long known of them before their buyout by DPW. Those very leases are the assets whose risk is at issue.

UNFortunately, your bad habit is of being dragged, kicking and screaming to the truth, having your nose rubbed in your doo-doo where you misrepresent me, and then even deny its doo-doo. Fortunately, the broad conservative consensus was this was a real security hazard..that's why you lost the issue. And of course never admit when you're wrong...which is about always.

Was it when you posted and defended an article that called the leases "American assets"?

The ports are in the U.S., the terminals in those ports, and the leases are within our jurisdiction, and are our assets. Your distinction that the leases, formerly held by P&O were "British" is actually a misnomer. They were AMERICAN leases. And definitively AMERICAN assets, held by a foreign entity. That's why CFIUS had to review the transaction in the first place. No matter which rule of bookkeeping is used, you flunked. The evidence was that the characterization was not inaccurate. And you can't beat that evidence, can you? You are still chasing your tail and barking...trying to confuse casual readers who are not versed in your phony rhetorical deceit.

Were you misrepresented when you said the "Federal Reserve set the interest rate on Treasury bills"?

Have you read how they actually can buyback, and they can use their own bids to rig things? Or perhaps you are just ignorant. How about the fact that whatever they have set as the domestic price, they use as the SET foreign price for issue? Not an auction for them at all. E.g.,

Now, T-notes, like all Treasury securities, are sold at a single price auction. The practice of awarding winning bids at multiple prices has been discontinued.
.....
FOREIGN-TARGETED NOTES
In October 1984 the Treasury instituted securities designed especially for foreign institutions and foreign branches of U.S. banks who certify that, on the day of issuance, they will place these notes only with non-U.S. citizens. After a 45-day period, foreign investors may exchange these notes for comparable domestic issues, or sell them to U.S. citizens. The Treasury sets the interest rate according to the results of the auction of the companion domestic issue and provides book-entry form during the 45-day waiting period. Afterwards, the Treasury makes registered notes available.

I'm sure you will try and obfuscate the casual connections inferrable from the following relationships that are manifested over time:

Were you misrepresented when you claimed the Federal Reserve "delayed, deferred, and reduced sales" before an auction?

Maybe you should review actual history of the conduct of the Treasury...if anything, I understated their manipulations:

In October of 2001, the Treasury Department Decided to suspend the issuance of the 30 - year bond inflation - indexed bonds.

You know what an auction is, don't you? It's a process where someone bids for an asset. That's the opposite of what happens when a price is set by a government entity.

The bids are kept confidential, and the acceptance is at the government's decision. And buybacks are also according to their election. The tracking of the treasury rates in sequence with the open funds discount and mortgage rates...which is set by the FOMC... is of record.

And definitively AMERICAN assets, held by a foreign entity.

Hmmmm....American assets owned by a foreign entity. Yeah, those sound like American assets. LOL!

Have you read how they actually can buyback,

AFAIK, Treasury Bonds haven't had a call feature for many years. The Federal Reserve can and does buy (and sell) Treasury Securities to manage the money supply. That in no way affects the interest rate of Bonds that have already been issued.

and they can use their own bids to rig things?

Huh? Making stuff up again?

How about the fact that whatever they have set as the domestic price, they use as the SET foreign price for issue?

Ummmm....they don't set the domestic price, it's determined by the auction.

The Treasury sets the interest rate according to the results of the auction of the companion domestic issue and provides book-entry form during the 45-day waiting period.

Selling additional bonds to foreigners at the same price that domestic buyers bid at the auction is not the same as setting the interest rate. But I must say, one of your better tap dances, which is saying a lot.

I'm sure you will try and obfuscate the casual connections inferrable from the following relationships that are manifested over time:

I know how interest rates work. And these charts have nothing to do with your (false) claim that the Fed sets rates on bonds they sell.

In October of 2001, the Treasury Department Decided to suspend the issuance of the 30 - year bond inflation - indexed bonds.

LOL! How is stopping the sale of 30 year bonds delaying, deferring, or reducing sales before an auction? You're really stretching. What you need to show is that they announced an auction and delayed it or deferred it or reduced the amount they were selling on the auction date. Announcing that they were going to start auctioning 30 year bonds again wasn't anymore of an example of that than the end of 30 year bond sales was.

The bids are kept confidential, and the acceptance is at the government's decision.

Why don't they just announce before the auction what the rate will be? You know, the way they would do it if the Fed set the rate?

The tracking of the treasury rates in sequence with the open funds discount and mortgage rates...which is set by the FOMC... is of record.

Another Paul Ross non-sequitur.

First, what's an open funds discount? No such thing.

Next, mortgage rates and treasury rates don't track the Fed Funds rate. Finally, as I've said before, you really shouldn't comment on market or finance threads because you don't know what you're talking about and you sound ridiculous!

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.