Shakeup in Panama due to Trump - another win

[mspart]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/blackrocks-panama-canal-deal-is-latest-win-for-chief-larry-finks-strong-start-to-trump-era-090003262.html

The latest came Tuesday when the world’s largest money manager announced that a BlackRock-led investment coalition would take control of two key ports on either end of the Panama Canal for the price of $22.8 billion.

China no longer has control of the ports.  

mspart

[Wrestleknownothing]

3 minutes ago, mspart said:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/blackrocks-panama-canal-deal-is-latest-win-for-chief-larry-finks-strong-start-to-trump-era-090003262.html

The latest came Tuesday when the world’s largest money manager announced that a BlackRock-led investment coalition would take control of two key ports on either end of the Panama Canal for the price of $22.8 billion.

China no longer has control of the ports.  

mspart

Well purchase it back by a private company is not exactly take it back.

The question then is did BlackRock get a deal because of Trump's rhetoric? Or did they overpay, rhetoric be damned? Or did they pay fair value, and this is just a thing?

And how do the American people benefit from private ownership?

[mspart]

Just now, Wrestleknownothing said:

Well purchase it back by a private company is not exactly take it back.

The question then is did BlackRock get a deal because of Trump's rhetoric? Or did they overpay, rhetoric be damned? Or did they pay fair value, and this is just a thing?

And how do the American people benefit from private ownership?

Why would they overpay?   What business does that?  Americans benefit in that the control of the ports is no longer in the hands of enemies.   Think man. 

mspart

[Wrestleknownothing]

6 minutes ago, mspart said:

Why would they overpay?   What business does that?  Americans benefit in that the control of the ports is no longer in the hands of enemies.   Think man. 

mspart

No one does it on purpose, but it happens. Think man.

[mspart]

So are you against this or for it?   Would you rather China continue to control the ports?   What about this is not good?

mspart

[Offthemat]

7 minutes ago, mspart said:

So are you against this or for it?   Would you rather China continue to control the ports?   What about this is not good?

mspart

Trump. 

[Wrestleknownothing]

31 minutes ago, mspart said:

So are you against this or for it?   Would you rather China continue to control the ports?   What about this is not good?

mspart

My problem is the childish simplicity everyone wants to wrap around things.

To hear Trump tell it the Chinese Communist Party controls the canal. But the canal is owned by Panama, not China. And these ports are owned by a Hong Kong-based, publicly traded, multi-national company, not China. I know that does not preclude the Chinese government from having influence on the company (exactly what is happening in the US), but at the end of the day it is still a public company with shareholders, fiduciary duty, and reporting requirements such that what is being done is very visible.

Will Trump also claim that Canadian airport parking lots are controlled by communists? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_'N_Fly_Airport_Parking

[mspart]

13 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

My problem is the childish simplicity everyone wants to wrap around things.

To hear Trump tell it the Chinese Communist Party controls the canal. But the canal is owned by Panama, not China. And these ports are owned by a Hong Kong-based, publicly traded, multi-national company, not China. I know that does not preclude the Chinese government from having influence on the company (exactly what is happening in the US), but at the end of the day it is still a public company with shareholders, fiduciary duty, and reporting requirements such that what is being done is very visible.

 

Yet you accused Black Rock of failing their shareholders, their fiduciary duty just a few posts ago.   Which is it?   So Hong Kong, which is part of Communist China, more fiduciarly responsible than anyone else?   If a hHong Kong conglomerate owns the ports, it would be very easy for China to exert control over this?   Is there any doubt this is what they are trying to do by buying up all the ports in the world?   Why would ports at the Panama Canal be any different.

mspart

[Wrestleknownothing]

3 minutes ago, mspart said:

Yet you accused Black Rock of failing their shareholders, their fiduciary duty just a few posts ago.   Which is it?   So Hong Kong, which is part of Communist China, more fiduciarly responsible than anyone else?   If a hHong Kong conglomerate owns the ports, it would be very easy for China to exert control over this?   Is there any doubt this is what they are trying to do by buying up all the ports in the world?   Why would ports at the Panama Canal be any different.

mspart

You are reaching so far you are going to pull something. Be careful, I don't want you getting hurt.

Maybe your "completely misrepresent what I said, then fire off a which is it?" tactic works with some, but I will pass.

[red viking]

Why do people continue to believe everything diaper boy says?

He literally lies every single time he opens his mouth. 

The Panama Canal was NEVER controlled by China. Period. The entire premise behind this thread is b.s.  

[mspart]

9 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

You are reaching so far you are going to pull something. Be careful, I don't want you getting hurt.

Maybe your "completely misrepresent what I said, then fire off a which is it?" tactic works with some, but I will pass.

That's fine, but you give a pass to the Hong Kong group that you do not give to the American group.  

 

1 hour ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Well purchase it back by a private company is not exactly take it back.

The question then is did BlackRock get a deal because of Trump's rhetoric? Or did they overpay, rhetoric be damned? Or did they pay fair value, and this is just a thing?

And how do the American people benefit from private ownership?

 

33 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

My problem is the childish simplicity everyone wants to wrap around things.

To hear Trump tell it the Chinese Communist Party controls the canal. But the canal is owned by Panama, not China. And these ports are owned by a Hong Kong-based, publicly traded, multi-national company, not China. I know that does not preclude the Chinese government from having influence on the company (exactly what is happening in the US), but at the end of the day it is still a public company with shareholders, fiduciary duty, and reporting requirements such that what is being done is very visible.

 

The bolded sections are your words.   So you tell me what you are saying if you don't like my interpretation.

msaprt

[mspart]

10 minutes ago, red viking said:

Why do people continue to believe everything diaper boy says?

He literally lies every single time he opens his mouth. 

The Panama Canal was NEVER controlled by China. Period. The entire premise behind this thread is b.s.  

The ports were owned by a chinese conglomerate.   They no longer are.   But that is not a good thing apparently. 

mspart

[Offthemat]

One of the issues was the canal started charging our naval vessels $100,000 to traverse the canal.  There wasn’t supposed to be a charge.  And of course, the military implications that China running it brought. 

[Tripnsweep]

1 hour ago, Offthemat said:

One of the issues was the canal started charging our naval vessels $100,000 to traverse the canal.  There wasn’t supposed to be a charge.  And of course, the military implications that China running it brought. 

Oh you mean like they have since 1998?

https://apnews.com/article/panama-canal-trump-rubio-hegseth-b623a51ac94ef2a738195e8b894e2a8b

[Wrestleknownothing]

1 hour ago, mspart said:

That's fine, but you give a pass to the Hong Kong group that you do not give to the American group.  

 

 

The bolded sections are your words.   So you tell me what you are saying if you don't like my interpretation.

msaprt

In the first bolded highlight I outlined three possible outcomes. One good (bad) for the BlackRock investment group (HK Hutchison), one bad (good) for the BlackRock group (HK Hutchison), and one neutral. That is definitionally not favoring one side vs the other. You are the one claiming a victory for the BlackRock group without knowing enough to do so.

And in the second quote you bolded the wrong part. The correct part is how both companies are influenced by their respective governments. That BlackRock has abandonded DEI initiatives should be proof enough. That they adopted them in the first place is further proof. And that they reached out to Trump to say they would do this deal in response to his desire is the most proof.

I could use a lot more words but I do not think it will help you.

Edited Wednesday at 08:17 PM by Wrestleknownothing

[red viking]

1 hour ago, mspart said:

The ports were owned by a chinese conglomerate.   They no longer are.   But that is not a good thing apparently. 

mspart

completely different. Chinese companies own a ton of assets on U..S. soil itself. 

[Caveira]

33 minutes ago, red viking said:

completely different. Chinese companies own a ton of assets on U..S. soil itself. 

Maybe doge will go after them next.  

[mspart]

1 hour ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

In the first bolded highlight I outlined three possible outcomes. One good (bad) for the BlackRock investment group (HK Hutchison), one bad (good) for the BlackRock group (HK Hutchison), and one neutral. That is definitionally not favoring one side vs the other. You are the one claiming a victory for the BlackRock group without knowing enough to do so.

And in the second quote you bolded the wrong part. The correct part is how both companies are influenced by their respective governments. That BlackRock has abandonded DEI initiatives should be proof enough. That they adopted them in the first place is further proof. And that they reached out to Trump to say they would do this deal in response to his desire is the most proof.

I could use a lot more words but I do not think it will help you.

Explain how you want, but you threw shade on Blackrock but threw sunlight on the Chinese company.   That's what your quotes show.

Which all is beside the point.   Better a western hemisphere outfit running the ports than an enemy that could take it over.   I don't think there is any question that China is not on our side.  

mspart

Edited Wednesday at 09:32 PM by mspart

[mspart]

1 hour ago, red viking said:

completely different. Chinese companies own a ton of assets on U..S. soil itself. 

Not different.   Not even completely.   And should they own American assets?   That is a question to ask yourself.  I don't think they should.  Both this and the ports are a national security issue.   Like making our own steel.   If we can't make our own steel, we are in trouble from a national security standpoint. 

mspart

Edited Wednesday at 09:35 PM by mspart

[Wrestleknownothing]

1 hour ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

 

I could use a lot more words but I do not think it will help you.

 

8 minutes ago, mspart said:

Explain how you want, but you threw shade on Blackrock but threw sunlight on the Chinese company.   That's what your quotes show.

Which all is beside the point.   Better a western hemisphere outfit running the ports than an enemy that could take it over.   I don't think there is any question that China is not on our side.  

mspart

My prediction was accurate.

[mspart]

Yes, you are saying what I said you said and you cannot refute it.   It doesn't help that you try to explain away the plain words you wrote.   If you meant something else by them, that's not my fault.    Your written word is quite plain.

mspart

[WrestlingRasta]

[Wrestleknownothing]

17 minutes ago, mspart said:

Yes, you are saying what I said you said and you cannot refute it.   It doesn't help that you try to explain away the plain words you wrote.   If you meant something else by them, that's not my fault.    Your written word is quite plain.

mspart

Your inability to understand my plainly written words is also quite plain. You are trying soooooo hard to insert your bias.

[Offthemat]

2 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Your inability to understand my plainly written words is also quite plain. You are trying soooooo hard to insert your bias.

It reads like he understands you just fine.  You didn’t question whether it was good business for the Chinese company.  Then to go full wacko, you try to equate the exertion the CCP takes with Chinese companies to what the U.S. might put on domestic companies.  Your words, and you can’t weasel out. 

[Wrestleknownothing]

1 hour ago, Offthemat said:

It reads like he understands you just fine.  You didn’t question whether it was good business for the Chinese company.  Then to go full wacko, you try to equate the exertion the CCP takes with Chinese companies to what the U.S. might put on domestic companies.  Your words, and you can’t weasel out. 

At least in your case I was sure you were incapable of understanding what I wrote.