US ports

[Morgeruat]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/....ap/index.html

A state run company in the UAE has purchased a british company which has a lease for 6 US ports, including New York and Baltimore, the deal was apparently approved through the White House



opposition
more opposition from state governors

Others, however, point out that two of the September 11, 2001, hijackers were from the UAE. In addition, most of the hijackers received money channeled through various sources based in the UAE, according to the Justice Department and the 9/11 commission.

[Timber Loftis]

Maybe the UAE will do something to strengthen our port security, because god knows we haven't.

Yes, 2 9/11 bombers were UAE. Yes, money and the terrorists have moved easily and often through UAE. Yes, this company is state run. Yes, it's a stupid situation.

[Azred]

Money always talks. Sometimes, it talks louder than security concerns. [img]graemlins/saywhat.gif[/img]

[Chewbacca]

Foreign government running my ports! Gimme some tea to throw in the harbor!!!! Nuff said.

I'd rather have stupid Americans running things than outside national interests.

[Seraph]

Foreign government running my ports! Gimme some tea to throw in the harbor!!!! Nuff said. I'd rather have stupid Americans running things than outside national interests.

The company currently running the ports right now is British.

[Sir Degrader]

I don't care, the market will sort this out. People aren't going to tolerate ports that have pissy security.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Seraph: quote: Foreign government running my ports! Gimme some tea to throw in the harbor!!!! Nuff said. I'd rather have stupid Americans running things than outside national interests.

The company currently running the ports right now is British. [/QUOTE]Ain't that great.

At least it's a private British company right? And the British are strong U.S. allies. I'll take the shades of grey closer to safe rather than sorry.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Sir Degrader: I don't care, the market will sort this out. People aren't going to tolerate ports that have pissy security.

People shouldn't risk having a wild card in charge of anything sensitive/important either and from my veiwpoint just about any country in the Middle East is at risk for a turn for the worst politically.

[Sir Degrader]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: People shouldn't risk having a wild card in charge of anything sensitive/important either and from my veiwpoint just about any country in the Middle East is at risk for a turn for the worst politically. [/QB]

But they will, and I'd rather have an efficient, cheap, private company doing this then the bumbling government.

[Timber Loftis]

The market will absolutely not sort this out. At least not satisfactorily. What's the market's means for dealing with catastrophe? -- Insurance.

That's not enough where national defense is concerned. One major justification for government is that it fills holes in the market model -- particularly where certain externalities are concerned. The classic example of an externality that will not be provided by the market is the military/national defense. The same is true with port security.

In its last 1500 cases, the government agency which examines foreign investments in the US has denied only one transaction -- and that was the purchase of Unocal by China which got popularized and protested by a few media observers -- Lou Dobbs and the like. This agency, btw, meets in secret, and we are not allowed to know what it considers in its review of foreign investments.

We can be sure lobbyists know, though. Lobbyists like Abramoff, who was one rotten apple, in a basket of 14,000 rotten apples that swarm our capitol every day. Whatever they're buying our government for, you can bet it's not in our primary interest.