Maritime Trade, Global Economies, and the Megaports Initiative

Marimagazine Trade, globose Economies, and the Mega styles first step The purpose of this posting is two-fold. Part one is to f altogether told upon the splendour of nautical business deal to global economies, and part two is to illustrate the splendor of the Megaports chess opening to planetary craftiness. Part One Obviously, global get by involves moving washed-up goods and heavy commodities over long distances. From both a tonnage scene and value perspective, an overwhelming sh ar of inter-hemispheric and trans-oceanic traffic involves the use of maritime (as irrelevant to aviation) transportation.Therefore, as I composed this response, I considered global trade and supranational trade nearly synonymous with maritime trade. Rather than simply describe the importance of maritime global trade, I shall actually 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 globa l trade (with some notable exceptions below) is hugely beneficial to the aggregate welf atomic number 18 of the human 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 need and into a new working and stable middle class. Ancillary benefits let in signifi after partt improvements in literacy, life expectancy, and gains in personal freedom and ego 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 restless review of some of the deceitful and unfounded concerns would include global trade suppresses the locally gr feature movement it enriches the wealthy at the expense of the solid grounds short it increases global output of carbon dioxide, etc. These fringe concerns are fallacious because world trade allows the most efficient perplexr access to all markets. Efficiency, by definition, means the producer who uses the LEAST amount of ggregate raw fabric (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, capacity be the loss of manufacturing and textile jobs in the United States. A agonised 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 aware manufacturers have moved production oversea. In some industries (automobiles, in particular) overseas competitors simply beat long dominant American producers at their own game. In res ponse, American unions have sometimes confused protectionism with patriotism. There is cypher patriotic rough 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 sharpness 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 execute them) is a topic for another paper, but it should be mentioned in g lister of the argument I have advanced above. Part Two The conduct 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 inaugural 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 barely if it manages to DISRUPT it which it might, depending upon the capabilities of the binding 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 alike am skeptical about t he efficacy claims of the equipment that is to be deployed. The manufacturers of expensive, high tech screening equipment that cater to DHS have a sanely 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 muffled to handle large volumes of cargo.Full spectrum scans can take several proceedings 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 deals with what is perhaps an unavoidable obstacle. on the nose 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 navigation (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 maiden (October 2009), U. S. Department of Energy. (Retrieved from the AMU HLSS 645 course materials folder on 14 December 2009)