Why were our ports ever sold in the first place? To the Brits or

[carolinalady]

anyone? I have not heard the answer to that one yet.

[TomInTib]

1. Actually the ports aren't "sold", only the operating rights...

UAE bought the British firm that owned the operating rights. The ports are still owned by various U S entities, or so we are told.

[Avalux]

2. Let's differentiate -

The British co. is privately owned and resides in a democratic country.

Dubai Ports World is not privately owned but owned by the authoritarian UAE government (royal family).

BIG difference between the two, IMHO.

[bbinacan]

3. I think DPW is

a publicly traded company. I'll need to look at who the shareholders are. Could be just the royal family. I'll see what I can find.

[sandnsea]

7. It's owned by the UAE

It's a fully state owned company. Like Citgo.

So not only do we have "free market" corporatism shoved down our throats, we also have to compete against state owned business who can change the rules their companies have to operate under any time they want. And can haul in slave labor from other countries, like India and Pakistan, to work for a dollar a day.

[bbinacan]

12. I think you're correct

I could have sworn that I saw something that said DPW was a public co. Now I can't find what I thought I read.:blush:

[sandnsea]

4. The wonders of free trade

Where there are no country boundaries, only global money to be made and global workers to be exploited. The Great Plantation.

[Bushknew]

6. Well said nt

[iconoclastNYC]

5. INSIDERS got them cheap and made tons of $$$

That's the real reason why ANYTHING is privatized.

The official reason is for efficiency. Which is a joke.

[Disturbed]

8. Dubai Ports World

Khaleej Times Online
Dubai Ports World set to manage new Busan port in South Korea BY A STAFF REPORTER 20 January 2006. DUBAI ? The President of the republic of Korea, ...
www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data..

Seems that this Corp. is seeking to control World Wide ports.

[Emit]

9. This is not the first time this has happened

During the Clinton administration, a Long Beach port (and perhaps others) was sold to Hutchinson-Wampoa (known as COSCO -- China Ocean Shipping Company, a state -owned enterprise of the People's Republic of China).

I think if this is up to date, they own 4 US ports:
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:srFAl5wJa5MJ:www.fmc.gov/Dockets/cosco/BACKHILL.htm++Long+Beach+Hutchinson-Wampoa+COSCO&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2

Cosco Container Lines ("COSCON"), formed from three container operating subsidiaries at Guangzhou, Shanghai, and Tianjin, operates Cosco's container shipping services. COSCON has three container services departments ("CTD"). CTD I serves the United States, CTD II serves Europe, and CTD III serves other countries. COSCON is responsible mainly for securing cargo, negotiating rates, and management of intermodal services.

~snip~

Cosco operates four services in the United States trades:



The U.S. Atlantic Coast/Far East Service, utilizing 12 container vessels, (eight -1,700 TEU and four- 2,000 TEU) providing a fixed-day, weekly service with calls at Baltimore, New York, Charleston and Houston.



The Pacific Northwest/Far East Service employing a fleet of five - 2,700 TEU vessels and one - 2,174 TEU vessel providing a fixed-day, weekly service with calls at Vancouver, Long Beach and Seattle.



The Pacific Southwest/Far East Service, with a fleet of five - 3,500 TEU vessels making a fixed-day, weekly call at Long Beach, and Oakland.



The U.S./North Europe Service, using a fleet of four vessels effectively providing 1,800 TEUs in a fixed-day weekly service with calls at Antwerp, Felixstowe, Bremerhaven, Rotterdam, New York, Charleston and Norfolk.

Some people got upset about it then, too:

http://www.afn.org/~govern/treason.html


And, it was even noted on a post over at the freeper site in relation to Panama (toward middle of the article posted):

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:VQXoBJGYTRgJ:www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a8093e36d4d.htm++Long+Beach+Hutchinson-Wampoa+COSCO&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=6

[JanMichael]

10. I'm curious as to how "we" own economic vital lands in other countries?

My guess is Imperialism which is, I thought, a no-no?

If it was the Port of Tampa, or San Diego, then perhaps I'd get the uproar...

[carolinalady]

11. All I have to say is that I think our government should own the

ports lock, stock and barrel.

[Cleita]

13. Or at least that the private companies that operate in them

are US owned, based and operated. No foreign companies should own anything as important as ports and airports.

[carolinalady]

14. agree 100 percent. n/t

[leftchick]

16. are there any US owned, based and operated companies anymore?

I agree with what you have said but with Globalization I woncder just how many companies that would be.

[Cleita]

18. I think there are still many. I think you would have to go to

Dun and Bradstreet to get that information. But even those companies may become endangered species if that trend keeps up. We who don't like this, probably are going to have to protest this by either growing or making our own goods and buying locally from mom and pop stores, another endangered species. I can also buy sheep and Alpaca wool from neighboring ranchers.

I'm seriously thinking of spinning and weaving my own cloth. I'm contemplating a trip in the next couple of weeks to a store in Solvang that sells spinning and weaving apparatuses. If I find it workable, I might start a little cottage industry of stay at home women doing these things for themselves and to sell any extra goods made to the tourists.

Remember Ghandi spun his own clothes as a protest to the English manufacturers who had a stranglehold on the cotton grown in India that was shipped to England who would sell the cloth back to India, keeping the nation impoverished while England reaped all the profits.

These are small steps in order to take back our country and starve the multi-corporation beast.

[leftchick]

20. I love your ideas

and I happened to buy a book not long ago about self sustaining communities highlighting one in Ithaca NY. That will be the key to our survival.

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. Maybe because "foreigners" built some of them

1975: Maersk Line opened its first own container terminal in Port Newark, New Jersey, USA.

As the container revolution introduced a new vessel type, the port facilities changed. Short and efficient port stays were and still are one of the major advantages of container transport. This called for specialised terminals with container cranes, area for container storage, warehouses for transshipment of goods, office facilities and a workshop for repair of containers and equipment among other things. Parts of an existing terminal were often rented for the exclusive use of A.P. Møller’s vessels.

The first terminal built exclusively for Maersk Line was Pier 51 at Port Newark, New Jersey. ADRIAN MÆRSK departed from this terminal on 5 September 1975 as the first of the new container vessels.

http://www.maersk.com/historyTemplate.asp?nav=1&subnav=12&id=48&decade=0&count=34

This terminal is now part of Port Newark Container Terminal, which is part of the P&O deal. It has of course been developed by foreign companies since 1975 - http://www.panynj.gov/DoingBusinessWith/seaport/pdfs/02_01_05_01g_LG.pdf

[iconoclastNYC]

17. That doesn't change the fact that this is a SECURITY issue

And that Bush thinks it's a-ok to turn over control of our vital ports to a country with ties to 9/11 and who thwarted the 9/11 investigation.

[Cleita]

19. Not only that the type of global trade that they are pushing

will turn this country into a banana republic with all the profits from our assets flowing out of the country instead of back into it creating wealth for us, not them.

[iconoclastNYC]

21. That's an argument that works for Democrats

The security agument works for all Americans.

[Cleita]

22. I was just adding another dimension to your argument. Of

course security is a prime concern.

[iconoclastNYC]

24. Cool.

We agree. :toast:

[tjwash]

23. The same reason our national debt is being sold to the Chinese.

The Republican party starting with Ronald Reagan have amassed such a staggering and crushing national debt, that they are starting to sell off everything in our country piece by piece to the highest bidder, just to keep massive foreclosures and debt collection from happening. You don't think that the old "corporate raiders" of the 80's disappeared did you? They just went to an international level. Now the USA is slowly being bought out for pennies on the dollar, and sold off piece by piece for profit.

Add to that the fact that the United States economy is oil based. Remember the chimp said that we are addicted to oil? Well, welcome to the world of addiction, where one will do anything for a fix. It starts off by selling off everything you have, and ends up in a gutter.