Balta1701 Posted February 24, 2006 Author Share Posted February 24, 2006 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 10:48 AM) From what I got yesterday while reading, China pretty much runs the port of LA. Foreigners are already major operators in U.S. ports. Seven of the 13 terminal operators at the Los Angeles/Long Beach port complex are foreign-owned, including companies from China, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore and Denmark. Dubai Ports World's deal to buy London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., scheduled to be completed March 2, would create the third largest port operator in the world. (Source, the "China Post"). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 12:47 PM) Don't we have ports where China is basically supplying the same services the UAE are supposed to provide? I believe I read that somewhere. If so, do you think the Chinese government has no input on policy? If so, why was there no groundswell of objection to that scenario. In my opinion, that is much more disturbing than the UAE in the same position. This is just some crap the media and Dems are grabbing onto to make the adminstration look bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 24, 2006 Author Share Posted February 24, 2006 QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 10:52 AM) Honestly, I think they ought to get booted out of control. I think the Federal government's role is to keep its borders secure - which would mean Port Administration in my book. I for one am becoming more convinced that they're probably right that I shouldn't care who runs them as long as the U.S. still has control over hiring and firing of security personnel...but the real thing we should care about is whether or not the containers themselves are being properly inspected, and by almost all accounts they're not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 01:52 PM) Honestly, I think they ought to get booted out of control. I think the Federal government's role is to keep its borders secure - which would mean Port Administration in my book. Rex the protectionist hawk. Who knew? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 24, 2006 Author Share Posted February 24, 2006 QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 10:53 AM) This is just some crap the media and Dems are grabbing onto to make the adminstration look bad. House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist are promising to block the sale. They maintain it is inappropriate to allow U.S. port facilities to be run by a state-owned company of the United Arab Emirates. (Random MSNBC piece) Honestly, if those are Dems, I really don't want them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 12:52 PM) Honestly, I think they ought to get booted out of control. I think the Federal government's role is to keep its borders secure - which would mean Port Administration in my book. Now, again, if I'm not mistaken, the only other bid offered in this particular deal involving the UAE came out of a company in Singapor. Referencing Balta's post about LA, and asking the question again, where was the indignation when this deal occured? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 01:56 PM) (Random MSNBC piece) Honestly, if those are Dems, I really don't want them. Free trade my ass. They need to turn in their GOP cards and STFU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 24, 2006 Author Share Posted February 24, 2006 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 10:58 AM) Free trade my ass. They need to turn in their GOP cards and STFU. Man, I'm sad I wasn't here on the day Bush decided to support those steel tarriffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 01:58 PM) Now, again, if I'm not mistaken, the only other bid offered in this particular deal involving the UAE came out of a company in Singapor. Referencing Balta's post about LA, and asking the question again, where was the indignation when this deal occured? It sadly went unnoticed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 01:02 PM) It sadly went unnoticed. I'm curious as to when China actually got the contract on the LA port. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 24, 2006 Author Share Posted February 24, 2006 QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 11:04 AM) I'm curious as to when China actually got the contract on the LA port. I'm still looking for when they first started, but it appears that they were trying to buy territory at the port as early as '98. WND, of all places. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 02:00 PM) Man, I'm sad I wasn't here on the day Bush decided to support those steel tarriffs. The ONLY reason I support those at all was because basically every country that is dumping steel in the US is doing it with government subsidies. Its one thing is someone can build a better widget, its quite another to have a trading partner putting our people out of work through no fault of their own. I was also pretty disgusted that Bush crapped out and gave in to the WTO on this issue. If he was going to put them in place, he needed to give them more than lip service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 01:09 PM) I'm still looking for when they first started, but it appears that they were trying to buy territory at the port as early as '98. WND, of all places. Another interesting fact, unless I've been totally misinformed, is that China owns all land adjacent to both sides of the Panama Canal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Leases, not owns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 01:17 PM) Leases, not owns. Okay ... maybe so. Does that change much? We 'lease' Gitmo for a dollar a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Panama could kick China out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 07:12 PM) Another interesting fact, unless I've been totally misinformed, is that China owns all land adjacent to both sides of the Panama Canal. You see, that's why global warming is allowed to happen under GWB's watch. It makes the Panama Canal less important if the artic ice caps melt and those become shipping lanes. Get with the program!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 01:12 PM) The ONLY reason I support those at all was because basically every country that is dumping steel in the US is doing it with government subsidies. Its one thing is someone can build a better widget, its quite another to have a trading partner putting our people out of work through no fault of their own. I was also pretty disgusted that Bush crapped out and gave in to the WTO on this issue. If he was going to put them in place, he needed to give them more than lip service. Of course there is always a balancing point. For example, North American manufacturers of electric motors, which use a lot of steel, were enjoying the lower prices, which made their motors competitive with off shore (Asian) products. By forcing those manufacturers to pay higher prices for their raw material, it forced them into a bad situation. It also effected white good manufacturers of washing machines, dish washers, etc.. So while the higher prices helped the few US steel manufacturers, it hurt every manufacturer that uses the steel. Now instead of the import being raw steel, it is more finished goods. I'm not stating an opinion which situation is better, just pointing out there is always a gain/deficit happening in these situations. QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 01:12 PM) Another interesting fact, unless I've been totally misinformed, is that China owns all land adjacent to both sides of the Panama Canal. The Panama Canal is mostly a cruise ship channel. The larger cargo ships can no longer fit through and it was never a great military option. Today the larger war ships cannot fit, and you would never want you ships in a confined space where they cannot manuever. As far as cargo, air freight is making ocean shipments almost a thing of the past. Companies do not want their products tied up in shipping the length of time it takes to ship via sea. The objective of modern manufacturing is get your raw material processed and to the customer as quickly as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 07:25 PM) As far as cargo, air freight is making ocean shipments almost a thing of the past. Companies do not want their products tied up in shipping the length of time it takes to ship via sea. The objective of modern manufacturing is get your raw material processed and to the customer as quickly as possible. You're absolutely wrong on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 24, 2006 Author Share Posted February 24, 2006 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 11:26 AM) You're absolutely wrong on this. Absolutely 100% wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 07:28 PM) Absolutely 100% wrong. Who, Tex or me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 This is going to get good, and I have sign off soon and get some sleep. Damn! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 02:28 PM) Absolutely 100% wrong. So outrageously wrong that I've never seen anything wronger in my life. So wrong that other patently wrong things seem right by comparison. So wrong that we should start calling Tex "Wrongy Wrongington." Everybody pile on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Not that good. It's only a small point of his larger one. I just wanted to correct him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 02:26 PM) You're absolutely wrong on this. Yeah, there is a whole lot out there that planes simply can't handle for size and other reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts