Fuck it - let's just outsource everything

U.S. Reviewing 2nd Dubai Firm
Israeli Deal Also Faces Security Check

By Jonathan Weisman and Susan Schmidt
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, March 2, 2006; A01

The Bush administration, stung by the public outcry over the Dubai port deal, has launched a national security investigation of another Dubai-owned company set to take over plants in Georgia and Connecticut that make precision components used in engines for military aircraft and tanks.

The administration notified congressional committees this week that its secretive Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) is investigating the security implications of Dubai International Capital's $1.2 billion acquisition of London-based Doncasters Group Ltd., which has subsidiaries in the United States. It is also investigating an Israeli company's plans to buy the Maryland software security firm Sourcefire, which does business with Defense Department agencies.

(article goes on)

wait a minute, they are already working for international interests over ours

Would you like fries with that?

how quick things got this way.

When I did my little copy-and-paste, I didn't recall putting that image in there. I did that in a previous post I did.

But somehow, it's just kinda fitting.

...

(someone post the Hartmann piece on foreign ownership, pls)

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022806N.shtml

As www.economyincrisis.com notes, US Government statistics indicate the following percentages of foreign ownership of American industry:

Sound recording industries - 97%


Commodity contracts dealing and brokerage - 79%


Motion picture and sound recording industries - 75%


Metal ore mining - 65%


Motion picture and video industries - 64%


Wineries and distilleries - 64%


Database, directory, and other publishers - 63%


Book publishers - 63%


Cement, concrete, lime, and gypsum product - 62%


Engine, turbine and power transmission equipment - 57%


Rubber product - 53%


Nonmetallic mineral product manufacturing - 53%


Plastics and rubber products manufacturing - 52%


Plastics product - 51%


Other insurance related activities - 51%


Boiler, tank, and shipping container - 50%


Glass and glass product - 48%


Coal mining - 48%


Sugar and confectionery product - 48%


Nonmetallic mineral mining and quarrying - 47%


Advertising and related services - 41%


Pharmaceutical and medicine - 40%


Clay, refractory, and other nonmetallic mineral products - 40%


Securities brokerage - 38%


Other general purpose machinery - 37%


Audio and video equipment mfg and reproducing magnetic and optical media - 36%


Support activities for mining - 36%


Soap, cleaning compound, and toilet preparation - 32%


Chemical manufacturing - 30%


Industrial machinery - 30%


Securities, commodity contracts, and other financial investments and related activities - 30%


Other food - 29%


Motor vehicles and parts - 29%


Machinery manufacturing - 28%


Other electrical equipment and component - 28%


Securities and commodity exchanges and other financial investment activities - 27%


Architectural, engineering, and related services - 26%


Credit card issuing and other consumer credit - 26%


Petroleum refineries (including integrated) - 25%


Navigational, measuring, electromedical, and control instruments - 25%


Petroleum and coal products manufacturing - 25%


Transportation equipment manufacturing - 25%


Commercial and service industry machinery - 25%


Basic chemical - 24%


Investment banking and securities dealing - 24%


Semiconductor and other electronic component - 23%


Paint, coating, and adhesive - 22%


Printing and related support activities - 21%


Chemical product and preparation - 20%


Iron, steel mills, and steel products - 20%


Agriculture, construction, and mining machinery - 20%


Publishing industries - 20%


Medical equipment and supplies - 20%

It must be true, I heard it on Washington Journal this morning.

Don't know the guy's name, was just waking up. He said dealing with China is a good thing, because they buy our bonds and invest in US, so it's good to sell ourselves to other countries. see, don't that make sense? :eyes:

a right wing think tank AEI.

..."Speakers and Thought Leaders like myself..."

O.M.G!!! :puke:

that has pumped enough of our money into the middle east, to allow the people over there to own our country.

this is just one of the things your extra dollars at the pumps have bought. Go check it out, you won't believe this shit!

Ski Dubai


Photographs show an indoor skiing facility in the desert city of Dubai.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/architecture/indoorski.asp

bid on the Dubai port deal? I must admit that I do not know much about the ports and who runs them. It is my understanding that a British company was running these ports.

If this is the case, why were they running them, who awarded the contract to them, and why are they giving them up? Also China is running some west coast ports that were awarded to them by President Clinton and is that worse than the UAE?

I have more questions than answers and I would appreciate someone bringing me up to speed on these matters.

Followed by an interesting HuffPo blog by James Hoffa.

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=am4I_txvJ3rU&refer=home
P&O Agrees to Singapore Acquisition, Dropping Dubai (Update5)
Jan. 26 (Bloomberg) -- Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., Britain's largest port operator, agreed to be acquired by Singapore's biggest port company for 3.55 billion pounds ($6.3 billion), rejecting a lower offer from Dubai.

PSA International Pte, owned by Singapore's state investment company Temasek Holdings Pte, bid 470 pence for each share, London- based P&O said in a statement. DP World, the port operator owned by Dubai, the United Arab Emirates, offered 443 pence on Nov. 29.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-bz.polondon28jan28,1,7770185.story?coll=bal-business-headlines&ctrack=1&cset=true

City port operator prefers new suitor
Associated Press
Originally published January 28, 2006
LONDON // British port operator Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which runs Baltimore's public terminals, switched prospective suitors for the second time after Dubai Ports World raised its offer for the company to almost $7 billion, trumping an offer from Singapore's PSA International Ltd.

News of the bidding war sent P&O's shares up almost 5 percent yesterday.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-p-hoffa/goodbye-dubai_b_16256.html

The president or Congress must insist that P&O Ports, the London-based company that currently operates the six major ports in question, offer its U.S. operations for sale to experienced, reputable U.S.-based port companies.

In its request for bids, P&O indicated it would only consider those for its entire worldwide operations. That’s wrong. There are three U.S. companies -- Seattle-based Stevedoring Services of America; Oakland, Calif.-based Marine Terminals Corporation; and Elisabeth, N.J.-based Maher Terminals, Inc.—that have the resources to operate our ports. And these companies should be given that chance.

If a U.S. company—with American security interests in mind—does not operate these ports, then the federal government should.

You posted:


1. Up until the end of the VietNam war, some (military) ports were actually "operated" by the Military Sealift Command - civil servants under military command.

2. Folk lore - I will not verify the truth - but both RO/RO (Roll On/Roll Off) and container ships were developed by US shipping companies and port operators. I remember Sealand (now Danish Maersk Sealand) and American President Lines (now Singaporean Neptune Orient Lines) were early RO/RO and container players in New Orleans.

3. The popular folklore heard on Tchoupitoulas Street was that US flag steam ship lines could not compete because of the Jones Act and US unionized wages. Third world countries took over as flags of convenience.

4. But that is not an answer as to Port Terminal Operations - the wage rates and workplace laws are those of the location of the facility - not the location of the owner.

5. No reason we can't do it.

Why, I don't really know. But they apparently had the chance to bid.

But I'm not clear on what you quoted there:
In its request for bids, P&O indicated it would only consider those for its entire worldwide operations.

Were there other offshore ports that were a part of this deal too? Were the US ports only a portion of what the deal represented? Additional info would be appreciated. I don't really understand why P&O would place that sort of restriction on the deal.

http://portal.pohub.com/portal/page?_pageid=347,1,347_210236:347_210240&_dad=pogprtl&_schema=POGPRTL

P&O Ports Canada Inc. – Numbers at a Glance
Parent company, U.K.-based P&O Ports, operates 28 container terminals and logistics operations in more than 100 ports in 18 countries worldwide.

Apparently I suck at it.