Reply #12: Well, I just think it needs to be looked at objectively [View All]

If people's position is "we should be running our own ports", which is a perfectly good position, you have to decide if that means "port operations should be run by cities, states or the federal government" - in which case there's a huge amount of purchasing of businesses to be done; or if it means "no majority (or some similar upper limit) foreign ownership of ports; or "no foreign government ownership". Whatever option people want, it needs new legislation. There are no rules at present saying foreign governments can own port operations (though I do think the law does say the '45 day investigation' was compulsory in the case of a foreign government owner).

Bush and/or the committee decided that they were fine with the takeover. They were just one of several governments who made the same decision. I really don't see any appearance of impropriety (apart from possibly the non-use of the 45 day investigation; but that could easily decide it's OK, just as otehr countries did).

And I wouldn't say this is 'outsourcing' in the commonly used sense. It's more the equivalent of Honda setting up a factory in the US. The jobs are still largely in the States; there is some management direction from abroard, and profits, if they make them, will go abroard too. Like the auto industry, it seems that overseas companies have managed to run themselves more efficiently than American ones. It's globalisation; but currently it is normal business practice.