#2
He may be correct. There are mountains of these containers everywhere. And, yes, it's the the major banking entities behind the "globalization". Thye make their cut no matter what. And, they have no respect for nation states.
#4
He may well be right about the Bank lending ponzi scheme. I used to to work for an Asian bank and know their lending policies, probably the best in Asia, didn't account for value of an asset in a location.
Otherwise, he doesn't understand market economics. Just because an asset costs and is worth $6,000 in a particular place, it doesn't follow it is worth $6,000 or any other amount in a different place. The key equation is the cost of the container and the cost of shipping it to it's place of manufacture/original use. If the cost is more then it makes economic sense to just let them pile up at the point of deliver (and then scrap them).
#5
Phil, you accusation that the guy doesn't understand market economics is off base, and your comment about the value of an asset versus its cost is exactly at the foundation of the argument: The Ponzi scheme he's talking about relies on the fact that the value of the shipping container is worth $6000 WHERE THE LOAN WAS MADE, and it is THAT value of the container that is used to compute the value of the collateral against which the loan is made, AND the value that is carried on the books to balance the outgo of the cash in the form of the loan.
Just because an asset costs and is worth $6,000 in a particular place, it doesn't follow it is worth $6,000 or any other amount in a different place.
EXACTLY the guy's point: this particular asset is a SHIPPING CONTAINER. It's FUNCTION is to be relocated to a different place. The moment it gets there, its REAL value changes to that location's value based on the market decision of make or buy or ship to different place to sell it. Because there are a LOT of containers piling up here, at some point it would be cheaper to buy them from here at less than $6000 than make them.
However, the REAL value of an asset is indeterminate in a quantum-mechanical sense: it is computed ONLY when an attempt to SELL it is made. That happens when "Ponzi" skips out and tells the bank to recover their loan by selling the collateral put up against the loan. At that point in time, "economic sense" changes polarity, from "how much can I GAIN from selling this asset" to "how much can we avoid LOSING on this loan?" Banks don't want cars, houses, land, or shipping containers: they want CASH, BOTH from principal and interest. The interest payments merely lull them into a sense that the loan is still good. When they stop is when the pain begins.
The best way to force the termination of the scheme is for the shipping yards to CHARGE for storage of the containers at their yards after 30 days. Those who don't will find themselves unable to receive new shipping if they can't space to put the new containers because its being taken up by the old ones.
#6
But, Ptah, that too is what he is saying. These containers are NOT stored at the ports. They are stored wherever they are destined. Shipped into Seattle, Long Beach, etc., but they only sit there long enough to be hooked up onto the trains. Then, the containers are taken inland (by 1000's of miles in some cases). They will NOT pay to ship that empty container back from OK, KS, NE, SD, ND, etc. to the coast to "re-ship" with our goods. So, they sit there rusting in OK City, Kansas City, etc.
Posted by: BA ||
12/12/2006 13:09 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Every traffic transportation managers nightmare. Too many empties too far away.
#9
We've several thousand here in Mobile, there's a huge storage yard beside I-10 with a clearly visible huge sign selling them for $2000-5000 depending on size.
About 6 months ago my brother wanted one to store things while he reroofed and rebuilt his garage/storage building, and there were none available, we were told that Wal Mart had bought all they had to ship things around internaly (USA) after Katrina. So they are being resold and reused.
Since then they have some more to sell. I personaly was thinking about getting three, possibly four and welding them together and using them as an underground home (Concrete encased) it seems about the cheapest I could build a home for, figure around 30 grand, mostly for concrete and haulage/excavation.
So there is a resale market, although Katrina caused this surge, what happens when Wal Mart keeps on reusing them internaly, seems to me that's a far better use than trying to ship them back to China.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
12/12/2006 19:54 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Once buried, the things would make decent "instant" bombshelters.
I'd also like to see a tariff imposed that forces these assets back into the hands of the sponsoring entities. If shipping costs included a round-trip performance bond of some sort, suddenly all this cheap crap that China floods our markets with wouldn't be so cheap anymore.
This is just one more example of how the Chinese subsidize predatory marketing practices at the cost of our domestic manufacturing and employment.
#11
The Ponzi scheme he's talking about relies on the fact that the value of the shipping container is worth $6000 WHERE THE LOAN WAS MADE.
Let's throw some elaboration here. Say there's a Chinese shipping company. Let's call it Chinois Blow Chow (CBC).
CBC needs 10,000 containers. But it doesn't buy the 10,000 containers. That falls to wholly-owned subsidiaries, say, CBCC(A), in Seattle and CBCC (L) in London. (It's not farfetched; every shipping company I've dealt with had each ship set up as its own corporation, who then 'hired' the parent company to do all the administrative work).
CBCC(A) and CLCC(L) cut a deal for 5,000 containers each at $2,500/container. BCC(A)and CBCC(L) get financing for them at $6000 each, then lease them to CBC for a modest amount. CBCC(A) and CBCC(L) pay CBC for 'delivering' the containers. The amount is near the difference between $2500 and $6000. CBC also likely collects a subsidy from the Chinese government.
#12
I can think of lots of uses for the containers, at the right price. Prison annexes. Shipping illegal aliens south. Storage units. Hurricane shelters.
#13
I am curious about the legal status of the containers. Presumably they are simply abandoned when they are unloaded, hence Wal-Mart flogging them off in Mobile and elsewhere.
Let's assume that the fact that members of this study group retain the Saudi royal family as their client has nothing to do with their conclusions. Doesn't the fact that they represent the largest power in the Persian Gulf make it relevant and worthy of reporting? I think it does.
Go ahead and search. New York Times, Houston Chronicle, Washington Post. The only people mentioning this fact are two lefty bloggers and Michael Weiner. Conclude what you will.
#1
That James Baker works for the Saudi royal family is beyond relevant--it's revelatory. And so is the fact that the media is NOT reporting that interesting little tidbit. As far as journalism goes ( or used to go) that fact that the members of this "study group" which is purportedly aimed at directing US foreign policy in the Middle East, actually represent "the largest power in the Persian Gulf" is most definitely "newsworthy." Unreal that the news is not covering it and bringing that out in the open.
Maybe someone could inform the Times and the Post. I can't. It's possible they don't know, and it might be likely since credible investigative reporting has mostly gone the way of the dinosaurs.
#3
Face it, it's all over for Baker and Hamilton. It's off to the tomb for this crew
Posted by: Captain America ||
12/12/2006 16:12 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Someone will take the story. It's a matter of getting it out there and letting the info get scooped.
I dunno, this blog entry for instance is already almost a week old, and I had received a forwarded email (posted in the last comment here) about the Baker/Botts/saudy connection at about that time too. I don't think the msm are really interested, because they see this rapport as going "the right way".
#5
I think it is likely those MSM journalists haven't a clue about Baker's connections. The disconnect between the reverence some people still hold for the New York Times and the like and the blue water of idiocy that is modern journalism is difficult to credit. Read LGF for a couple days and never go back to newsprint.
#6
It's not reported because it fits the MSM agenda on top of that follow the money. The money will tell you who is behind this, that money has no loyalty to this nation nor it's long term interests.
#7
Bakers law firm has appeared to successfully either deap sixed or tied up in court forever the 911 victim's 1 trillion dollar lawsuit against the Saudi Shieks.
Of course the same shieks now own %20 of FoxNews so... don't hold your breath. Now its more likely that the commies at LinkTV will report it on some show like Democracy Today.
#8
Two Clinton Ambassadors to the terror kingdom, later became shills for the House of Saud. With Baker, the problem is: he is bound by attorney-client privilege to the Sauds. The privilege prohibits him from doing anything to their detriment, and obligates him to act to their benefit. So, how the hell can he be impartial and objective?
Of course, everybody-is-doing-it is no excuse. The solution is to ban Ambassadors from future representation of foreign states, in any capacity.
When it comes to deciding the pattern of self-governance on the Pakistani side of the Line of Control, no serious discussion is needed.
Where is the question of self-governance when Pakistan has, by and large, been ruled, by one military dictator or the other?
If no respect is shown to the democratic aspirations of the people of Pakistan, how can its military rulers possibly grant autonomy to the government of Azad Jammu & Kashmir (AJK)?
Readers may recall that after General Zia-ulHaqs coup in 1977, the AJK Assembly was dissolved, the parliamentary system scrapped and a presidential form of government set in motion. An army brigadier was appointed Chief Executive.
This arrangement continued till 1985, when elections were held after amending the rules such that the opposition parties were marginalised.
Amid all the Arab news flowing throughout the last week (or over years and years), I was delighted at the news of the fall of John Bolton, the former US-appointed ambassador to the UN. I hope - I even pray - that his fall will be once and for all. Dar-al-Hayat is based in both London and Beirut. Jihad lives in London.
Before I finish, I would like to clarify that I'm mean a political, a professional or an ethical fall. I do not wish any harm to come to Bolton or anyone else, but I do want to not see him again. Over his term in office, he caused a lot of harm to Arab and Muslim interests. He was an accomplice in the crime of destroying Iraq, from its preparation in the State Department to its implementation up till now.
Since I've explained that I don't want any harm to come to anyone, even though Bolton himself has caused much harm, I can now say that my joy has been doubled because President Bush has lost the battle of keeping Bolton as a permanent ambassador. He appointed him by exploiting the Congress' recess after it had turned down Bolton's nomination. This means that his term in office would have expired with the current Congress.
President Bush said he accepted Bolton's decision to withdraw his nomination 'with deep regret.' Bush stated: "I am deeply disappointed that a handful of United States senators prevented Ambassador Bolton from receiving the up or down vote he deserved in the Senate ".
President Bush has always been in another world. He's the one who has caused obstruction through his insistence on this 'undiplomatic' ambassador, not to mention that the majority in fact does not want him. However, it seems that the president forgot the election results.
In addition to my delight at John Bolton's fall and Bush's disappointment, there was another reason for my joy: the neo-cons' crying over him. In the editorial of the 'National Review', the neo-cons organ, the editors expressed their disappointment at Bolton's step-down. They listed his merits, which are in fact political crimes against all Arab and Muslim issues...
this has been a comic tragedy with an incompetent DA using his powers to incite racial biases for re-election votes IMHO. Durham-in-wonderland has been all over it, in lieu of actual investigation by the local media, and cowardly behavior by the Duke Admin and racial academianuts. Actual document here
It's a mystery why no federal involvement has occurred thus far in the Duke case, as Mike Nifong engages in a blatant, and highly publicized, abuse of power.
North Carolina congressman Walter Jones today demanded a Justice Department investigation of Nifong's misconduct, focusing on:
1) the district attorney's ordering the Durham Police to violate their own procedures and confine the April 4 lineup to suspects;
2) the district attorney's multiple procedurally improper and frequently misleading public statements.
"After all," concludes Jones, "if the American people cannot trust those who they've empowered to pursue justice fairly, then hope for this democracy is lost."
I hope the Justice Department treats Jones' request seriously, and launches the necessary inquiry. As both prosecutor and de facto police chief, Nifong has absolute control over Durham police officers or assistant district attorneys who might be inclined to report his misconduct. Only federal action can rectify this situation.
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/12/2006 20:32 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
The first thing one must understand about this whole hullabaloo with the Muslim imams taken off a Phoenix-bound plane in Minneapolis is that it most definitely was not about the right to prayer or freedom of worship. And much as the imams and their handlers may try, it is certainly not about victimization. But because the case of the six imams (five from the Valley) and US Airways Flight 300 has taken on a life of its own, it would be helpful to look and see what lessons can be gleaned from this story.
All of us as Americans have endured the incremental inconveniences of air travel since 9/11. From 3-ounce fluid limits to random searches, those of us with the first name Mohammed can also attest to humbling profiling. Most of us are quite willing to endure all this because we know the inherent dangers of flying in the world today.
There is little argument that American airport concourses have become clinics of anxiety-laden travelers who have become vigilant in spotting anything out of the ordinary. This vigilance and anxiety is even more acutely felt by U.S. Transportation Security Administration agents and airline crews. They will never be rewarded for a safe flight. But they will be globally vilified for one lax call that leads to tragedy.
Into this highly charged environment comes this incident of the imams returning from their conference. To ignore the larger context is to virtually live in an airtight bubble.
The preponderance of evidence points to some troubling coincidences during flight preparation, regardless of where we stand on this issue. The distribution of their seats, while in fact random, raised concern. Changing seats after boarding, rather than before, raised concern. Conversations in Arabic after boarding raised concern. Seatbelt extenders raised concern. However, no passengers refused to board after seeing and hearing the imams pray aloud at the gate. Taken individually, each of the reported actions could be something any of us would do. However, in totality, although unfortunate in retrospect, it remains hard to fault a cautious crew who must act with little information to ensure a safe flight.
But let us look at the response of the imams since the incident.
They rushed toward the media never looking back. They have taken their story of victimization to every soft media they could find. They then stoked the same tired Muslim flames of victimization through their own political pulpits in mosques around the Valley.
Organizations like CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) and the Muslim American Society also immediately jumped on board, even before the imams' flight reached Phoenix the next day, and began whipping up the drums of victimization. Their handlers flew in from across the country staging rallies and pray-ins so they could teach the American people about this supposed tragedy of injustice.
As a devout Muslim, I have watched this painfully protracted saga unravel, fearing what comes next. The media, especially print media, have bent over backward to hear minorities' fears. Yet public opinion has not seemed to budge in favor of the imams. The lesson here lies in why. It has to do with credibility.
We are all creatures of passion. This fiasco has stirred the passionate cry of victimization from the Muslim activist community and imam community. But where were the news conferences, the rallies to protest the endless litany of atrocities performed by people who act supposedly in my religion's name? Where are the denunciations, not against terrorism in the abstract, but clear denunciations of al-Qaida or Hamas, of Wahhabism or militant Islamism, of Darfurian genocide or misogyny and honor killings, to name a few? There is no cry, there is no rage. At best, there is the most tepid of disclaimers. In short, there is no passion. But for victimization, always.
Only when Americans see that animating passion will they believe that we Muslims are totally against the fascists that have hijacked our religion. There is only so much bandwidth in the American culture to focus upon Islam and Muslims. If we fill it with our shouts of victimization, then the real problems from within and outside our faith community will never be heard.
Though this was not about prayer, let us look at the prayer itself: certainly a central part of our faith both alone and in congregation. The Quran teaches Muslims that God did not make our faith to be too difficult. Thus, during travel, many of us pray alone in silence when we cannot find a private place or where public display is not appropriate.
Prayer is an intimate thing, five times a day for Muslims. It is a personal conversation with God and not about showing others how devout we are.
Congregational prayers are preferred, but in travel (as three of the imams did apparently do) they can be combined upon their arrival in Phoenix.
Alija Izetbegovic, former president of Bosnia-Herzegovina, once said he was never so close to God in his prayers as a Muslim as he was during his solitary confinement for 12 years as a political prisoner struggling for liberty under Josip Broz Tito's oppression.
These imams would do well to learn from President Izetbegovic. He further understood the separation of religion and politics.
He understood God teaches us in the Quran that our religion is based upon intention and that if we perceive that the public situation is not conducive to our congregational prayer, that a forgiving God will understand.
Because these imams and their handlers just don't get it, it's time we Muslims found leadership and organizations that do.
Our predicament is unique, fragile and precarious. We Muslims are a relatively new minority in a nation that gives us freedoms that no other Muslim nation would allow.
Whether we acknowledge it or not, a radical subset of our faith community is seeking to destroy the basis for this liberty.
Either we predominantly direct our passions against these radicals or Americans will not count us as allies in this consuming struggle.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
12/12/2006 15:54 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I know, I know, it's a bit disheartening. Still, I voted for No Pasaran (looks like the Brussels Journal will win, though), LGF and a couple others like Blackfive. If I feel like erasing my cookies, I'll revote later tonight, in the True Spirit of Democracy.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
