Hong Kong billionaire to sell Panama Canal ports to US firm
headline is correct.
post title omitted a very crucial word.
this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2025
70 points (97.3% liked)
News
28271 readers
5971 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Fixed
Uh-huh...
Hmm. I wonder if there might be a Jones Act repeal in the works? That would probably greatly increase the value of the Panama Canal, by making it more-viable for US East Coast-West Coast shipping.
kagis
Apparently there was some discussion of this, but Trump's apparently expressed support for the Jones Act, for whatever value that has.
https://gcaptain.com/trump-signals-jones-act-policy-will-stay-the-course/
The article continues: “The re-election of Trump signals a continued commitment to the Jones Act, supporting a uniquely American industry that spans jobs, innovation, and security. In choosing Trump, the American people voted for a leader who recognizes that policies like the Jones Act aren’t outdated relics but vital pillars of U.S. prosperity and safety. For American workers, communities reliant on the maritime industry, and anyone invested in a strong, secure America, this election outcome is a win—plain and simple.”
Isn't the Jones act so onerous that it basically had the opposite effect of killing the US shipping industry entirely? I think I read that somewhere a long time ago.
Well, it depends on what you mean by "the US shipping industry".
It benefits US shipmakers (eliminates competition), US seamen (eliminates competition), and industries that compete with shipping like freight trains (eliminates competition).
It disadvantages ports and American people/companies who want things shipped cost-effectively. It's bad for islands, like Hawaii, where it drives up prices.
I'd call "ports" some of the shipping industry, but also "shipmakers" and "seamen".
If the Jones Act were to go away, we would probably move a lot more goods by water than we do today.
Right, so while it does have its intended protectionist and national security benefits, it's at the cost of higher prices for everyone and thus a drag on the economy and subsidising the rail transport oligopoly.
Not sure how the Panama canal features into this tho, unless Trump follows through on annexing Panama, wouldn't it still be a foreign port for the purposes of the Jones act? And isn't that immaterial anyway when it's used as a transit point?
Not sure how the Panama canal features into this tho, unless Trump follows through on annexing Panama, wouldn’t it still be a foreign port for the purposes of the Jones act? And isn’t that immaterial anyway when it’s used as a transit point?
Transiting the Panama Canal doesn't count as moving goods to Panama.
The Jones Act makes it more expensive to move goods by ship between locations in the US. If it went away, we would move more goods by ship between the US East Coast and US West Coast. That would make the Panama Canal abruptly a lot more valuable.
EDIT: Oh, I see what you mean. Maybe they didn't acquire any of the the infrastructure of the Canal itself, but just infrastructure for offloading stuff going to Panama, so ships transiting it wouldn't use what they acquired. I don't know that.
EDIT2: Yeah, looks like it:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/blackrock-panama-canal-deal-ck-hutchison-trump/
In January, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, the Republican chair of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, raised concerns that China could exploit or block passage through the canal and that the ports "give China ready observation posts" to take action. "This situation, I believe, posts acute risks for U.S. national security," Cruz said.
So he's raising the issue of China being near shipping moving through the Canal, not actually in its path. Probably right then.
They selling it to blackrock. Not like this will be any better.