View Full Version : Rep. Duncan Hunter - protectionist dullard?
I understand that today, Rep. Hunter has introduced a bill that will ban all foreign ownership and any companies that are related to "critical infrastructure".
Here's a link (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060303-122020-2647r.htm) about it from a few days ago, as I've said he's apparently since introduced the bill.
The Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee yesterday said he'll push legislation that would not only kill a Dubai-owned company's bid to operate in U.S. ports, but would kick out any foreign-owned company that owns U.S. terminals or other key infrastructure. This is just crazy- he's not even talking about government owned companies- he's talking about foreign owned- period.
The only question I have left is, is Hunter really that stupid or is this just blatant pandering? I mean really... talk about selling out "Republican" ideals. :wall:
Vladimir
03-07-2006, 22:54
I heard an opinion that he is trying to maneuver to be the Secretary of Defense. In the same hour I also heard of the parallels between this kind of protectionism and the outbreak of the Second World War.
Proletariat
03-07-2006, 22:55
Protectionist dullard!
But if it was against state-owned companies, this Libertariat would be happy as a clam.
Protectionist dullard!
But if it was against state-owned companies, this Libertariat would be happy as a clam.
Then we'd have to kick COSCO out of our ports... for starters- Im sure there are others, that's all that comes to mind.
I think it'd be a fine "thank you" to Dubai for servicing the American Navy in the Middle East to tell them to go screw when they want to do business domestically.
Proletariat
03-07-2006, 23:22
Then we'd have to kick COSCO out of our ports...
Sooner the better. The US doesn't make ports a state venture, that means to me that no state venture should be allowed to own it.
Kanamori
03-07-2006, 23:41
Blah!:furious3: At least it will almost certainly fail.
What is popular opinion like over there about this anyway?
Sooner the better. The US doesn't make ports a state venture, that means to me that no state venture should be allowed to own it.
Well, at the risk of being nit-picky, I think our ports are state owned- the terminals are operated privately. I dont think a blanket rule one way or the other is the way to go with state-owned foreign investment.
I'd say we should maybe have some sort of review process that allows various agencies to examine security and see what, if any, risks were open ourselves up to. Wait, that's what we already have. ~;p
What is popular opinion like over there about this anyway?Sadly, the poll numbers seem to support the fever swamp on this issue.
Seamus Fermanagh
03-08-2006, 00:40
Most Americans choose ignorance of this or any subject not related to getting through the month for themselves and their families.
Among those who give a rat's patoot, there is a significant minority segment who favor protectionism. It is an appealing strategy for those who prefer old-style isolationism (leave the world alone and let them deal with their own problems while we deal with ours) or who favor unionism (as a high-wage country, we do lose certain classes of jobs to lower wage-base nations).
Though a minority position, the "forget about the rest of them and take care of our own" theme is appealing to many, however short-sighted such aview is in practice. Economic turmoil is not likely to generate a fascist movement in the USA, but it very well could trend us towards protectionism/isolationism.
Major Robert Dump
03-08-2006, 00:42
Good.
Is protectionist the new insult these days? Worse than communist? One world orderist? Should I be happy that "American" cars are built by Mexicans or that Japanese cars can be imported without tariff while American cars are taxed to high heaven on export? Tell you what, fix the flipping law so companies cant default on retirments and 401ks and I'll stop being a protectionist.
Good.
Is protectionist the new insult these days? Worse than communist? One world orderist? Should I be happy that "American" cars are built by Mexicans or that Japanese cars can be imported without tariff while American cars are taxed to high heaven on export?You would be happy that free trade has brought us unparrelleled economic success Id think- instead you seem to want to turn back the clock.
It's a plain, simple fact that imposing tariffs on non-American products, forcing out foreign companies, and whatever else you seem to be advocating would totally destroy our economy.
Seamus Fermanagh
03-08-2006, 00:55
Good.
Is protectionist the new insult these days? Worse than communist? One world orderist? Should I be happy that "American" cars are built by Mexicans or that Japanese cars can be imported without tariff while American cars are taxed to high heaven on export? Tell you what, fix the flipping law so companies cant default on retirments and 401ks and I'll stop being a protectionist.
An insult? I don't view it as such. I don't agree with that approach to economic problems as I see it more as a band-aid then resolution. However, it does keep folks happy and employed in the short-run, and people don't eat in the long-term but everyday. Its appeal is obvious.
The companies defaulting on pensions and 401ks is a much more problematic issue. This would be one of the few areas where collective bargaining would retain relevance -- though unions have a ways to go to catch up with the times in most things.
X-man dealt with the free trade v protectionism stuff, I'll set that aside.
Proletariat
03-08-2006, 00:59
I dont think a blanket rule one way or the other is the way to go with state-owned foreign investment.
How come? Any state corporation has a guaranteed market base. A share of business that cannot be taken away except by act of parliament, or whatever. This means that they can mismanage the US ports, while making up any business losses with their monopoly. This means they can cut corners and make a mistake, and still be unpunished whatever country they're from.
I know I'm stating the obvious to you, so what am I missing?
Edit: Just saw this..
I think it'd be a fine "thank you" to Dubai for servicing the American Navy in the Middle East to tell them to go screw when they want to do business domestically.
..and I can see why you might think I'm being naive.
How come? Any state corporation has a guaranteed market base. A share of business that cannot be taken away except by act of parliament, or whatever. This means that they can mismanage the US ports, while making up any business losses with their monopoly. This means they can cut corners and make a mistake, and still be unpunished whatever country they're from.
I know I'm stating the obvious to you, so what am I missing?
Edit: Just saw this..
I think it'd be a fine "thank you" to Dubai for servicing the American Navy in the Middle East to tell them to go screw when they want to do business domestically.
..and I can see why you might think I'm being naive.Right, that was the main reason why I said a blanket rule is bad.
In general, Im also leary of state-owned businesses. I was highly skeptical of the takeover of Unocal by CNOOC, which I believe ultimately failed (although if someone can set me straight on that, Im all ears). A country like the UAE is trying to make investments now so they can have a stable economy without total dependance on oil revenues, so I dont think it's in their interest to continue to throw money at an ineffecient failure of DPW at US ports.
(Technically, I think that'd hold true in most cases- a state isnt going to keep dumping money down the drain on a foreign branch of a state-run enterprise just for the hell of it. They'd want to make money)
The difference I saw in the Unocal deal was that China's main interest seemed to be in just getting ahold of more oil supply / infrastructure than actually running a profitable enterprise.
EDIT: For libertarians :wink:, here's an article (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5719) from the Cato Institute on the matter.
solypsist
03-08-2006, 01:28
looks like the Bush administration is starting to reap what they've been sowing. You keep a country in a state of fear and xenophobia and you get these crazy over-the-top situations like this and the UAE ports deal debacle. If you're gonna promote a culture of ignorance and bigotry, don't expect the people (or their reps) to become suddenly enlightened to good business deals.
looks like the Bush administration is starting to reap what they've been sowing. You keep a country in a state of fear and xenophobia and you get these crazy over-the-top situations like this and the UAE ports deal debacle. If you're gonna promote a culture of ignorance and bigotry, don't expect the people (or their reps) to become suddenly enlightened to good business deals.
Yeah, and you must think that Hillary the Democrats are awful hypocrites for trying to score points and cash in on the same type of fear mongering that they had previously criticized. :wink:
Strike For The South
03-08-2006, 03:19
I agree with MRD The USA will go the same way of Portugal in the 16th century. The Portugesse had enough gold from the new wrold to buy what they needed so they did and it was easy but by doing that they neglected infastructure and became well Portugal. Outscourcing and giving contracts to companies is not a soulution. all it does is weaken us.
Seamus Fermanagh
03-08-2006, 06:03
looks like the Bush administration is starting to reap what they've been sowing. You keep a country in a state of fear and xenophobia and you get these crazy over-the-top situations like this and the UAE ports deal debacle. If you're gonna promote a culture of ignorance and bigotry, don't expect the people (or their reps) to become suddenly enlightened to good business deals.
Sol' old bean, I am certain you know your history better than this.
Xenophobia has always been a component of US history as each immigrant group asimilated and, as policy, embodied in the Monroe doctrine. A yen toward isolationism and bouts of protectionism have been with us since the Articles of Confederation and were a hallmark of Washington's "Farewell Address."
Is the Bush admin taking advantage of one of a climate of fear? Yes. But if the country truly were in a state of fear, things would be far closer to the attitude we collectively carried during the winter of '01-'02. The Bush admin has made some screw ups by relying too much on fear as a motivator when that motivation was past its peak. Their failure to adapt to the change has, of course, allowed them to shoot themselves in the foot a time or two.
But episodically inspired fear driving the US agenda for a stretch or eras where are xenophobia factor is higher than others is part and parcel of our history. Bush and crew didn't manufacture it and didn't keep up with the changes either -- again, hardly unique in our history.
Samurai Waki
03-08-2006, 08:03
Outscourcing and giving contracts to companies is not a soulution. all it does is weaken us.
If you want to talk about a delapidating infrastructure in the US all you have to do is go see Miami, I don't think that city has had a facelift since 1950.
But aside from that, I totally agree.
He sounds like a pinkie communist to me, trying to make sure everything important is owned by one country. Not capitalist at all.
Where's McCarthy when you need him?
Kanamori
03-08-2006, 16:36
Oh, when the USA is in need of another McCarthy, Wisconsin will be all over it. Until then, we'll stick with the radical Democrats. What an odd bunch.:book:
Vladimir
03-08-2006, 17:36
looks like the Bush administration is starting to reap what they've been sowing. You keep a country in a state of fear and xenophobia and you get these crazy over-the-top situations like this and the UAE ports deal debacle. If you're gonna promote a culture of ignorance and bigotry, don't expect the people (or their reps) to become suddenly enlightened to good business deals.
Sorry but this deserves a good ~:rolleyes: .
solypsist
03-08-2006, 18:29
rolling your eyes doesnt change the reality that bush's party is splintering over (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/07/AR2006030701229.html?nav=rss_email/components) a trivial matter involving a foreign business deal.
Sorry but this deserves a good ~:rolleyes: .
Tachikaze
03-08-2006, 19:32
looks like the Bush administration is starting to reap what they've been sowing. You keep a country in a state of fear and xenophobia and you get these crazy over-the-top situations like this and the UAE ports deal debacle. If you're gonna promote a culture of ignorance and bigotry, don't expect the people (or their reps) to become suddenly enlightened to good business deals.
I'm not even sure how I feel about the Dubai deal. But this is a good post that should not be simply dismissed.
Major Robert Dump
03-09-2006, 00:26
I don't buy the economic prosperity argument because I don't weigh my worth or that of my country on it to the point you cornhole people who have been loyal to a company 15 years of their life. A deal is a deal.
Once one company moves to a cheaper market out of country they have a competitive edge that requires others to follow suit. Don't mistake me for a defender of manufacturers who close down after pawning crap cars on the public in the 80s. People bought Japanese cars because they ran.
It just seems like protectionist is getting thrown around a lot these days and I find it funny. My favorite is the "americans will have to be better educated to compete in the jobmarket" because, ya know, 50 year olds have so much time for college. Soon we will all be either professionals or "the help".
Rep. Marcy Kaptur (news, bio, voting record), D-Ohio., said allowing the DP World takeover to proceed — and ignoring the public outcry over it — would be irresponsible. "The American people elected us to do something when an issue like this comes up," she said.link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060309/ap_on_go_co/ports_security)
I find it funny that they're suddenly so concerned about "public outcry". Where the hell are they on illegal immigration?
Illegal immigration? Oh no, too many lobbying dollars there- the American citizens can take their 'public outcry' and shove it. :no:
Seamus Fermanagh
03-09-2006, 15:31
War against Mexico? :no: :no: :no:
We'd win, and then we'd inherit the responsibility for building Mexico's infrastructure along with at least one large guerilla war in the South. Plus, we'd end up with a large cross-border guerilla war/insurrection involving much of the Southwwest USA -- no thanks. However satisfying it might be to knock a few heads together and scream "enough of this crap," it'd backfire.
And, to be fair, we have zero evidence to support the notion that Mexican soldiers have crossed our border while operating under the orders of their government, so its only casum bellum if we protest to the Mexican government and they fail to rein-in/discipline those involved in any unauthorized action. If we did protest, they will assert that the government was in no way involved and cannot be held responsible. The rest of the world will buy it and even though we would be justified in our actions from that point the rest of the world would universally disagree with our action. Oh, never mind....
As to why we don't defend/police/control our Southern border properly....don't get me started.:furious3: :furious3: :furious3:
It's a contradiction of right wing parties that is frequently there undoing. On one side they are all free trade, corporations a-ok, economic deregulation. However on the other side they have a innately conservative streak. They don't like change, foreigners and alterations to the 'traditional fabric'.
The Conservative party in the UK shattered over the EU. One side of it had big business saying 'go for it' on the other side there were old people in the suburbs worried that we wouldn't have the queen's head on coins.
Kanamori
03-09-2006, 18:34
And the House tacked it onto a bill for funding of troops and disaster relief... that's really low. Clearly, demented political moves are done by both parties.:no:
Originally posted by Kanamori
And the House tacked it onto a bill for funding of troops and disaster relief... that's really low. Clearly, demented political moves are done by both parties.
Thats very very low :elephant: . They dont even want an open and free debate. They want to slap the bill onto the disaster relief funding and the iraqi war funding. Bravo Reblicans/H. Clinton/Democrats. Obviously if this bill gets through the senate Mr. Bush will have to deal with the congresses shit again, Veto or no Veto..
Originally posted by Jello Cube
Feh. It's long past time we declared war on Mexico, IMO. You heard about Mexican troops running drugs accross the border, no? Hell, they've got more oil than Iraq, and we have a genuine cassus belli. Onward!
It wasn't just one time. There have been quite a number of documented border incurrsions by what appeared to be Mexican Military. Over the past 2-3 years i believe the number of possible incursions is around 100. IMO its about time we righteously bitch slaped Mexico and Mr. Fox into last century, its getting ridiculous. :viking:
Major Robert Dump
03-10-2006, 02:17
[QUOTE=BigTex]Thats very very low :elephant: . They dont even want an open and free debate. They want to slap the bill onto the disaster relief funding and the iraqi war funding. Bravo Reblicans/H. Clinton/Democrats. Obviously if this bill gets through the senate Mr. Bush will have to deal with the congresses shit again, Veto or no Veto..
This is an old tactic, didn't you know? The more people learn about the manner in which Congress operates and adds to legislation the more people see how ridiculous the entire institution has become. Unfortunately, people don't learn.
Ross Perot is laughing somewhere.
Well, it's all over now.
Dubai Firm Backs Out of U.S. Ports Deal (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060310/ap_on_go_co/ports_security_68;_ylt=AtXlHUsdpc_27fxPX75pIX9RNaQv;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl)
A Dubai-owned company abruptly abandoned its plans for managing U.S. ports on Thursday, defusing an election-year showdown between
President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress over an issue that had become a political land mine for the GOP.
"DP World will transfer fully the U.S. operations ... to a United States entity," H. Edward Bilkey, the company's top executive, said in the surprise announcement that seemed to spread relief throughout the Capitol and the White House. It was unclear which American business might get the port operations.
This is really just disgusting.:shame:
I guess now Arab nations can see what rewards they get for being US allies.
Proletariat
03-10-2006, 03:58
Way to welcome the Middle East to the free market.
solypsist
03-10-2006, 06:01
Right now they're scrambling to figure a way to put lipstick on this pig, but this deal is going to happen. Trust the GOP to continue the crony trend.
Well, it's all over now.
Dubai Firm Backs Out of U.S. Ports Deal (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060310/ap_on_go_co/ports_security_68;_ylt=AtXlHUsdpc_27fxPX75pIX9RNaQv;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl)
This is really just disgusting.:shame:
I guess now Arab nations can see what rewards they get for being US allies.
I like it. It's a State-Owned company. You don't give your ports to another state.
No, you dont. But it's harmless to let one of their companies lease a handful of terminals within these ports. It'd be interesting now if UAE said "You dont let another state's navy refuel/dock in your ports- get out."
The difference is that we're a Superpower. The UAE is a tiny little state on the Persian Golf. What are they going to say, "Don't dock here?"I doubt they will, but they certainly could- it's not like the area is full of friendly ports. I would be willing to bet that next time their airline is looking to drop a few billion on new jets they'll give Boeing a pass.
You have to take a stand against too much foreign influence in the economy somewhere. Duubai Ports World just happened to be at the right place at the right time for someone to get that match lit, finally.I dont know about you, but I cringe every time our Congress takes it upon themselves to meddle in business deals and this was no exception. Foreign investment is one of the reasons we are as prosperous as we are now, we dont need Congress screwing it up.
I agree with you in that individual deals should rarely need oversight from congress. But the rules under which deals can take place should be very clearly defined. And I think there should be heavy restrictions on what foreign countries can do here.Yes, but this was really such a trifle- just the management of a few cargo terminals. I view it as a real slap to one of our few close Arab allies. I guess it's good for congressmen who are pandering for votes, but I think it's bad for our foreign policy.
Heck, when China wanted to take over one of our biggest oil companies there wasnt even a fraction of the controversy as their was over this. And in my view, that was a much more significant security concern. The difference was the levels of distortion and flat out lies told by our media and politicans on the DPW. They reported/said everything from terrorists were buying our ports, to taking over security- all of which were patently false.
What we really had was a well run (yes, state owned) company that has already been servicing our own navy vessels that wanted to manage a few cargo terminals. What do our politicians do? Smear them, drag them through the mud and pretty much tell them to go straight to hell. :no:
rory_20_uk
03-10-2006, 13:05
Oh very clever... I guess you've missed how important China is to you at the moment? Hundreds of millions of dollars in reserve, massive trade surpulous, not to mention the technology to really piss the USA off overseas (if China helped Iran for example...)
Not to say America is unique in being so two faced on this issue, demanding free access to you but obviously we play by different rules. France even has stated a Patriotic business model, and is irritating the Italians already (oh how the EU works :wall:).
America's economy is just getting onto its feet, and that's basically as the massive debt has been hidden for the time bieng mainly in the Far East. Annoy them and the economy could take a hit it'd not easily recover from.
~:smoking:
Devastatin Dave
03-10-2006, 15:16
Sorry, but the political posturing from the Dmoecrats and Republicans in Congress was disgusting. They won't secure the borders but they did all they could to destroy this deal. Dubai World Ports was going to invest billions in this port deal, they would not have been stupid and allow terrorist to access our porst knowing the amount of money they would loose and the reprecussions of doing something like assisting terrorist into our country. Its unbelievable. Now the trickle down affect..
First the UAE buys Boeing planes. I doubt they'll do that anymore. There was an order for Boeing 787's costing over 7 billion. If they pull out, I wonder how Republican Dennis Hastart is going to explain to his folks back home in IL that he assisted in this loss of revenue for one of the largest companies in his district?
Second, the UAE has been extremly gracious with our Air Base there and I wonder how long before they decide to tell us to leave? We need that air base for its geat strategic point outside of Iraq and Iran.
Third, the UAE have truelly been assisting us rounding up terrorist and providing intel. I doubt that they will be as helpful in the futute.
Forth, the UAE lost face. We insulted them and the biggest thig is that now that we have embarrassed them, they will have to stick it back to us and I don't blame them. They will lobby to stick it to us throught OPEC and I imagine that we will see gas prices go throught the ####ing roof.
This is my analysis and I'm sure I'm going to get blasted. I know that I'm usually the one going off on rants about Muslim Nations, but if you don't give them a chance then we will NEVER have any good relations with the Middle East. The politicians were to busy eating up the polls instead of truelly leading and doing what was best for my country and the world community.:wall:
So that's my rant, what do you think?
Proletariat
03-10-2006, 15:21
"The funny thing is that Halliburton may be the one American company with the capacity to do this," said one congressional Republican, speaking earlier this week on condition of anonymity. "Problem is that the Democrats would probably complain that the Dubai deal was a big ruse to get Halliburton the contract." Vice President Dick Cheney used to run Halliburton.
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usport104656515mar10,0,6742305.story?coll=ny-top-headlines
Halliburton?! Are we seriously going to be doing buisiness with the same country that brought us the likes of:
John Wilkes Booth
Leon Czolgosz
Luke Helder
Theodore Kaczynski
Timothy McVeigh
Terry Nichols
Lee Harvey Oswald
James Earl Ray
Eric Rudolph
Buy American!!! mIright guys!1
Sheesh. I can't believe I fell for this stupidity at the outset. :embarassed:
Kanamori
03-10-2006, 15:34
I agree totally. They were just going to be hiring Americans to run most of the stuff, and they just owned the terminals. Who cares? It's just a bunch of fear mongering. They were going to be subject to the same laws and inspections as all the other companies. The US plays the hardball way too much in 'free trade'.
Banquo's Ghost
03-10-2006, 15:43
So that's my rant, what do you think?
I think you make some excellent points, particularly this one:
Forth, the UAE lost face. We insulted them and the biggest thig is that now that we have embarrassed them, they will have to stick it back to us and I don't blame them. They will lobby to stick it to us throught OPEC and I imagine that we will see gas prices go throught the ####ing roof.
Losing face in the Middle East is a really big deal. Now there will be many others with an anti-American agenda telling the UAE where exactly supporting the US gets one (Everyone loves the opportunity for told-you-so). Although democratic issues are not as strong as in the States, the arab peoples will be told endlessly about the embarrasment for the UAE.
However, the leaders of the UAE know which side their bread is buttered on, and so I don't think the really dire predictions will pan out. They might not try quite as hard to back increases in oil production across OPEC next time someone bombs the Iraqi pipelines, for example. Nonetheless, there's only so many times you can shaft your friends before you find yourself propping up the wall at parties.
EDIT: Remember, the collapse of this deal shafts the British P&O too although not quite so forcibly... On further research, it appears this is wrong - the Dubai company has agreed to transfer over to an American 'entity'. Apologies.
Vladimir
03-10-2006, 15:48
If we use the same criteria against European nations we would ban Swiss investment because they collaborated with Nazis. Right or wrong, these two tiny nations are/were next to two much greater powers and are/were most likely motivated more by self preservation than ideological sympathy. What is more troubling is the fact that a special congressionally appointed committee rushed this through covertly.
I find it amusing that Jell-o is all for smaller government but happy to see extra regulations applied to international business deals.
If you think that this issue is about security or economics then you are wrong. Its all internal politics.
solypsist
03-10-2006, 17:48
check out this hypocrisy:
Bush: Dubai ports storm hurts war on terror (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11760998/from/RSS/)
WASHINGTON - President Bush said Friday he was troubled by the political storm that forced the reversal of a deal allowing a company in the United Arab Emirates to take over take over operations of six American ports, saying it sent a bad message to U.S. allies in the Middle East.
Bush said the United States needs moderate allies in the Arab world, like the United Arab Emirates, to win the global war on terrorism.
and yet,
White House Asked Dubai Ports to Pull Out (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1708847&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312)
March 10, 2006 -- - The White House asked Dubai Ports World, a company owned by the United Arab Emirates, to give up its management stake in U.S. ports, to save President Bush from the politically difficult position of vetoing a key piece of legislation to protect America's ports, ABC News has learned.
Proletariat
03-10-2006, 17:54
That shows little backbone, but not hypocrisy to me.
"Dubai, you're getting screwed no matter what, so don't make me appear even more obstinate in the process, please."
Vladimir
03-10-2006, 19:36
Soly I hope you're saying these things for entertainment value. Are you trying to brand cronyism and hypocrisy as a GOP innovation? Next you'll be complaining about the Republican's "Culture of corruption". You're not getting any money from China are you? :bow:
Seamus Fermanagh
03-10-2006, 21:13
Gel Cube is actually pretty close to Pat Buchannan on his stance over this collection of issues.
Limited government because it is not sanctioned in the Constitution, but the Constitution does grant the specific power to Congress to regulate tariffs and the like.
The preference is for an "invisible hand" but with Government standing as guarantor of national security by protecting businesses and infrastructure deemed critical to national defense (which is a specific constitutional task of the federal government).
The problem, of course, is that such well-intentioned protectionism still serves to antagonize relationships, and can be take too far. For example:
http://www.founding.com/library/lbody.cfm?id=83&parent=17
With few exceptions, I tend to think protectionism is only useful if applied directly and proportionately in response to protectionist efforts from another power.
This "Ports" deal has rapidly become a lose-lose proposition for the USA. :wall:
rory_20_uk
03-10-2006, 23:04
Hmm. So you'd stunt the USA's economy by not trading with the outside world?
Oh, I'm sorry - America can flood the world with its products, but the world can't trade anything with America. Nice dream...
You can trade with everyone or no-one. The latter will drastically curtail economic growth in the USA as you'd only have the internal market.
Big government is a cacer affecting most countries.
~:smoking:
rory_20_uk
03-11-2006, 01:38
Yeah, it is an anomaly. Sure, goods are cheaper in China as there is an enormous workforce that works for a pittance, but the fact the Yuan is not allowed to appreciate is the real killer.
IMO (and isn't hindsight great!) matters should have been hit early with China told that trade freedom and monetry freedom are intriniscally linked. Sure, we wanted to encourage China to engage with the rest of the world, but the deal they're getting at the moment is too good.
Complete equality in trade is unlikely to be possible without so much beurocracy that it makes my 3 anal sphincters tense just to imagine it (graphic I know).
~:smoking:
Here we go.....
Dubai ports debacle darkens Gulf investors' mood (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060310/bs_nm/security_ports_gulf_dc_1;_ylt=AqDyZucsLcoGa7m_o9bxRelRNaQv;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl)
While the Dubai Ports row reinforced those fears among the Gulf's wealthy private investors, most analysts had said it would barely affect state-controlled petrodollar flows that are increasingly important to the U.S. economy.
They, like the region's business community, had believed the Gulf's close diplomatic and military ties with Washington would prevail when push came to shove.
That faith was shattered by the forced capitulation of a government-controlled company in the United Arab Emirates, a frequent port of call for American warships and a country described by
President George W. Bush as a staunch ally.
"It doesn't matter whether it is a private investor or a public investor. This will affect investment," said Robert Springborg, director of the London Middle East Institute of the School of Oriental and African Studies.
"They preach about a capitalist economy where everyone's free to do as they wish, but now they're just trying to come up with any excuse ... to paint the country with terrorism," said Ahmed el-Leithy, a construction engineer in Dubai.
The UAE economy minister warned last week that the Dubai Ports row could prompt other countries to divert funds away from the United States. Gulf governments have been diversifying their holdings since the oil boom began.
U.S. securities still form the bulk of the identifiable investment from
OPEC oil cartel states, but their share of investable OPEC funds has fallen compared to the last oil boom in the 1970s, the Bank for International Settlements says.
The Dubai Ports row has given Gulf investors a new reason to diversify their holdings. "There already has been a drift away from U.S. assets by Arab investors. You may well have a further drift," said Angus Blair of Dubai-based Mena Financial.
I think I caught Duncan Hunter talking out of his arse again on the Sunday morning shows. On Fox News Sunday he said (paraphrasing from memory): You couldnt even open a hamburger stand in Dubia, because Americans can't own anything, we're just asking the forclose our ports and critical infrastructure to foriegn ownership.
Other than the obvious, they're leasing terminals- but buying ports lie he's perpetuating he also appears to be BSing about the 'you cant own a hamburger stand' accusation as well.
The American Business Council of Dubai (http://www.abcdubai.com/menuContentDisplay.aspx?Menu_ID=2&ExpandItem=16&Item_ID=16)
In Mr. Old's words, his vision of the ABC was "to raise the commercial profile of the American Community in the Emirates; to encourage UAE and the American Communities to move closer together in the sense of becoming more active together; and to promote a productive review of selected commercial issues in Washington to improve American commercial performance in the region."
That vision is a reality as the ABC holds a strong and consistent membership of 450 American companies and individualsI also understand that years before the formation of DPW, it was, ironically, a US company that used to operate their cargo terminals.
It's good that we have congressmen who are so informed on the issues that some shlub can learn more about it than him with 5 minutes on Google. :dizzy2:
Further fallout:
Middle Eastern anger over the decision by the US to block a Dubai company from buying five of its ports hit the dollar yesterday as a number of central banks said they were considering switching reserves into euros.
The United Arab Emirates, which includes Dubai, said it was looking to move one-tenth of its dollar reserves into euros, while the governor of the Saudi Arabian central bank condemned the US move as "discrimination".link (http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article351127.ece)
There's also rumors of their airline re-examining a recent multi-billion dollar Boeing order- althought they're currently denying this.
Major Robert Dump
03-14-2006, 23:13
Good
I take it that you like a weaker dollar? Will you also be happy if Boeing loses its contract and has to lay off a few thousand workers? :dizzy2:
Major Robert Dump
03-15-2006, 18:04
If they can't fend for themselves its their problem.
A weak dollar doesn't affect me, and even if it did I still wouldn't care
global trade is a sham
Proletariat
03-15-2006, 18:06
Won't a weaker dollar help our trade situation, anyway? Still, prolly not the best way to go about it.
Won't a weaker dollar help our trade situation, anyway? Still, prolly not the best way to go about it.
Yeah, I believe a weak dollar has been our unofficial policy for several years now. To a point, it makes sense as it can encourage foreign investment (of course, certain people seem to want a weak dollar and bans on foreign investment :dizzy2: ) and make American products/services cheaper internationally. A weak dollar would seem like a good deal to most foreigners since they can be fairly sure that the dollar won't collapse and will likely recover due to the power of our economy. However, if foreign governments begin to dump cheap dollars instead of investing in them you begin to run a risk of the policy backfiring.
If UAE and a few other Middle Eastern countries dump some dollars it's not the end of the world- just so it doesnt get out of hand. But hey, Im no economist.~;)
Proletariat
03-15-2006, 20:49
Sounds like a good time for me to expand my portfolio. We can't only let foreigners capitalize on this.
http://elouai.com/images/yahoo/53.gif
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.