Ok, I feel weird. Hate Trump, hate Musk...but this seems like a good thing. What am I missing? Trump didn't invade anywhere, and basically just pulled a China on China. It seems better to me for a...
Ok, I feel weird.
Hate Trump, hate Musk...but this seems like a good thing. What am I missing?
Trump didn't invade anywhere, and basically just pulled a China on China. It seems better to me for a US company to have control over such a large shipping lane component vs. a Chinese company.
I don't know the specifics of how Panama Canal ports work in terms of who controls and has authority over them and such, but based on the article it sounds like this constitutes a portion of the...
I don't know the specifics of how Panama Canal ports work in terms of who controls and has authority over them and such, but based on the article it sounds like this constitutes a portion of the ports, not all of them.
In a press release, CK Hutchison Holding said Tuesday that it would sell all shares in Hutchison Port Holdings and all shares in Hutchison Port Group Holdings, in a deal valued at $22.8 billion. The two units hold 80% of the Hutchison Ports group that operates 43 ports in 23 countries, including two of the four major ports that exist along the Panama Canal. The deal will give the BlackRock consortium control over 43 ports in 23 countries, including Mexico, the Netherlands, Egypt, Australia, Pakistan and elsewhere.
It's also the case that this headline might be overselling the deal to an extent. They sold control of many ports, not just Panama Canal, but the timing of it does seem hard to believe it's just a coincidence.
It does at least say it's "two of the four major ports that exist along the Panama Canal" but doesn't say who controls the others.
From what I understand, the ports aren't actually super relevant. They're ports; places where ships can dock for loading/unloading cargo and crew, refuelling, repairs, etc. Quote Wikipedia:
From what I understand, the ports aren't actually super relevant. They're ports; places where ships can dock for loading/unloading cargo and crew, refuelling, repairs, etc.
Though the Hong Kong company Hutchison Port Holdings does have a concession to operate two ports near the ends of the canal – the Balboa port on the Pacific side and the Cristóbal port on the Atlantic side – neither these ports nor the company control access to the canal.[87] Three other ports near the canal's ends are operated by companies from Taiwan and Singapore, and joint venture from the United States and Panama.[87] The government of Panama receives dividends from the Hutchinson concession, but the locks and Marine Traffic Control are run independently by the Panama Canal Authority, and the harbor pilots that guide ships are Panamanian.[88]
Yeah it may be an exagerated win, but at the same time the way China treats any foreign company* I don't really see a problem with a Chinese company getting strong armed into selling. You know,...
Yeah it may be an exagerated win, but at the same time the way China treats any foreign company* I don't really see a problem with a Chinese company getting strong armed into selling.
You know, China: "yes Y company you can operate here!"
...[2 years later exactly the same service copied via corporate espionage, foreign company forced out of China]
It's Blackrock, but that's about the only negative thing I can see. No need to have such an important shipping lane folded into that behemoth of an investment firm. This deal sounds good to me...
It's Blackrock, but that's about the only negative thing I can see. No need to have such an important shipping lane folded into that behemoth of an investment firm.
This deal sounds good to me too. The HK company practically ceded control for what seems to be a relatively small sum of money. Though "control" over the canal is an overstatement, it's mainly ports.
Yeah my first thought was....well that kinda sounds like a ~sci-fi foothold trope on China's part, why do they control such a large portion of a canal in the Americas? Can't be for anything...
Yeah my first thought was....well that kinda sounds like a ~sci-fi foothold trope on China's part, why do they control such a large portion of a canal in the Americas? Can't be for anything beneficial to any countries in the western hemisphere.
Not saying the US should control most/all of it, but from a pure proximity stand point it makes way more sense.
Still feeling really fuckin weird that I am not instantly disagreeing with something that seems to be a result of Trump's strongman bullshit.
It's more the hypocrisy and it being on ~literally the opposite side of the planet. Imagine if America was the primary owner of canals/shipping routes that sliced through SE Asia. Everything the...
It's more the hypocrisy and it being on ~literally the opposite side of the planet. Imagine if America was the primary owner of canals/shipping routes that sliced through SE Asia.
Everything the rest of the world does China copies and then doesn't allow outside competition.
Before you think I am purely anti-China, I fucking love Taobao. Also Chinese logistics are far more impressive than anything else on the planet (ST Express, ZTD, etc.). FedEx, DHL, UPS are laughable in comparison.
Eh we're the ones buying the products and we don't/shouldn't own the canal. The "US" doesn't own those ports now and us controlling the canal (except not because it's the ports and not us because...
Eh we're the ones buying the products and we don't/shouldn't own the canal. The "US" doesn't own those ports now and us controlling the canal (except not because it's the ports and not us because it's Blackrock) isn't less colonial than China hypothetically controlling it. The HK company has ran them for almost 30 years.
Which China didn't run the canal to be clear. Panama is being jerked around by the US right now but the US absolutely uses shipping lanes and American companies own ports worldwide. Otherwise Blackrock wouldn't have such a portfolio. I'd say American hypocrisy is as relevant as Chinese hypocrisy here.
It's just weird to be stunned that they contracted for the ports when they're using the canal. It's also weird to be like "woo Blackrock" in basically any context IMO.
Haha, sounds like you know more than me. I definitely did not intend to sound like I was "woo Blackrock" though. Also didn't think it was less colonial, just the proximity made more sense.
Haha, sounds like you know more than me. I definitely did not intend to sound like I was "woo Blackrock" though.
Also didn't think it was less colonial, just the proximity made more sense.
I didn't mean you were excited just that like, it's not great for Blackrock to own even more. And Panama should be allowed to contract with whomever to run the ports and not be pressured by the US...
I didn't mean you were excited just that like, it's not great for Blackrock to own even more. And Panama should be allowed to contract with whomever to run the ports and not be pressured by the US or China over it. If it was a German company that was great a port logistics it'd make sense for it to be them, regardless of how close they are.
I dislike my government swinging its military around to get, what, a good deal for mega rich investors? I'm just unconvinced this was a particularly big deal in the first place, or any of the US's business.
Ok, I feel weird.
Hate Trump, hate Musk...but this seems like a good thing. What am I missing?
Trump didn't invade anywhere, and basically just pulled a China on China. It seems better to me for a US company to have control over such a large shipping lane component vs. a Chinese company.
I don't know the specifics of how Panama Canal ports work in terms of who controls and has authority over them and such, but based on the article it sounds like this constitutes a portion of the ports, not all of them.
It's also the case that this headline might be overselling the deal to an extent. They sold control of many ports, not just Panama Canal, but the timing of it does seem hard to believe it's just a coincidence.
It does at least say it's "two of the four major ports that exist along the Panama Canal" but doesn't say who controls the others.
From what I understand, the ports aren't actually super relevant. They're ports; places where ships can dock for loading/unloading cargo and crew, refuelling, repairs, etc.
Quote Wikipedia:
Yeah it may be an exagerated win, but at the same time the way China treats any foreign company* I don't really see a problem with a Chinese company getting strong armed into selling.
...[2 years later exactly the same service copied via corporate espionage, foreign company forced out of China]
It's Blackrock, but that's about the only negative thing I can see. No need to have such an important shipping lane folded into that behemoth of an investment firm.
This deal sounds good to me too. The HK company practically ceded control for what seems to be a relatively small sum of money. Though "control" over the canal is an overstatement, it's mainly ports.
Yeah my first thought was....well that kinda sounds like a ~sci-fi foothold trope on China's part, why do they control such a large portion of a canal in the Americas? Can't be for anything beneficial to any countries in the western hemisphere.
Not saying the US should control most/all of it, but from a pure proximity stand point it makes way more sense.
Still feeling really fuckin weird that I am not instantly disagreeing with something that seems to be a result of Trump's strongman bullshit.
It doesn't seem that weird to me when China is the second heaviest user of the canal. Why wouldn't they invest in the port if US companies would?
It's more the hypocrisy and it being on ~literally the opposite side of the planet. Imagine if America was the primary owner of canals/shipping routes that sliced through SE Asia.
Everything the rest of the world does China copies and then doesn't allow outside competition.
Before you think I am purely anti-China, I fucking love Taobao. Also Chinese logistics are far more impressive than anything else on the planet (ST Express, ZTD, etc.). FedEx, DHL, UPS are laughable in comparison.
Eh we're the ones buying the products and we don't/shouldn't own the canal. The "US" doesn't own those ports now and us controlling the canal (except not because it's the ports and not us because it's Blackrock) isn't less colonial than China hypothetically controlling it. The HK company has ran them for almost 30 years.
Which China didn't run the canal to be clear. Panama is being jerked around by the US right now but the US absolutely uses shipping lanes and American companies own ports worldwide. Otherwise Blackrock wouldn't have such a portfolio. I'd say American hypocrisy is as relevant as Chinese hypocrisy here.
It's just weird to be stunned that they contracted for the ports when they're using the canal. It's also weird to be like "woo Blackrock" in basically any context IMO.
Edited: fixed an unclear phrase.
Haha, sounds like you know more than me. I definitely did not intend to sound like I was "woo Blackrock" though.
Also didn't think it was less colonial, just the proximity made more sense.
I didn't mean you were excited just that like, it's not great for Blackrock to own even more. And Panama should be allowed to contract with whomever to run the ports and not be pressured by the US or China over it. If it was a German company that was great a port logistics it'd make sense for it to be them, regardless of how close they are.
I dislike my government swinging its military around to get, what, a good deal for mega rich investors? I'm just unconvinced this was a particularly big deal in the first place, or any of the US's business.