Port Operations in the US: Xenophobia or Opportunity?

[Pengwuino]

So does anyone know what companies are going to be taking over port operations in the Bay Area and LA? I mean, doesn't the left want to thrust xenophobia into the spotlight and kick out foreign companies "running" US ports? China ring a bell anyone? Anyone?

 

[edward]

So does anyone know what companies are going to be taking over port operations in the Bay Area and LA? I mean, doesn't the left want to thrust xenophobia into the spotlight and kick out foreign companies "running" US ports? China ring a bell anyone? Anyone?

Chinese containers and containers ships in a port are pretty much the norm. Can you say Wallllmaaart.

edit:
As far as I can determine the biggest terminal at the Port of Oakland is run by:

BNSF bags Oakland
The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) and the Port of Oakland have reached an agreement for BNSF to operate the port's newly built Joint Intermodal Terminal, to be known as Oakland International Gateway (OIG).
BNSF will also be able to provide service to third parties at the new facility, which is expected to take more than 20,000 truck moves a year off Interstate 80. Scheduled to open in the middle of this month, the 85-acre, near-dock OIG facility has the capacity to accommodate 250,000 containers per year, with the capability to expand to meet future growth. It features 13,300ft of loading and unloading track that can accommodate 410 x 40ft containers at a time...

http://www.worldcargonews.com/htm/n20020301.982908.htm

Although with a global economy we can expect a lot of countries to be at least partially involved in port operations.

Large ports often have multiple terminals operated by multiple companies. In Los Angeles, for instance, there are terminals managed by companies from China, Taiwan, Japan, Singapore and Denmark. Of the eight terminals in Oakland, four are managed by foreign companies, two by U.S.-foreign joint operations and just two are purely American.

 

[Pengwuino]

That doesn't sound like anything close to the whole port operations, simply the railroad operations.

 

[edward]

That doesn't sound like anything close to the whole port operations, simply the railroad operations.

You are correct sir and I have rectified the situation above. What has me puzzled is: Why did the American companies sell out? Low profit margins?
Big bucks from the sale to invest in China?? They didn't like container ships?

 

[russ_watters]

What has me puzzled is: Why did the American companies sell out? Low profit margins?

Yes, but the why is all about the unions. Do you remember the shipping union strike that shut down pretty much every major port in the west a few years ago? The real reason outsourcing is so rampant and American manufacturing is going away is that unions are driving it away out of greed combined with shortsightedness. Unloading cargo is certainly not worth a starting salary of $60k.

http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/stories/2002/10/07/daily8.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/economy/july-dec02/docks_09-19.html

I was watching "Mad Money" (an investment show) last week and the host did a special on "American manufacturers", where he went over a list of the ten best/most important American manufacturers. Names like Caterpillar, Cummins, United Technology, and Boeing. And number 10 was Honda. Honda builds cars in the US, using non-union workers who are more productive and happier than their union counterparts, while making about the same money, allowing Honda to turn out cars that are a full 5-10% cheaper than comparable American cars.

 

[Pengwuino]

Weren't the chinese owners of a lot of port operations in Oakland for a pretty long time? Anyhow the real point of this thread is to find out what companies will be taking over the ports now that everyone but Bush has come to the realization that other countries are not trustworthy of owning any part of the work done at ports.

 

[sean1234]

Okay, just stop posting.

In today's Wall Street Journal

Seattle/Tacoma operated by companies from:
Singapore
Korea
Denmark
Taiwan
Japan

Oakland:
Denmark
Japan
Taiwan
korea
Singapore

LA
Denmark
China
Taiwan
Japan
Singapore

etc. etc...

Dubai already leases space for operation out of New York.

 

[Anttech]

I mean, doesn't the left want to thrust xenophobia into the spotlight and kick out foreign companies "running" US ports?

Whats it got to do with the left?

 

[Pengwuino]

Whats it got to do with the left?

Wasn't the movement brought about by certain left-wingers saying they "didn't even know foreign companies ran US ports" infront of Congress and the right being blamed for "compromising national security"... please, no skirting the issue or whatever the term is i stole from the SNL McLaughlin group skit.

 

[Anttech]

So what are you saying, that the removal of foreign entities from running your ports, is a left wing agenda? Or are you just trying throw mud at your opposition? How can you have a balanced argument with anyone with this approach.

Anyway, I think it is racist driven desion to not allow Dubai Ports to run your ports. America being the preacher of Democracy and Free markets should really stick to what it preaches.

To answer your statement of xenophobia, I don't believe this is a Democrates doing, its the current Administration who has nutured this enviroment, so what do you expect? Of course the people will follow this example and get all hysterical over who owns the ports...

 

[Pengwuino]

I guess I am just acting like every other PWA frequent poster, its a disease!

I think we need to HOPE it's racism that's bringing this crap up. The alternatives are that we have a horribly horribly dumb Congress/general public or the government is coming to a standstill because of political bickering with the consequence of disrespecting one of our allies.

I also find it curious that you were somehow able to blame the Administration when they were the ones who wanted it to go through. There is no "environment", it's actually probably simply politically based. This is 100% democrats politicizing anything and everything with no respect to our allies. If it were the administration wanting to block the deal, i would whole-heartedly agree with you but this was completely the democrats fault.

Even you would have to agree that only the blindest of ideolog can feel this is the administration's problem. Democrats have laughed at and ignored any and all measures related to national security and ran to the NY times to decry "police state", "fascism", etc etc. They've also raised all hell over the slightest possibly racist thing done against arabs in the name of national security and raised hell over anything that might offend another country. Then here comes this port deal and all of a sudden it's all thrown out the window, all of a sudden national security is #1 priority, all of a sudden it doesn't matter what allies think of us, all of a sudden the fact that your not from our little part of the world means you can't be trusted. All of a sudden...

 

[Anttech]

Yes it does seem a condradiction.

However this issue would have died straight away if the public didnt care. This is what I am getting at. The Current Admin has really nurtured this post 9/11 feeling of anti-islam (IMO), thus the public went for the throat when the Democrats (politically motived IMO) took this stance...

 

[Pengwuino]

Well i can't make much sense of what the public does so i can't really say anything about that.

Exactly how did the administration nurture anti-islamic sentiments by the way?

 

[russ_watters]

So what are you saying, that the removal of foreign entities from running your ports, is a left wing agenda? ...

To answer your statement of xenophobia, I don't believe this is a Democrates doing, its the current Administration who has nutured this enviroment, so what do you expect? Of course the people will follow this example and get all hysterical over who owns the ports...

I think you missed the debate on the issue. Though the issue was unpopular even with many Republicans, it was driven by Democrats. Bush is the one who did not want to interfere with the sale of the British port operations company to DB.

 

[Anttech]

I'm not disputing that, I think its a contradiction on behalf of the democrates. However I still believe that Bushco has nurtured the environment (Fear) that has lead to this racist action.

 

[Anttech]

Exactly how did the administration nurture anti-islamic sentiments by the way?

Well IMO the rhetoric that Bushco has used all these years (Since 9/11) has been one of Fear, especially fear of Islam. If you want I can drudge up some speaches...

 

[selfAdjoint]

I'm not disputing that, I think its a contradiction on behalf of the democrates. However I still believe that Bushco has nurtured the environment (Fear) that has lead to this racist action.

I don't think there's any contradiction. Democrats, and many leftists, have historically been soft on protectionism - we must protect our union achievements from cheap foreign labor, you know. And control of the ports is a protectionist issue - at least conservative free-trade proponents like the Economist see it that way.

There's a populist strain in the GOP that is protectionist too; remember Perot's "Giant sucking sound"? This is the down-home, SBA strain, opposed to the bicoastal, globalist strains, and it is an important factor in senatorial and congressional elections if not presidential ones.


It was this strain that got fired up by the ports issue and led to day after day headlines about "Congressional GOP defies President".

 

[edward]

Well IMO the rhetoric that Bushco has used all these years (Since 9/11) has been one of Fear, especially fear of Islam. If you want I can drudge up some speaches...

That was my point in the other thread on DPWorld. Bush has played an Islamic fear factor game with the American people for nearly five years.
And guess what? It worked.

As for the other ports where other countries are involved, there is no xenophobia because the people were not bombarded by repetetive fear slogans against those countries.

There were also a lot of joint ventures between countries who wanted to ship to the the American markets and the individual Port Authorities. This was especially true on the west cost where goods from Asia arrive.

As far as I know, most of the workers are still union even at the ports where there are joint ventures.

But in the end, there is no way American companies can compete against state owned or state subsidized companies. Bush hacks on China about "unfair" trade practices constantly, yet apparently there were a number of state owned companies that were allowed to invest in our ports. Why? lobbyists and influence.

 

[russ_watters]

Well IMO the rhetoric that Bushco has used all these years (Since 9/11) has been one of Fear, especially fear of Islam. If you want I can drudge up some speaches...

Please do. Separating terrorism from Islam is extremely important and Bush has been very careful to do just that.

Bush has played an Islamic fear factor game with the American people for nearly five years.

You too: prove that. In fact, Bush has been quite explicit in saying that the war on terror is not a war on Islam.

[edit] Ehh, it's so easy, no need to demand it of you: here it is:

The terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics -- a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam...

I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It's practiced freely by many millions of Americans, and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. (Applause.) The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them. (Applause.)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html

I agree with SA's main point - for the most part the two sides are playing-up their traditional roles regarding trade, but the addition of security to the issue is what has brought some Republicans over to the Democrats' side.

That explains how the politicians have reacted, but quite frankly, I think most Americans reacted on either misdirected protectionism (because the media glossed-over the fact that these assets were already foreign owned) or xenophobia (all MidEast countries are the same).