Innovation and Advancement

Apr 2013
35,420
24,036
Left coast
#1
I was reading a feature about the world's largest container carrying ship, The Oscar, docking in the UK on its maiden voyage. It can carry 19,224 standard containers. It took the title 53 days ago and will lose it before too long as 6 ships capable of carrying over 20.000 have been commissioned.

But one thing that caught my eye was:
"It's quite a sight," says Clemence Cheng, chief executive of HPUK, owner of Felixstowe, which handled the equivalent of more than four million standard containers for the first time last year. "We've invested so that we can take ships of this size here."

Felixstowe, along with other major European and Asian ports, has been upgraded in recent years to deal with the volume of cargo the mega-ships bring. US ports have not done the same, meaning the Oscar cannot dock there
Plus there has been all kinds of labor strife on California ports and bad backup on both imported and exported goods.

I'm surprised and disappointed. Is this how you are going to cut down imports from China?

BBC News - On board the world's biggest ship
 
Likes: 1 person
Nov 2012
39,539
11,526
Lebanon, TN
#2
No Charlston and Savannah have increased their capacity.. Bringing jobs to Right to work Ports.

Georgia Ports Authority > About > Sustainability

The Port of Savannah is one of the most efficient in the world.
The deep water ports are perfectly positioned to handle a growing export market. Georgia Ports Authority is committed to conducting port operations in an efficient and environmentally respectful manner. We continually improve our operations and facilities with these goals in mind. See what we are doing around the Port to protect and preserve the surrounding wetlands, to reduce emissions and to help our community.

U.S. ports race to get ready for bigger ships ? USATODAY.com

A long-sought Port of Savannah channel-deepening project would result in 15% to 20% cheaper shipping costs, says Chris Cummiskey, Georgia's commissioner of economic development
 
Jun 2013
28,864
15,441
Ohio
#3
RNG, our governments at the state and federal levels have been negligent with regards to investing in infrastructure. The problem goes well beyond our ports. Roads, bridges, electrical grid, sewer, water and Internet have all been neglected. The President has had numerous transportation bills filibustered by the Republicans. Think about what those trillions worthlessly spent on the Iraq War would've meant for our economy both immediately in the form of jobs and in the future in the form of greater efficiencies. Republicans would prefer to spend trillions more on war while they watch our infrastructure rot.

Biden: ‘Build, build, build’

Vice President Biden called for an increase in infrastructure spending during a speech Tuesday in Washington, arguing it will spur growth and create jobs.


"Build, build, build, build. ... We built the transcontinental railroad," Biden said at the event, hosted by CG/LA Infrastructure. "The first federal road was built from Washington to Ohio ... [We] built a thing called the Eerie Canal ... ladies and gentlemen, we always have to build. That's who we are."
Biden called it "absolutely brain dead" not to be spending on infrastructure that improves U.S. ports.


"It's like that old line from the baseball movie 'Field of Dreams': 'If you build it, they will come," Biden said. "Invest in these ports and guess what? Manufacturing will come."

Biden spoke at a conference designed to bring together top business leaders in North America to encourage investment in the largest 100 infrastructure projects on the continent.

"Vice President Biden knows infrastructure and is a great spokesman for our industry," said CG/LA President and CEO Norman F. Anderson. "He relates well to this crowd and can speak in their language as few can. We are honored that he took time out of his unimaginably busy schedule to join us."
Biden: ?Build, build, build? | TheHill
 
Likes: 1 person
Nov 2012
39,539
11,526
Lebanon, TN
#4
RNG, our governments at the state and federal levels have been negligent with regards to investing in infrastructure. The problem goes well beyond our ports. Roads, bridges, electrical grid, sewer, water and Internet have all been neglected. The President has had numerous transportation bills filibustered by the Republicans. Think about what those trillions worthlessly spent on the Iraq War would've meant for our economy both immediately in the form of jobs and in the future in the form of greater efficiencies. Republicans would prefer to spend trillions more on war while they watch our infrastructure rot.



Biden: ?Build, build, build? | TheHill

Remember the Stimulus of 2009, 850 billion dollars that was to be spent on SHOVEL READY INFRASTRUCTURE.. oh wait it was diverted to WALL STREET by this man.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0dFsNwiqOM

850 billion was allocated for infrastructure.. but was DIVERTED to.. BANKS, BANKS BANKS. by Obama.

BUT PRAISE THE LORD FOR RIGHT TO WORK GOVERNORS... like Nikki Hailey and Nathan Deal and Bill Haslim THE RIGHT TO WORK STATES did the JOB our PRESIDENT WOULD NOT DO put people to work and rebuild America one state at a time..
 
Last edited:
Likes: 1 person
Oct 2010
64,836
25,702
Colorado
#5
RNG, our governments at the state and federal levels have been negligent with regards to investing in infrastructure. The problem goes well beyond our ports. Roads, bridges, electrical grid, sewer, water and Internet have all been neglected. The President has had numerous transportation bills filibustered by the Republicans. Think about what those trillions worthlessly spent on the Iraq War would've meant for our economy both immediately in the form of jobs and in the future in the form of greater efficiencies. Republicans would prefer to spend trillions more on war while they watch our infrastructure rot.

Biden: ?Build, build, build? | TheHill
Yes indeed think about what the trillions spent spreading the seeds of democracy in the Middle East could have done if they'd been spent on US soil.

A lot of it has to do with glamour. Think about it. What's more glamorous, telling the boys back home that you just voted to authorize funding for, PRAISE THE LORD, killing more anti-semitic Muslim bastards, or that you voted to authorize funding for new sewers?
 
Likes: 4 people
Nov 2012
22,947
5,035
Gamma Solaris
#6
Remember the Stimulus of 2009, 850 billion dollars that was to be spent on SHOVEL READY INFRASTRUCTURE.. oh wait it was diverted to WALL STREET by this man.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0dFsNwiqOM

850 billion was allocated for infrastructure.. but was DIVERTED to.. BANKS, BANKS BANKS. by Obama.

BUT PRAISE THE LORD FOR RIGHT TO WORK GOVERNORS... like Nikki Hailey and Nathan Deal and Bill Haslim THE RIGHT TO WORK STATES did the JOB our PRESIDENT WOULD NOT DO put people to work and rebuild America one state at a time..
Yep... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O55aRrvXtio
 
Nov 2012
39,539
11,526
Lebanon, TN
#7
Yes indeed think about what the trillions spent spreading the seeds of democracy in the Middle East could have done if they'd been spent on US soil.

A lot of it has to do with glamour. Think about it. What's more glamorous, telling the boys back home that you just voted to authorize funding for, PRAISE THE LORD, killing more anti-semitic Muslim bastards, or that you voted to authorize funding for new sewers?
Trillions???
 
Apr 2013
35,420
24,036
Left coast
#8
Iraq War Cost U.S. More Than $2 Trillion, Could Grow to $6 Trillion, Says Watson Institute Study
From Wikipedia - The Watson Institute for International Studies is an interdisciplinary research center at Brown University. Its mission is to "promote a just and peaceful world through research, teaching, and public engagement."
 
Likes: 1 person
Jun 2012
41,942
15,150
Barsoom
#9
Considering the cost of treating all Overseas Contingency Operation veterans prior to 2012, current Overseas Contingency Operation personal, and future Overseas Contingency Operation personal until 2020 is estimated to cost between $40-$55 billion for the decade.

With the wind down of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, using the know data and projections, it would take 110 years on the worse case scenario of $55 billion to reach $6 trillion. Now in order to do this, the life span of the military personal from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars would have to be around 140 years. This is also being generous and assuming they all joined at the age of 18. Joining the military means one can expect to live for 140 years.
.
 
Nov 2012
22,947
5,035
Gamma Solaris
#10
Yes indeed think about what the trillions spent spreading the seeds of democracy in the Middle East could have done if they'd been spent on US soil.

A lot of it has to do with glamour. Think about it. What's more glamorous, telling the boys back home that you just voted to authorise funding for, PRAISE THE LORD, killing more anti-semitic Muslim bastards, or that you voted to authorise funding for new sewers?
No foreign aid...anywhere. If these nations need US treasure...let them barter "something" for it. This bartering could mean everything from a secure seaport...airfield...military installation...rare earths.......dancing bears....dancing girls........:grin:
 

Similar Discussions