National Sovereignty vs. Economic Globalization

[manasecret]

Originally Posted by Professor S

My issue is that control of our ports is being sold to a company which is owned by another NATION. I don't care if it was Britain or Canada who placed the highed bid, the idea of selling control of our ports to another nation is ludicrous and a frightening sign of things to come.

Um, my understanding is that the company that previously owned these select ports WAS a British company. They weren't owned by the US at least for as long as this British company owned it.

EDIT: Well just read your other post so ignore this.

Maybe I'm wrong, but that's simply what I've noticed from reading a few articles about the Dubai deal.

Personally for the life of me I can't figure out what the hoopla about a Dubai company owning parts of these ports is. It's just like the Cheney shooting. I thought everyone would have a good laugh for a couple days and then the news would be over. Instead, I was still seeing headlines two friggin' weeks after. WTF????? Who cares???????

Sorry, off topic. But this is similar, no one article can explain to me why this Dubai deal makes any difference about national security. As far as I can tell, this port company has no say in the security of the ports. So what difference does it make who owns it? Dubai isn't Iran afterall.

I'm not arguing with you, Professor S. I'm just angry at the media, and now I'm mad at the House. Apparently the House is making a political maneuver out of this Dubai deal against Bush, which to me is not what governing should be about. I don't care if you don't get reelected, we voted you into power so you would make the right decisions for the country, not to make sure you get reelected. Ahhh I hate politicians...

I'm probably going to regret this post, it's off the cuff and from anger more than anything.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by manasecret

Personally for the life of me I can't figure out what the hoopla about a Dubai company owning parts of these ports is. It's just like the Cheney shooting. I thought everyone would have a good laugh for a couple days and then the news would be over. Instead, I was still seeing headlines two friggin' weeks after. WTF????? Who cares???????

Sorry, off topic. But this is similar, no one article can explain to me why this Dubai deal makes any difference about national security. As far as I can tell, this port company has no say in the security of the ports. So what difference does it make who owns it? Dubai isn't Iran afterall.

I'm not against the United Arab Emirates, owners of Dubai PW, owning rights to the ports because they are a security risk or even because they are "bad" nation. I'm against it because the UAB would own the rights by proxy through their company and no other country should be able to run anything as important as our ports.

As for security, it is an issue as well, but I think one that can be resolved. Here are the issues I have with UAB concerning security:

1) UAB has some very shady dealings in its recent past (last 10-20 years) in dealing with terrorist organizations. Whether or not a few hijackers came from UAB is not my concern; thats like saying a haystack is a pile of needles because you found a needle in it. Instead my concern is over belief that UAB laundered money for terrorist organizations and has basically enabled them for a long time. Whether or not this is factual, I don't know, but they are pretty serious accusations that deserve to be addressed.

2) While Dubai will not be in control of security, they will be intimately involved with the security forces. They will know coast guard schedules and security routines and methods. Information is just as dangerous as action if you are dealing with terrorist organizations that would like nothing more than to intimidate a country into divulging such info.

[The Duggler]

http://www.gametavern.net/forums/sho...7&postcount=28

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Nitram

http://www.gametavern.net/forums/sho...7&postcount=28

Wow, are you late to the party. I came out of political retirement MONTHS ago.

And did anyone really think I'd stay retired? Honestly...

Back on topic, dop you have an actual opinion you'd like to share on this subject, or are you content in thinking you've "got me"?

[Xantar]

Let me just start out with two statements:

1. In the grand scheme of things, this is a pretty minor deal that's not even worth a whole lot of money. Therefore, the President would not be personally involved in negotiating it. It may seem a bit disconcerting to have Bush say that he didn't know anything about this deal, but if the running of these ports had been sold back in 1996, Clinton wouldn't have known about it either.

2. Dubai Ports World won't be running the security of the harbor. Its role from what I can tell is basically administrative. Schedule the boats coming in and the boats coming out, take note of their cargo, things like that. Other companies (also private, I believe) run the security.

My concern is not that DPW is literally owned by the Saudi Royal Family or that I think some of their employees would smuggle a nuke into our country or anything like that. My concern is that these ports are owned by a private company to begin with. DPW may not actually determine the security procedures at the ports, but it will be made aware of them. That means its employees will know what security procedures and countermeasures we use to protect our ports, and that's the kind of information we simply don't want to become a part of general knowledge. Basically, what Kurt said (damnit, did I just agree with him about something?).

One of the definitions of the government is that it has a monopoly on legitimate use of force in the name of security. The government's not great, but it's at least accountable to the citizens, and its primary motive is not profit. I don't think a British company or an American company or a company from the UAE should own our ports. They should be owned by the government just like the roads.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Xantar

One of the definitions of the government is that it has a monopoly on legitimate use of force in the name of security. The government's not great, but it's at least accountable to the citizens, and its primary motive is not profit. I don't think a British company or an American company or a company from the UAE should own our ports. They should be owned by the government just like the roads.

There is a minor movement for the Government to issue Port Bonds to allow US citizens to invest in our ports and buy the rights. That might be a decision that could breach the argument of Free Trade vs. Government Control.

[Xantar]

Originally Posted by Professor S

There is a minor movement for the Government to issue Port Bonds to allow US citizens to invest in our ports and buy the rights. That might be a decision that could breach the argument of Free Trade vs. Government Control.

Could you elaborate on this? I'm not sure I quite took your meaning.

Anyway, I saw your PM some time after I made my post, so I'll say a word here about economics. Basically, I don't see this as a trade issue. Maybe it is in the sense that Dubai Ports World runs the port more cheaply than the old British company did, but generally I don't think it had much to do with globalization. I think this issue is more related to the privatization movement. This is the same trend that deregulated airlines under the theory that non-regulated competition would lower prices (they probably did). It also led to the deregulation of communications which is why I find it interesting that Comcast has now basically gained a monopoly on cable in the eastern coast. It used to be that your local TV cable company had its price and services set by the government in order to avoid gouging, but now they have been released under the theory that any other company (like mayb AT&T or Microsoft or somebody) would be free to come in and try to offer their services more cheaply than Comcast. The problem is Comcast owns the actual cable lines running into your home, and they're not going to let someone else just come in and start offering content on their own property.

I'm not sure where you think Verizon has a monopoly, though. There are plenty of cell phone carriers out there. Unless you're talking about DSL in which case Comcast cable is arguably a direct competitor.

Privatization is a political as well as an economic matter, and I think you're pretty familiar with the issue already since that's basically what the health care debate is all about. It's just that in this case, instead of a for profit company selling you physician services, a for profit company is lifting crates at the harbors. The question, as always, is whether that is a service that's too valuable to be entrusted to a private corporation.