Rep. Duncan Hunter - protectionist dullard?

[Xiahou]

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 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.

[Vladimir]

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]

Protectionist dullard!

But if it was against state-owned companies, this Libertariat would be happy as a clam.

[Xiahou]

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]

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]

Blah! At least it will almost certainly fail.

What is popular opinion like over there about this anyway?

[Xiahou]

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.

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]

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]

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.

[Xiahou]

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]

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]

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.

[Xiahou]

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 , here's an article from the Cato Institute on the matter.

[solypsist]

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.

[Xiahou]

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.

[Strike For The South]

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]

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]

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.

[BDC]

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]

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.

[Vladimir]

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 .

[solypsist]

rolling your eyes doesnt change the reality that bush's party is splintering over a trivial matter involving a foreign business deal.

Sorry but this deserves a good .

[Tachikaze]

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]

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".

[Xiahou]

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

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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

War against Mexico?

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.

[Idaho]

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]

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.

[BigTex]

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 . 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.

[Major Robert Dump]

[QUOTE=BigTex]Thats very very low . 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.