Comments (44)

• Ulu

  Excellent Article!

  Best I've read in the 2 years I've been reading at Mises.

  Published: March 9, 2006 9:32 AM

• iceberg

  Another fine Mises article yet again exploding the comfortable myths that pass for truth in this violent world.

  Published: March 9, 2006 9:51 AM

• RH

  Quote:

  "As I discovered on a recent trip to Dubai, the city is the furthest thing one could imagine from being a hotbed of Islamic extremism."

  
  My point of view:

  Dubai is one of the many mid-east states that play double-game with respect to terror support. While they officially fight terror inside their state, they continue ignoring actions of well-known terror-funding and -promoting organizations and favoring their money laundering activities, which ultimately revert against the USA and allied countries.

  
  If Mr. Henderson really thinks that, as far as the company is able to perform the job, it doesn't matter where the headquarters are, then why not accept a port administration from Cuba, or Iran - provided they have a favorable cost x benefit? No ideological issues, let's keep politics out of business...

  Please help me get things clearer, Austrian folks.

  RH (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil).

  Published: March 9, 2006 10:27 AM

• Curt Howland

  RH, "then why not accept a port administration from Cuba, or Iran..."
  

  Indeed, a wonderful idea. Let's do so! Why punish someone just because of where they live?

  Published: March 9, 2006 10:42 AM

• MSH

  Your view of the Dubai concern is YOUR truth, not THE truth.
  You and everyone should be much more scrupulous when telling others what THE truth is.
  In particular, the US peoples concern is not only one of world trade and one world economics. In the face of our nation outsourcing practically all knowledge bases skills around the world, to put so many, yet allow all the major seaports of the eastern seaboard in the US under the management of another country is a complete insult to the American people. Quite simply put, this is our nation and we should be in control of it not any other country or international corporation.

  Presonally how would you like a neighbor from the next city coming over to your house and managing all the things you bring into aor allow in to your home?

  Control is the issue. For when we give away our control we've lost. There is no reason what so ever to put the biggest gate to our nation in control of anyone but ourselves. We then can not blame anyone or any system for failures but ourself.

  National security as an issue runs deeper than the watch dog mentality you are implying. National security also includes all the employment and knowedge base of the citizens of the country and future generations of Americans. The biggest lose to our economy is lost knowledge and lost skills.

  As it is technical knowledge is being lost to other countries because Americans have been forced to embrace income potential and needs while sacrificing real value. That has lead to our shortage of "qualified" skills to do certain types of work. When our country has no more skills and knowledge to pass down to younger generations we become enslaved to those that do. As it is Doctors adn teachers and engineers leave there careers for better incomes because their skills do not provide the kind of income they deserve.

  One of the biggest wastes of natural resources is our abilities to do for ourselves. Our country needs to know how to and control our seaports not only now but in the future. Otherwise it's not our country, it's just a big consumer breeding ground, one big Wal Mart.

  Americans are becoming a population that is ignorant of know how. and the value of knowhow can not be disregarded and pawned off by blind technolocical optimism. We have to control our own country or loose all national dignity.

  So don't go trying to justify how responsible and modern other countries are, Dubai or anywhere else. As it is all creativity that defines the reason why the world wants to be like and come to America. It certainly can't be for the illusion of our economic proudness for the nation is loosing buying power every minute to an economic model that has robbed Americans of true wealth.

  So I ask you do you want a totally homoginized tapestry around the world where the burger you eat at McDonalds in Manhatten is the same as the one in Dubai? and do you like the idea that it won't be long before all homes will look like the where built and decorated out of HomeDepot and Ikea?
  Or do you think it is diversity and regional skills and knowledge that make for stronger people and country?

  So don't go off half-cocked telling what the truth is because it is much deeper than you shallow opinion.

  With a loose cannons like Bush and Cheney, whom are pirates, that are pilaging and plundering around the world, our nation is in grave danger of suffering a dimise of economic failure for gererations to come. And it will reverberate around the world!

  You see the issue has more to do with these "leaders" terrorizing our own citizens than warding off terror from other countries or cultures. It has to do with them pushing a one world Government and eliminating freedoms. For as we speak Democracy has turned to Facism with in our own country. Why can't people like you see it? ( that is unless that is what your mind is bent toward)

  Published: March 9, 2006 11:34 AM

• Mike Rael

  Hi Mr. Henderson:)
  This was a joyful article, based upon your direct experience of the country!
  Have you made a talk yet to the local Republican club? This article deserves to be heard widely!
  best wishes,
  Mike Rael, MA

  Published: March 9, 2006 12:16 PM

• Mike Rael

  Hi Mr. Henderson:)
  This was a joyful article, based upon your direct experience of the country!
  Have you made a talk yet to the local Republican club? This article deserves to be heard widely!
  best wishes,
  Mike Rael, MA

  Published: March 9, 2006 12:17 PM

• John Moniz

  I am not a protectionist. I am not anti-Arab. But here is the crux of this problem: Dubai World Ports is owned and controlled by a foreign government. While that government at the moment is considered friendly to the US, who can foretell the future? Russia was once a US ally. Would you now want Russia in control of our ports? In the event of a serious future dispute with Dubai, they would have the power to shut down our most strategic ports, bring us to our knees, and destroy our economy almost overnight. Personally, I wouldn't be comfortable with our own US government weilding that much power! Do you honestly think it prudent to allow a foreign government to have that kind of power over us??
  

  Published: March 9, 2006 12:41 PM

• James Hines

  Dear Mr. Henderson,
  
  While I very much appreciate the nature of your comments in several regards - I must differ with you in your final conclusion.
  To begin with, it cannot be doubted that those who are opposing this plan that would place the management of our ports in the hands of the U.A.E. ARE playing the Anti-Arab card. Many of them are, in fact, disingenuously engaging in such a jingoistic Anti-Arab, Anti-Muslim attack on this (strangely enough) NOT because THEY genuinely buy into such balderdash but (much to the contrary) to take advantage of an Anti-Arab sentiment which the Bush Administration (particularly Condoleeza Rice) has been instrumental in fueling for other purposes.
  Another point where I very much appreciate your essay is in its implicit insistence that the best means of securing peace IS through the support of the free market. If it is true (and I believe it is) that "IF goods do not cross borders, soldiers soon will", then the implicit assumption to the contrary is that if goods DO cross borders, this will serve to preserve peace. By all means, I DO support TRADE with Arab Countries as the best means of returning to a peaceful coexistence with them.
  Neverthless, it is one thing to allow other nations to bring goods into our ports and to allow us to bring our goods to theirs: BUT IT IS ANOTHER THING ENTIRELY TO GIVE A FOREIGN NATION OR EVEN A PRIVATE CORPORATION (which the company concerned is NOT) CONTROL OF THE MANAGEMENT OF OUR PORTS.
  Yes, I am perfectly aware that this company will not actually be in charge of our security. No, I do not believe that the people in charge of this company are engaged in a sinister plot to exploit their access to our ports for the purpose of bringing terror to our shores. All the same: you can do all of the screening you want. Those who are engaged in terrorism would still be very capable of gaining employment in this company and using their position to gain valuable information about the operation of our ports - or worse.
  But even THIS is not my fundamental objection.
  Please allow me to recommend that you view the video of John Sophocleus brown bag lunch presentation (at the Mises Institute) on the Uniform Excise Tax (available on this site).
  Once you have seen this, I hope you will appreciate that my objection is NOT to placing our ports in the hands of an ARAB NATION - but to placing the control of our ports into the hands of ANY Corporation controlled by anyone other than our own government or a privately held corporation in domestic hands that is contracted by the U.S. Government for that purpose.
  For the first 70 years of its existence, 95-99% of the revenue for the U.S. Government was funded by a Uniform Excise Tax. There could be no special trade deals by which this or that nation could get any special benefit to our ports and, for which, any member of our government could sell their votes in exchange for campaign contributions and the like.
  Best of all - to the extent that any one might concede the necessity of ANY funding for the federal government - this resulted in the most agreable form of taxation imagineable.
  Obviously the cost of the tax was passed on to U.S. consumers by those importing the goods. This would not allow for any of the absurdities of a progressive tax structure. It would be entirely impractical to charge one consumer a single penny or percentage of taxes higher than any other IF they were buying these goods. Moreover, this system of taxation was almost, if not ENTIRELY VOLUNTARY. If you don't want to pay the tax: don't buy imported goods.
  Yes, its true, this DOES amount (in a degree) to "protectionism". Yes, this WOULD provide an incentive for all but the wealthier citizens to purchase DOMESTIC goods which - all other things being equal - would have a price advantage by virtue of not having been taxed. Of course, the expense of complying with the I.R.S. code today has the effect of a U.S. Government imposed protectionism to the advantage of foreign imports.
  At the same time, this system would answer the thrust of the objections that might be advanced by the most Marxist/Socialist critics who would object to a system in which the "rich do not pay their fare share". The simple fact of the matter is that - inasmuch as the rich would be more capable and willing to purchase the more expensive imported goods - the rich would also bear the greater burden of taxes. But again - this would be entirely voluntary for all intents and purposes.
  Of course, this also resulted in a natural limitation on the rate of taxation the government could ever hope to impose on imports. The "rich" would be willing to pay more for certain imports up to a point. But if the government became overzealous and continued to raise the rates on imports - those less wealthy than others would cease purchasing the imports and at a certain point (which generally proved to be around 20%) an increase in such excises would result in a net loss to government revenues.
  This consideration would also, therefore, place a natural limitation on the extent to which such excises could be employed for the purposes of protectionism as the government would NOT be willing to undermine its own source of revenue in order to raise rates so high as to discourage the imports from which its revenue was derived.
  The worst part of all of this is that it actually puts me in a place of agreeing in any degree whatsoever with Hillary Clinton! The problem is NOT placing our ports in the hands of the U.A.E.: the real problem is ever having invested any nation or foreign corporation with the management of our ports in the first place!
  Of course, it will be urged that these same ports were previously under the control of a British Corporation. If the American People began to understand the dynamics of this: if it could be presumed that - prior to the present controversy - even a slim majority of U.S. citizens had ANY IDEA that the management of our ports was EVER in the hands of ANY foreign nation: IF the people of this country had ANY real education in the most basic implications of our government's original reliance on a Uniform Excise Tax and the great benefits of that which have been sacrificed to the tyranny of the I.R.S. - there MIGHT be an ounce of significance in such an objection. But there is not.
  Is it honestly to be imagined that if we could resurrect Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Franklin and even Hamilton today that these men would not be outraged to discover we had ever invested the MANAGEMENT of our ports to ANY FOREIGN POWER? If - finding that they were outraged (particularly) that we had invested this trust to the hands of those who might be distant relatives of the pirates of Tripoli - we should seek to console them by explaining that this was really no big deal because they HAD BEEN under the control of a BRITISH CORPORATION - is it sincerely to be imagined that they would find this any less objectionable? I cannot imagine that they would!
  Once again, I DO very much appreciate that your argument takes exception to the present inclination to hold all Arabs or Muslims in suspicion of being terrorists. Such prejudices cannot be conducive of establishing the trade with them which will provide the most concrete means of resecuring peace with such peoples and nations. By all means we must encourage trade with all nations - but we need not actually trade them our ports themselves.

  IN LIBERTY!,

  
  James Hines
  Chairman, The Libertarian Party of Alabama
  
  

  Published: March 9, 2006 1:26 PM

• Laurence Vance

  Before any further debate on this issue takes place, I think this question should be answered: Who owns the ports?

  Published: March 9, 2006 1:35 PM

• George Gaskell

  Let's put aside for a moment the issue of whether the Dubai company or the British one or some other should be allowed to have this port contract.

  How is it remotely justified that the government has the power to "control the ports" in the first place? On what basis does the government presume to have the power to grant or block such arrangements?

  The big picture here seems to be that the government has no business collectivizing ports in the first place. (Remember, the "Port Authority" owned the land on which the World Trade Center once stood.)

  Since the government has once again usurped its authority and pretends to be in charge of who owns what, pretends to be the owner of an entire port, should we really be surprised that it uses this aggressive assertion of power for its own political purposes?

  Published: March 9, 2006 1:43 PM

• Marwan

  Although it is nice to point out the modern, liberal amenities avaiable in Dubai that does not make it the ideal candidate for controlling over 20 US ports.

  This is a ploy by the Bush White House to appease Arabs and Muslims by showing them that we are not anti-Muslim, just anti Muslim terrorists (whatever that is). Not mention the fascistic grab at money through political means.

  I think it is a fine thing to do given the reality of our situation. Security is a red herring becuase DPW will not handle security, they will handle operations, security is under the purview of the USCG.

  The real issue, is why does the US government have any power to GIVE (or ALLOW the sale of) the contract to ANY foreign government or government-controlled business?

  If ports and seas were private, like the should be, then only the one with the means and the incentive to purchase them for profit or aesthetic benefit if they desire, would actually purchase them or be hired or hire someone to manage them.

  Then it wouldn't matter if the firm was Arab, British or Martian. Alsa, that is not the world we live in and in this world -- this is a good economic and political move.

  So-called terrorists' (what a stupid word) power diminishes when the lines of prejiduce, dogma and control get blurred by rational self-interest and the desire for profit. If we really wanted to disarm these wack-jobs we wouldn't give them a reason to recruit and fight, we'd give everyone else a reason to kill them becuase they were threathing everyone's well-being and profit.

  The more the Middle East looks like Dubai the less places Osama will have to hide. The more business, commerce, cross-border trade occurs the less people will desire to give their lives as martyrs.

  We are trying to employ the Israeli pre-emtptive violence move against terrorists. It hasn't worked for them for 60 years, why do we think this kind of demonization of Arabs and fear of losing American control of the ports is going to help. Remember we fought against the British -- Twice!

  If Israel had actually embraced the Palestinains and allowe commerce to occur without illegally apporopriating private lands -- Duabi would pale in comparison as a center of Wealth in the Mid-East. Moreover, other than the hardcore Muslims and the Hasidic Jews -- you wouldn't be able to tell a Palestinian apart from a Israeli.

  Instead of follwoing this stupid pattern, may be we should just give up Washington's control of all the seaports, airports, trains, etc. Then maybe we can take public transportation without fear that some strung-out, idealogical, unemployed, misguided, brainwashed Muslim is going to blow-up the plane that I'm on or release Saryn gas in the Mall when I'm shopping.

  I find it odd that one of the most vibrant focul points of trade throughout Western history has become such a hot bed for fascist lunacy. What is more odd is that the supposedly Capitalist Americans are more interested in dampening Capitalism's reprise in the Mid-East than promoting it.

  They say, be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

  It seems that we are wishing for a bunch of poor, pissed-off Muslims to become a much bigger bunch of poor, pissed-off Mulsims. Oh well, how the hell are going to win the next election without this external enemy. Boy do I miss hating the Russians, that was so much easier.

  Published: March 9, 2006 1:48 PM

• Dan

  "BUT IT IS ANOTHER THING ENTIRELY TO GIVE A FOREIGN NATION OR EVEN A PRIVATE CORPORATION (which the company concerned is NOT) CONTROL OF THE MANAGEMENT OF OUR PORTS."

  Mr. Hines,

  You would not support even a private corporation buying control, or owning a port? And, what do you mean by "our" ports? Whose ports?

  So, as the chairman of Alabama's libertarian party, you oppose even the private ownership of a port, and you speak of ports in general as if they are "the people's" collective property. Is this the "libertarian" point of view or your personal statist view? Please be clear on that before signing your post as "Chairman of Libertarian Party in Alabama."

  I thought I was a libertarian, but in no way whatsoever am I in the same camp as you Mr. Hines.

  Dan

  Published: March 9, 2006 1:56 PM

• RH

  Hi Austrian economists,

  Quoting MSH:
  "Your view of the Dubai concern is YOUR truth, not THE truth. You and everyone should be much more scrupulous when telling others what THE truth is."

  I'm afraid Mr. MSH (and perhaps others who posted comments thereafter) didn't understand the *ironic* intention behind my text.

  I actually intended to provoke a debate on the subject, trying to arrive to a logical conclusion - under the Austrian viewpoint - where would be the borders between good business and national security (if any).

  Just for clarification: I'm indeed a supporter of the USA in most initiatives, I'm no "Anti-Arab" but yes "Anti-Islamofascism" and "Anti-Terror".

  I believe that free trade is one of the best tools for building peace, but before making a deal you must be sure your future trade partner does not support (in hiding) those who hate your country and wish to destroy it to create a global religious dictatorship, or whatever intention not associated with the business itself.

  I still find it would be a great risk to allow a foreign company to manage ports in the USA - or in my home country - Brazil - for instance.

  Hope to have clarified the issue, and thanks to all who enriched the debate with consistent analyses.

  RH

  Published: March 9, 2006 2:20 PM

• J Henderson

  I'd just like to quickly point out to the doubters that if DPW really wanted to explode a U.S. port, this is the most expensive way imaginable to do so. For a tiny fraction of the purchase price, they could pay terrorists to blow up someone else's port. You conspiratorialists must think terror financiers are fools.

  Secondly, the current owners of the property (P&O) should be able to sell to foreign state owned enterprises or anyone who offers them the best price. Their decision to do so was properly vetted for security concerns by the relevant agency (CFIUS). To add new restrictions ex-post effectively infringes on proprty rights and degrades the property value of P&O.

  Published: March 9, 2006 2:50 PM

• SK Peterson

  Great article.

  One thing I'm not clear on is how "in the event of a conflict" DPW would be able to shut down the ports. Much of the property at the ports is leased and operated by other firms, not just DPW. For example, there would be one or more shipping lines (like Maersk or SeaLand or Hanjin) that would have operations at the ports, as would one or more major railroads like CSX or Norfolk Southern. There are usually a lot of warehousing and distribution activities located at the ports by firms that are not the "operator". There are too many other entities and organizations involved in the real day-to-day operations of the port, that shutting them down is virtually impossible.

  A bigger threat to the operation of the ports would be most likely to come from the longshoremen's unions than terrorists or foreign-owned entities.

  One question: does anyone have a legitimate link or source on what the actual duties of the operating company are?

  Published: March 9, 2006 5:12 PM

• David

  The Port company, despite being managed by Americans should never have been considered. Why?

  It is a company owned by a government. That is not capitalism.

  It is a country where individual rights are not respected. That is not capitalism.

  Simply because Dubhai "sparkles", means nothing.

  Maybe the reasons for Washington to stop this deal are not ideal - albeit given the situation they ought to be part of the whole, but the action was correct. Regardless, America still is the bastion of individual freedom and THAT is something no Arab country in the mid-east respects.

  Dubhai did not deserve to operate American ports.

  Published: March 9, 2006 6:26 PM

• xteve

  "Dubhai did not deserve to operate American ports."

  Then who does? & who gets to decide? Do these people deserve this power?

  Published: March 9, 2006 7:03 PM

• Chuck Sheppard

  Seems to me that the real purpose of this "much ado about nothing" has more to do with distraction for such issues as corruption in Washington, and the patriot act (which I note passed with little discussion) rather than anythng related to ports. In reality most of our ports are "operated" by foreign corporations/entities. The operation of what is essentially an offloading service has nothing to do with security (that belongs to customs and the coast guard) the employees (virtually all of whom are american longshormen), or other "threats" to our country. Politicians specialize in smoke and mirrors to distract the populace from the real issues with non problems that grab headlines and almost never cause a problem so they are easy to "fix".

  Published: March 9, 2006 7:31 PM

• Edwin Faircloth

  The only thing I disagree with in this article is the statement that the President created the hysteria. I believe that the terroist did that on 911.

  Published: March 9, 2006 9:23 PM

• gh

  I don't get it. The Pentagon thinks it is safe enough to dock almost 600 warships over the past couple of years, for military personel to go on leave in Dubai, and not to mention all of the Westerners who do business there. Yet, somehow putting a Dubai company in charge of operating ports (not SECURITY, which is job of US government) is going to cause utter chaos? I mean I don't think foreigners were in charge of security at airports in 2001 so hint, hint. So much for private property rights.

  Published: March 9, 2006 11:10 PM

• Arman Demirjian

  Oh America! What ever happened to your capitalist ways? It seems you are now nothing more than a declining superpower, afraid of foreigners, unable to compete, and debt on your arse. What other sort of surprises will you surprise us with next?

  -AD

  Published: March 10, 2006 1:17 AM

• Keith

  The arguement is hopeless. There are certain things that you can't fight with reason and rationality (e.g., family, religion, nationalism, etc.). When somebody believes in something blindly, it does no good to turn on the light of reason.
  

  Published: March 10, 2006 7:39 AM

• George Gaskell

  It is a company owned by a government. That is not capitalism.

  If that made any difference whatsoever to these people, then why isn't Chuck Schumer screeching about the whole AMTRAK thing?

  Published: March 10, 2006 8:12 AM

• J Henderson

  U.S. ports are currently state-owned. So much for those of you who would lecture Dubai about capitalism and the evils of state-ownership.

  The government leases out its port space to private operators. The more ignorant participants on this blog are unaware that foreign governments like Singapore and China operate some of the largest U.S. ports, and have been doing so for years without incident.

  The U.S. government is still in charge of maintaining security measures. Port operating companies are responsible for loading and unloading cargo and some aspects of internal security. "Control" of seaports and port security is still in the hands of the incompetent bureaucrats we are are supposed to have faith in.

  In this debate, I observe that people are willing to hold Dubai Ports World to a much higher standard of security than they hold their own "wonderful" government.

  You might be interested to learn that a 2005 Coast Guard/Department of Homeland Security study said that 66 out of 359 ports are currently vulnerable to terrorist attack. While the solons in DC have spent $18 billion pretending to secure airports since 9/11, they have spent just $630 million pretending to secure U.S. seaports against terrorism. (Not that more wasteful federal patronage spending is necessarily going to help, but I fail to see why "American control" of ports makes a bit of difference.)

  Another factor the nationalists are ignoring is the linkage between the longshoremans union and the mafia. Federal prosecutors recently charged the head of the longshoremans union John Bowers with racketeering and named him as an associate of the Gambino organized crime family. The unions and mafia would find it much easier to skim profits from a "good American" port management company than from a Dubai state-owned company they have no influence over. Hong Kong's port management company refuses to deal with our corrupt unions at all. The bottom line is that global competition for port management will help clean up U.S. ports and make them safer. Protectionism will lead to higher costs and lost competitiveness but not greater safety.

  Published: March 10, 2006 9:04 AM

• buddah

  port safety is based on where the goods originate-- has nothing to do with who manages the ports here --

  by the time the nuculear sensor goes off on the New York dock-- it is too late

  everyone is trying to run away from Bush -- so whatever he is for political clout is gain by bashing him-- even his own party is done with him

  all are fleeing --- as always --- politicians run down the free market for their own gain

  Published: March 10, 2006 9:39 AM

• karnak

  Very cogent post presented in a sea of hysteria. Well worth reading and providing some needed balance. However, the last paragraph says it all "...as ye sow, so shall ye reap..." Most unfortunate.

  Published: March 10, 2006 10:21 AM

• Mike P

  First of all, this was a great article. It exploded many of the myths that Americans believe about Dubai. Sadly I see that many posters on this blog are still clinging to some of the spurious arguments used against this deal, and to slander Dubai in general. To say "Would you want Russia to control our ports" is disingenuous. Dubai is not Russia. Dubai ia a tiny city state in the Persian Gulf with no ambitions for global conquest. They run the city state like a corporation. Free market principles rule. It is one of the most vibrant and unregulated economies on earth. It is a spectacular place. Individual and human rights ARE respected there. Even the US state department has been compelled to acknowledge that none of the alarming human rights violations that happen in other Emirates, such as public floggings or stoning of adulterers, happen in Dubai. Alcohol is legal there. Women can dress however they want. All religions are tolerated and practiced.

  It makes me sad to see so many Americans, even some so-called "libertarians", so easily manipulated into hysterical xenophobia by shameless pols.

  Published: March 10, 2006 10:47 AM

• Amiera Ellian

  “Those who are engaged in terrorism would still be very capable of gaining employment in this company and using their position to gain valuable information about the operation of our ports - or worse.� They are now also capable.

  If it comes down the “control issue,� normally the government controls the security. The US can make laws and make sure a company behaves in accordance with those laws. Till now, DP World has satisfied all the necessary regulatory approvals for the deal to be passed.

  As for the management, many jobs in the UAE are done by none-Arabs. You can apply if you are not too expensive and are well capable of managing.

  Yes, the UAE is a country, like most countries, where not all human rights are respected (does the US or Saudi Arabia?). However, it is tolerant to a certain degree. University libraries offer a lot of free information (they use US research databases) and you can divorce through an instant message.

  
  

  Published: March 10, 2006 2:07 PM

• J Henderson

  To correct Mike P's otherwise accurate post, alcohol is not generally legal in Dubai. Only large hotels may serve alcohol. I think I also heard of a small number of restaurants that also have liquor licenses.

  Another misperception is that Dubai is going to hire lots of Arabs to work at American ports. Arabs in Dubai are too wealthy to work in ports of any kind. Workers throughout Dubai are usually Indian because the Arabs do not get their hands dirty.

  Published: March 10, 2006 2:57 PM

• (8?»

  Like any so-called 'debate' this one reeks. I see two sides speaking about different things, with the only commonality being that they both contain 'facts.'

  I don't understand what this subject provides us other than the opportunity to confuse battles amongst statists with those concerning free markets.

  Or in other words, propaganda is as propaganda does. Which, as always, is to divert us from the light of reason.

  Personally, given that I can observe this activity (and many others) as being nothing more than the typical political divide-and-conquer/knee-jerk reaction to TINA (there is no alternative), I see it as just the latest death throe of THE Alpha nation state. Therefore, I find the whole discussion to be moot, as well as counter-productive. Do any of you Dubai defenders actually believe that W backs the deal in order to expand freedom? Or do you think it is just another way for him to sell something he doesn't own for his own gain?

  If you don't believe in the honesty of the messenger, how does it 'help' anything to promote his message? To me it looks to be another pragmatic sellout to principle, with the delusional justification of being better than not. I'm reminded of Bastiat's "Seen vs. the Unseen."

  I would say I find it ironic to see an anti-state site being so effectively manipulated as a tool of the state, but given the Mises Institute is a government corp, how could it happen otherwise?

  Published: March 10, 2006 5:55 PM

• David

  Dubhai did not deserve to operate American ports."

  >>Then who does? & who gets to decide? Do these people deserve this power?>>

  In the current environment capitalism is unlikely to become the socio-economic system embraced anywhere in the world.

  The United States is the most capitalistic, but other than perhaps Rep Ron Paul, no politician understands or knows: what is capitalism?

  Capitalism is the only socio-economic system that rests upon reason and objective reality.

  Dealing with what is today and my answer was not a defense of the status quo or an attack - only the DP issue is relevant here.

  Who should operate the ports? Definitely a country where individual rights are enshrined and ideally a private company from that country.
  

  Published: March 10, 2006 9:13 PM

• David

  There is a policy of Dubhai Ports that rules them out to operate a US government facility such as America's ports.

  DP have an active boycott against Israel. Under American law this is illegal.

  Dubhai supposedly this "sparkling country", does not respect the State of Israel, a country that is the freest in the entire mid-east and the only one where individual rights and political freedom is enshrined.

  I say well done to the American Congress. Dubhai for important reasons did not deserve to run the ports.

  Disinvesting DP from the ports is good news.
  

  Published: March 10, 2006 9:21 PM

• Brian Macker

  "Less than 10% of the city's economy depends on oil revenues, with the majority generated from international trade and tourism."

  I don't think anyone actually cares what percentage of the economy depends on oil profits. Are you saying that if the percent was higher that they are somehow suspect? You are aware that it's the oil in the region that makes possible their booming trade. So it is oil based trade indirectly. Again there is nothing to be ashamed of with that.

  I don't think anyone brought this up as an issue however. The actual things that were brought up had nothing to do with whether Dubai makes money via their free trade zone. Pointing this out seems a little like praising them for making the trains run on time.

  The claims being made are had been allowing the shipment of nuclear weapons technology to our enemys.

  Whether something is in their financial interest or not doesn't really seem to bother terrorists. Did Osama Bin Laden choose his religion over his wealth. Hell, they are choosing their religion over their lives. As far as I can see Muslims in general are not acting rationally. So don't be too upset if I don't trust them moving materials in and out of our ports. Do I have time to figure out all the details. Of course not, but I do know I don't trust them.
  

  Published: March 10, 2006 9:34 PM

• Paul D

  "Dubhai supposedly this "sparkling country", does not respect the State of Israel…"

  That's a good start. I respect no states, including Israel. I do respect people.

  "…a country that is the freest in the entire mid-east and the only one where individual rights and political freedom is enshrined."

  Is that the same country where attack helicopters routinely launch missiles at crowded streets, and bulldozers mow down private residences while people are still living in them?

  Published: March 11, 2006 9:23 AM

• Trever

  UAE royal family hung out with Bin Laden prior to 9/11 after bombings of US embassies in Africa.[LINK]
  Why would you want their state owned company running US ports? I don't get it.

  Published: March 12, 2006 1:20 AM

• Peter

  US government hung out with Saddam Hussain, members of bin Laden's family, etc., prior to 9/11, too. Why would you want their state owned company running US ports? I don't get it.

  Published: March 12, 2006 4:16 AM

• ted

  I observe this typically american and typically absurdly ignorant brouhaha over the P&O with disbelief. The P&O is the biggest and most professional port operating corporation on the planet, something which I havent seen anyone mention. These people own and operate ports in Australia, Great Britain, all over Europe, all over Asia. These people are the best at what they do and I can say that as one who has worked in the port business in Singapore. The american ports should be on their knees begging to be managed by P&O, and not protesting it...

  Published: March 12, 2006 10:31 AM

• Movie Guy

  I am curious, Henderson.

  As a matter of personal disclosure, how many business deals do you have underway or forthcoming in Dubai?

  Re:

  As I discovered on a recent trip to Dubai, the city is the furthest thing one could imagine from being a hotbed of Islamic extremism. Dubai is rapidly evolving into the leading financial and commercial center in the Middle East.
  

  Published: March 12, 2006 10:36 PM

• Movie Guy

  J. Henderson -- The uproar over Dubai Ports World's planned purchase of franchises at several American port facilities continues. Being owned by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is enough to make the company a subject of demagoguery in Washington, DC.

  
  Do you really know the full scope of the UAE DP World acquisition of P&O and P&O Ports North America?

  It is easy to condemn those who opposed the sale of the UK P&O operations and activities at U.S. ports to DP World (specifically, P&O Ports North America, Inc.). It's equally easy to cast them as anti-Arabs and some other nonsense that we have read in the past few weeks. There are those individuals and organizations opposed to foreign ownership and/or operations of any critical U.S. infrastructure. And they have been for many years. But you failed to acknowledge that any such considerations existed from one coast to the other among the U.S. citizens. Interesting oversight...

  Moreover, the vast majority of global news reports failed to correctly state the scope of the DP World acquisitions of U.S-based P&O Ports North America operations and activities. Instead such news media sources appeared to rely on the factuall incorrect and misleading U.S. Department of Homeland Security fact sheet that was made available.

  Considering your level of expertise on the matter of the UAE DP World acquisition of P&O and P&O Ports North America, I am confident that you will readily share your specific knowledge as an investment banker and U.S. citizen regarding the following questions if you know the factual answers.

  Let's see how well you do with basic facts.

  P&O Ports North America Operations and Activities

  Do you know the number of U.S. ports involved?

  Do you know the number of terminals where operations and activites are conducted by P&O?

  Let me break it down for you.

  P&O operations and activities - ? U.S. ports

  P&O operations and activities - ? total number of terminals

  P&O cargo terminal operations and activities - ? ports; ? terminals

  P&O container operations and activities - ? ports; ? terminals

  P&O RoRo operations and activities - ? ports; ? terminals

  P&O breakbulk operations and activities - ? ports; ? terminals

  P&O bulk operations and activities - ? ports; ? terminals

  P&O bulk grain/grain elevator operations and activities - ? ports; ? terminals

  P&O reefer/cold storage operations and activities - ? ports; ? terminals

  P&O cruise vessel terminals operations and activities - ? ports; ? terminals

  P&O full or joint venture operational control of cargo terminals - ? ports; ? terminals

  P&O full or joint venture operational control of cruise vessel terminals - ? ports; ? terminals

  Names of the U.S. ports where P&O has operations and activities - ?

  1.
  2.
  3.
  ...

  Published: March 12, 2006 11:09 PM

• Joe

  I have a simple question that should have been asked on TV and to all the other idiots in Congress.
  
  
  Have you considered that Dubai might have real motivation ($$) to keep this country safe?
  
  
  
  Especially after all those spectacular failures by all sorts of government agencies and policies (Oklahoma US terrorist, WTC Arab terrorists and New Orleans a major fuck up by all parties involved) to keep this country safe.
  We can safely assume that if something is to happen again it’ll most likely involve Arabs, which would cause the US to blame some Arab country and go for another demolition in the Middle East. This would cause the tourism and all the business in Dubai to come to a screeching halt just like it happened after 9/11. Dubai has billions and billions invested in businesses that probably would not sustain another major catastrophe like 9/11.
  
  Also we know that the CIA has been having serious problems recruiting Arab spies and having even harder time infiltrating those fundamentalist Muslim networks. What a better way to help the CIA then to put some Arab country really motivated in keeping this country safe in charge of all the ports. I’m willing to bet $100 that is exactly why the president is backing this deal. He knows the US can’t do this all by itself and they need allies in the Arab world, Saudi Arabia is not the whole Arab world.
  

  Published: March 13, 2006 2:41 AM

• FaeLLe

  Excellent article it is american's like you that do make your country proud; unlike the stereotypical image most people have.

  Published: March 13, 2006 7:07 AM

• Dubai Classifieds

  Excellent Article!

  Published: April 8, 2008 2:33 AM

• tayeb

  i searching for job in my stady im student in finally year in economic and i have degree in infermatique and i have degree in english .and the important that i have Effective study on the economic crisis...I want to reflect my Effective study on any company so to whom it may concern communication me in number 002137706493or 00213791734008 and my msn is tayeb-london@hotmail.com

  Published: May 3, 2009 4:23 PM