National Sovereignty vs. Economic Globalization

[Professor S]

I love capitalism. It is not a perfect economic system, but compared to its alternatives it about as close as you can get. Capitalism supports and encourages several ideals that I believe are essential to world culture, such as personal responsibilty, success based on merit and flat out freedom to live the way that you see fit. It is vulnerable to abuses that can hinder these ideals, but at least they are achieveable.

My problem with capitalism is that I believe it is a dog in a constant state of near starvation. Meaning: If you let iit, capitalism will eat and eat and eat.. far beyond to point of sating its hunger... and eventually eat itself to death. Teddy Roosevelt understood this and created a great number of anti-trust and usery laws to protect capitalism from itself. He undertood that in order for corporations and free economics to work and be beneficial to the nation, they needed to be fed regularly and with quality, but always kept on a leash.

Well, many of Roosevelt's achievements have been torn apart in just the past few years. The anti-trust laws have been steamrolled by lobbyists and have let companies like Comcast and Verizon recreate virtual monopolies through the excuse that global economics and service reselling is a substitute for actual domestic competition. Also, the usery laws have been remade, or in my opinion, virtually removed, allowing lenders to gauge their customers and encourage increasing debt while removing the ability (or severely hindering) an individual's ability to declare bankruptcy when that encouraged debt becomes too much to bear.

Now we are starting to see the greatest fear that Roosevelt had regarding unchecked capitalism raise its ugly head, and that is a selling of national sovereignty to the highest bidder. There is a lot of hoopla regarding Dubai Ports World's, which is owned by the United Arab Emirates, purchase of the rights to control several major ports in America. The main issue being debated is whether or not DPW is able or willing to support our national security. While this is a considerable argument and it should be examined, it is secondary to me.

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. We already treat our southern border security with as much resolve as a wink and a smile because we would rather enable a corrupt, third world nation for cheap labor than actually worry about a government whose military has mad over 200 illegal incursions onto our territory. Now we are letting other nations out-and-out purchase control of vital infrastructure.

Roosevelt knew that unregulated capitalism was not a democratic panacea but a cancer, one that could consume a nation if those that governed that nation let it. Well those that are running the government in both parties are not only standing by while our protections are being overrun, but they are actively stripping them away.

I am not an economist and if I am incorrect on any of these points, please let me know. This is all knowledge that I have gleaned from various sources and if I am out of my depth with this please do not hesitate to correct whatever I've gotten wrong. I am becoming very concerned for the future of US and other countries abilities to self-govern without being beholden to the whims of those who do not have the good of the people as their main concern.

[Dylflon]

Are you in any way concerned about American companies coming north and buying out Canadian companies?

This seems to be happening a lot lately.

[Fox 6]

Originally Posted by Dylflon

Are you in any way concerned about American companies coming north and buying out Canadian companies?

This seems to be happening a lot lately.

we need another Trudeau

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Dylflon

Are you in any way concerned about American companies coming north and buying out Canadian companies?

This seems to be happening a lot lately.

No. This does not bother me that much (only a little) for one reason:

American companies does not equal American government

A British company owned the contract for the port deal before DPW purchased it. I have no problem with this as it was a British company, and not Britain. DPW is owned by the United Arab Emirates, another sovereign nation, so in essence another country controls our ports. This I do not dig and would not like it if the United States as a nation started purchasing Canadian companies, either.

In many ways Globalization has been around for decades and even the US depression in the 30's was caused, in part, from many British companies pulling out of investments in the US. I don't think that foreign companies investing in one another is a problem, but when laws start to change to eliminate domestic competition and blur national borders, then I have an issue.

I knew NAFTA was a bad idea in the early 90's...

[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.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Xantar

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.

I was referring to land lines. Verizon owen virtually alll of the land lines on the east coast and their only competition are small companies that actually re-sell Verizon services. I used to work for a company that had contracts with Verizon and it breaks down like this:

When Bell Atlantic decided it wanted to merge with other carriers basically re-create the old AT&T, the government wouldn't let them because they would monopolize the land line industry. Cell phones are not a competitor because there are laws on the books that make land line ownership manditory for a large number of Americans (any household with minors, for one). So a compromise was made that Verizon would allow smaller companies to "re-sell" Verizon services. Verizon was made to sell their services to these re-sellers (like Cavalier) at a cut price so that they could re-sell them at a price that is cheaper than Verizon's retail.

The problem is that all of the maintenance and service personnel are still Verizon, and Cavalier has no infrastructure. So if you have Cavalier instread of Verizon, your service level is absolutely pathetic because Verizon still has to fix and maintain everything even though they are taking a loss on it.

In my mind, this is not what I think "competition" is supposed to be.

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.

Well, there are a number of differences between comparing port authority and healthcare. When it comes to the ports, there is no compromise or middle ground. Either the US owns the control or another company does. I think in healthcare an option should be given to people if they want private or public. If you want public, fine, but expect long lines and a lower standard of care (but still an acceptable and hippocratic one). If you want private, then you can expect a little better. Also, I think if the government would federalize pain and suffering caps on settlements, healthcare costs would plummet and most people would be able to afford at least a decent plan.

As for the Port Bonds, it goes some thing like this: The US issues bonds to US citizens to purchase the rights to the ports, keeping the economics of the transaction within free trade. The US then runs the ports, but the ownership is in that of American citizens and the investors reap the rewards. I think thats how it works, anyway.