Some basic facts on this "port deal" are not getting mentioned

[MazeRat7]

Not that I have an answer but here are the basics.

1) P&O (Peninsular Oriental Navigation Co) is for sale. Its a British company that has been in business for nearly 170yrs.

2) P&O has a subsidiary company that handles its "Port/Terminal" Management for several US ports.

3) There were only two bidders on the table for the deal - A company from Dabui, UAE called Ports World and a company from Singapore called PSA. One has ties to "bad people" in the middle east and the other to "bad people" in China and the far east.

So in my view this is a no win situation. P&O is going to be sold the question is "who" is going to be the buyer.

MZr7

[StephanieMarie]

1. So are there no American companies qualified to run our own ports?

Are there no Americans willing to do that work? This whole thing floors me.

[Peace Patriot]

3. Maybe it's a matter of money--but in that case, the U.S. would be

much better off purchasing back our own port facilities--think of the billions and billions and billions wasted in Iraq! jeez!--than permitting them to fall into the hands of fundamentalist Arab sheiks, or Asian gangsters.

But the Bush junta has bankrupted us. We can't even act in our own interest.

[Egalitariat]

9. Are you proposing that the taxpayers purchase the ports?

Or an American company?

[MazeRat7]

8. There are really only few main players in this international business

1) P&O (which is for sale)

2) DP World (The UAE Company)

3) PSA (The Singapore Company)

4) Hutchinson (Owned by Asias richest man - which btw now (as of 2002) over came US objections and controls both ends of the Panama canal)

I am not aware of any American company that is in this business on this scale.. but will look into it because I am curious as well.

MZr7

[FormerDittoHead]

22. American Business of this scale?

How about Exxon buying the contract out with it's quarter 1 profits?

[NVMojo]

2. Read here about Sir John Parker who handled the sales deal

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x473600

[Emit]

13. We should put some info out about Snow, too

He's an old Cheney crony from the Ford era

BUSH GIVES THE NATION A SNOW JOB "During his 12-year tenure as chief executive at railroad giant CSX, our new guardian of the Treasury helped himself to a vast array of corporate indulgences. If CEO perks were pills, Snow would have OD'd a long time ago. Let's start with the fact that he was paid a king's ransom -- $10.1 million in 2001 alone -- for doing a downright crappy job.

With Snow at the helm, CSX's profits shriveled and its stock underperformed its competitors' by two-thirds since 1991. His reign is a case study in one of the greatest abuses of corporate America -- the anti-Pavlovian delinking of performance and reward. Snow was also the lucky winner of a $24.5 million sweetheart loan from CSX -- precisely the kind of insider loan made illegal by the corporate responsibility bill signed into law by the president last summer. But Snow's gravy train of good fortune didn't stop there. You see, Snow, team player that he is, used the 24 mil to buy stock in CSX. When the stock, under his sure hand, plummeted in value, the company board, not wanting to see its fearless leader suffer along with its beleaguered shareholders, promptly forgave the massive loan.

During his confirmation hearing last week, Snow decried as "offensive" CEO loans used "to go out and buy yachts." But, in a free country, the problem should not be what you buy with a loan but whether you repay it. If Snow had bought a yacht, at least he could have given some of CSX's shareholders a ride around the harbor for their money. As if this weren't enough, Snow will also be rewarded for his mediocre tenure at CSX with an extremely generous pension agreement. No need to worry about him being forced to clip coupons on his $161,200 cabinet salary -- CSX will pay him $2.47 million a year for the rest of his life. He also has the option of taking a $30 million lump-sum payment instead.

Unlike most workers, Snow's benefits won't be based on his salary alone -- but rather on his salary plus his annual bonuses plus the value of the quarter-million shares of CSX stock the company board gave him. And his retirement windfall will be greatly enhanced by a pension accounting scheme that gives him credit for having put in 44 years at the company, even though he's actually been workin' on the railroad for 25. I suppose he was thinking really, really hard about the company during those other 19 years. Let's just hope his relationship to numbers improves at the Treasury Department. " 02.10.03
huffington |related stories

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:Mr43559HhqkJ:www.bushwatch.net/bushreportarchivesfeb03A.htm+Presidents+Bipartisan+Advisory+Panel+on+Tax+Reform++John+Snow+Carlyle+group&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=20

[lumpy]

4. kick

Maybe the port states involved should have control.

[NVMojo]

5. and Bush apptd. one of the Arab company's execs to a US transportation

seat in January. He had to be doing it in preparation for this port deal!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2473961

[spindrifter]

6. P & O shareholders confirmed

the sale to DP World a few days ago. The process of transferring ownership to DP World has apparently begun, but is pending final court confirmation.

http://www.dpiterminals.com/

[Emit]

7. Also, this is not the first time this has happened

See my post here:

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).

Cont'd:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=485828&mesg_id=486258

[MazeRat7]

12. Thats right. Hutchinson (owned by Asia's richest man) is the other player

in this international business of port management. They now contol both ends of the Panama Canal.

[Nothing Without Hope]

10. These are important facts. One way or another, a LOT of money is going

to have to be involved.

K & R

[Cleita]

11. My question is why did our ports fall in the hands of the

Brits to begin with? No foreign country should be running our ports, period.

[Emit]

14. And China

see post #7

[Disturbed]

16. Dubai Ports World

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.

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. Because the US is a capitalist country

which allows foreign companies to do business, and build ports in the same way it allows US companies.

[Cleita]

20. With that logic, maybe we should just put the White House,

Congress and the Pentagon up to the highest bidder and see what we get. There are certain national assets that should never be put on the table of capitalism to be sold to foreign interests like a department store or manufacturing plant would be, and frankly I don't like this happening either.

This type of capitalism is what creates Banana Republics where foreign interests exploit the wealth of the country diverting profits out of the country instead of back into it.

[spindrifter]

15. Here's an American terminal operator for you:

http://www.ssamarine.com/company/index.html

Today, SSA Marine and our affiliates operate more cargo terminals than any other company in the world. Our operations and its diversity of cargo, volumes and commercial models and ports are unprecedented in our industry. We strive to ensure that our size and tremendous network of resources continue to add value for our customers.

<snip>

They appear to be big enough. If you look at their webpage, cited above, you will find sections on their prior work and customers. The corporate hq is in Seattle. I have no idea what the real world politics of bidding on east coast work is, but they probably explain why some U.S. ports chose to contract with non-U.S. companies. To get a real understanding, I think people in the industry would need to speak out.

[Nothing Without Hope]

17. Can you give a link for details on the points in the opening post?

Clearly, there are many aspects to this deal and we need to comprehend them in more depth if better solutions are to be found.

[MazeRat7]

18. Sure, here are a couple to start.

http://money.guardian.co.uk/businessnews/story/0,1265,-1694132,00.html

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=3&article_id=22108

There are tons more just google any of the three companies.

MZr7

[Norquist Nemesis]

21. Careful, you might leave a "false impression" of the facts

That was Scotty's word of the day today with the press conference.