Maritime Trade, Global Economies, and the Megaports Initiative

Mari clip Trade, humanness-wide Economies, and the Mega miens opening night The purpose of this posting is two-fold. Part one is to come upon the splendour of maritime foxiness to global economies, and part two is to illustrate the brilliance of the Megaports opening move to outside(a) switch. Part One Obviously, global trading involves moving unblemished goods and heavy commodities over long distances. From both a tonnage panorama and value perspective, an overwhelming sh ar of inter-hemispheric and trans-oceanic change involves the use of maritime (as foreign to aviation) transportation.Therefore, as I composed this response, I considered global trade and transnational trade nearly synonymous with maritime trade. Rather than simply describe the importance of maritime global trade, I sh altogether actu in ally emphasize its importance so that you, the reader, know right away that I am a staunch and firm proponent of free trade. Free, unfettered, and unregulated glob al trade (with some notable exceptions below) is hugely beneficial to the aggregate welfargon of the cosmos at large.The explosion of global trade over the last 5 decades has lifted entire segments of populations throughout China, India, Vietnam, Brazil, and nearly ALL of Korea out of poverty and into a new working and stable middle class. Ancillary benefits acknowl acuity signifi foundationt improvements in literacy, life expectancy, and gains in personal freedom and self determination, with China being a frustrating exception. Critics of global trade (a clever bunch ranging from thoughtful academics to concerned unions to undisciplined and uninformed anarchists) have all sorts of counter arguments against a global economy.Their protestations are far too numerous to address at length in this forum, but a degenerate review of some of the deceitful and unfounded concerns would include global trade suppresses the locally gr own movement it enriches the wealthy at the expense of the worlds unfortunate it increases global output of carbon dioxide, etc. These fringe concerns are fallacious because world trade allows the most efficient fatherr access to all markets. Efficiency, by definition, means the producer who uses the LEAST amount of ggregate raw genuine (be it feed-stocks, acreage, labor, energy per unit produced, scarce components, etc) lead be rewarded with global business. A more valid concern, generally advanced by American unions, powerfulness be the loss of manufacturing and textile jobs in the United States. A frightful reality of global trade is that the benefits are NOT pareto optimal they are not distributed evenly, and there will be both winners and losers. In this context, trade unions and isolationists in the U. S. ave felt the economic pain as cost witting manufacturers have moved production overseas. In some industries (automobiles, in particular) overseas competitors simply beat long dominant American producers at their own game. In response, American unions have sometimes confused protectionism with patriotism. There is zipper patriotic or so preserving an uncompetitive and underperforming industry. On the contrary, protectionism denies the American consumer choices and it stifles American innovation.Global trade, which is realized by a robust maritime trade, encourages all producers to be innovative, and it elevates the real purchasing power of the world consumer. As promised, there are some brief caveats, however, to the argument I advanced above. Free, unfettered, and unregulated trade should strive to resemble fair trade to the maximum extent possible. The world economy should not benefit from the producer who achieves a competitive edge through the use of child labor, slave labor, indentured servitude, or a total disregard for the environmental effects of his production.The mechanisms to establish those standards (much less go through them) is a topic for another paper, but it should be mentioned in exculpated of the argument I have advanced above. Part Two The drive statement we are being asked to consider is the following Illustrate the importance of the Mega Ports to International Trade. Heres my contrarian assessment The Megaports opening night is a SECURITY measure, NOT a trade measure.So I would argue that it has little importance to international trade, but very significant importance with respect to national security. The Megaports initiative is a U. S. lead, internationally coordinated effort to scan containerized cargo for radiation hazards and threats. Thus, Megaports WILL become an important concern to international trade still if it manages to DISRUPT it which it might, depending upon the capabilities of the masking piece equipment used and the rigidity of DHS/DOEs ambitious goal of screening 50% of containerized cargo by 2015.I have some reservations about the ability of the federal government to reach its stated goal of 50% screening, and I overly am ske ptical about the efficacy claims of the equipment that is to be deployed. The manufacturers of expensive, high tech screening equipment that cater to DHS have a evenhandedly solid record of over-promising (or, at least exaggerating) the abilities of their wares. Radiological detectors can produce some impressive diagnostic results, but they are too slowly to handle large volumes of cargo.Full spectrum scans can take several legal proceeding for a 56 foot intermodal ITU (International Transport Unit). The larger U. S. ports handle upward of 2000 imported containers per day. In laymans terms, there is simply not enough time in the day to screen 1000 TEUs per day with existing technology. Im also concerned that the deployment of screening equipment (the most precise equipment is not mobile, but fixed) will create chokepoints around ports and may delay trade and interfere with the come up choreographed transfers between railways, trucking companies, and shipping.My final concern de als with what is perhaps an unavoidable obstacle. hardly what is the point of screening for radiological WMDs when those WMDs have already arrived at a U. S. port? If a nefarious group has the means to procure a nuclear device (either dirty or truly fissile), then we can safely assume those same bad actors could incorporate inertial soaring (which does not rely on GPS reception) to detonate the device at a desired location along the transport route.In conclusion, I am skeptical of the cost-benefit mix of this initiative. If its going to be deployed, it should be deployed honestly as a spot check mechanism of deterrence. The United States should also do everything in its power to screen U. S. A. bound cargo at the cargos port of origin, rather than at the port of destination. References The National Nuclear Security Administration, Megaports endeavor (October 2009), U. S. Department of Energy. (Retrieved from the AMU HLSS 645 course materials folder on 14 December 2009)