With Chinese Investment, Nicaraguan Passage Could Dwarf Panama Canal 322
Nicaragua is now home to the early stages of one of the largest infrastructure projects on earth, plans for which have been raising questions for some time now. In a move that will affect global trade in the long term, "A Chinese telecom billionaire has joined forces with Nicaragua's famously anti-American president to construct a waterway between the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean to rival the Panama Canal. The massive engineering undertaking would literally slice through Nicaragua and be large enough to accommodate the supertankers that are the hallmark of fleets around the world today." (Here's a related article with a bit more on the project from Wang Jing, the Chinese telecoms entrepreneur now also at the head of the Hong Kong Nicaragua Canal Development Investment Co.) One potential problem with the canal: disruption of surfing in Nicaragua.
Panama Canal took 33 years, 4 countries (Score:3)
Re:Panama Canal took 33 years, 4 countries (Score:4, Interesting)
When they started Panama and Colombia were a single country. The independency for Panama movement was bankrolled and organized by the France and the U.S in order to reduce costs and to avoid government regulations for the canal construction
Re: (Score:3)
First time I've heard bribes described as 'government regulations'.
Re: (Score:2)
France, US, Columbia, and Panama. Jungle diseases of workers was a huge problem at beginning.
The Panama Canal was built in the early 1900's. The issues you speak of can be adequately addressed with modern knowledge. The main issue will still be engineering.
It might be nice to see a different mind-set break the Western hold on shipping transit.
Re: (Score:2)
Different is not necessarily better
The result could be far worse than anything we currently envision. The Chinese track record for human rights violations as well as environmental destruction is well documented. Let's not even mention that active volcano they have right smack in the middle of the planned route... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org] or the others nearby: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org]
Also, it will seriously impact Nicaragua's sustainable & (generally) environmentally-friendly surf t
Re:Panama Canal took 33 years, 4 countries (Score:4, Informative)
These kinds of concerns are why the high speed rail "project" (I hesitate to call it that.. more like "pipe dream") near where I live has been in planning and environmental impact studies for 10 years, whereas the Chinese estimate for building the whole canal is 5 years.
This project, even if it fails miserably, will create more jobs and pump more money into the economy than surf tourism would in 100 years I wager. The canal budget is 4 times the entire GDP of Nicaragua. What percent of GDP does surf tourism provide?
Re:Panama Canal took 33 years, 4 countries (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do we in the west sometimes look at these phenomenally poor countries and try to limit the kind of industrial development that made our countries wealthy and prosperous?
Nicaragua is a country, not a zoo. Sure they have some pretty beaches and some bro's can go surfing there, but turning it into a shipping hub for the region will do more for them financially than a few tourists.
French started in 1881, US finished 1914 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The early construction of the canal was greatly hampered by malaria. The final success of the canal was really only possible once malaria was controlled. From the CDC website:
"The result of this malaria program was eradication of yellow fever and a dramatic decrease in malaria deaths. The death rate due to malaria in employees dropped from 11.59 per 1,000 in November 1906 to 1.23 per 1,000 in December 1909. It reduced the deaths from malaria in the total population from a maximum of 16.21 per 1,000 in July
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Panama Canal took 33 years, 4 countries (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah but take a look at the construction photos like this one [pancanal.com]. A modern construction crew with huge excavators [etifiresystems.com] and trucks [ytimg.com] would be in a whole different league.
Re: (Score:3)
France, US, Columbia, and Panama. Jungle diseases of workers was a huge problem at beginning.
What they dug the panama canal with:
http://www.corbisimages.com/im... [corbisimages.com]
Modern version:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]
See your mistake?
Re: (Score:3)
France, US, Columbia, and Panama. Jungle diseases of workers was a huge problem at beginning.
What they dug the panama canal with:
http://www.corbisimages.com/im... [corbisimages.com]
Modern version:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]
See your mistake?
WTF? They dug the canal with rigs like this (posted in anther reply): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
And to be true, the current equivalent is this beast: http://ritchiespecs.com/specif... [ritchiespecs.com]
A pretty stark comparison but the Panama canal was not dug (the bulk of it anyway) by hand.
think big, plan for future (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Due the fact that the panama canal is now too small for modern tankers, something like this needs to be done. If only the US would step up and do things like this.. it's in our best interest! Monroe Doctrine!
Re: (Score:3)
Due the fact that the panama canal is now too small for modern tankers, something like this needs to be done.
There is little need for super-tankers to transit the canal. The price of oil is about the same on either coast, and oil production in Alaska and California pretty well balance out the demand.
Re:think big, plan for future (Score:5, Interesting)
The Panama Canal was built to get US goods from the east coast to the west coast. The new canal is to connect China with Europe/Africa. They have different goals.
Re:think big, plan for future (Score:4, Informative)
Re:think big, plan for future (Score:4, Interesting)
There is little need for super-tankers to transit the canal. The price of oil is about the same on either coast, and oil production in Alaska and California pretty well balance out the demand.
Oil? Who said this was about oil?
South America has massive mineral reserves.
The Chinese have also been buying up huge chunks of land for farming grains that can be shipped back to China.
China wants this canal so it can cheaply move enormous volumes of resources (especially from Brazil) to its ports.
$49 billion is a drop in the bucket for China's long term economic needs.
Re: (Score:2)
Due the fact that the panama canal is now too small for modern tankers, something like this needs to be done. If only the US would step up and do things like this.. it's in our best interest! Monroe Doctrine!
The Panamanians are well underway to expanding and widening [wikipedia.org] the current canal.
Not so fast (Score:2)
The panama canal is already undergoing expansion and will be able to handle all but a few of the largest ship sizes and should be completed in about a year or so. Most east coast ports aren't dredged deep enough to handle the megaships anyway,and by the time they are, its likely the northern passages around Canada are expected to be open due to global warming. The biggest ships are only deployed on asia-europe routes not because of accessibility but because of demand. It also isn't much further of a trip
Re: (Score:2)
The Panama Canal is being expanded to handle larger, "Superpanamax" ships. This Nicaraguan one will handle larger still.
The US has raised the value-judgement on environmental issues so high, there are literally several harbors in the US that have been fighting legal battles to merely deepen them by 5 feet to handle Superpanamax (and not even the even larger Nicaraguan ones) for longer than it took to build the original Panama Canal.
I will be modded down by censors, but it needs to be said again and again:
Re: (Score:3)
For comparison, the total estimate cost for this Nicaraguan Canal is about $49 Billion.
In other words, this one single Chinese project is MORE than all the money the US spent for the entire world last year.
Also note, this canal is not technically a private commercial Chinese project, not a government one. A proper
Re: (Score:3)
Also note, this canal is not technically a private commercial Chinese project, not a government one. A proper comparison would look at how much US companies invest in foreign countries, and I assure you it is a lot more than $50 Billion.
At this level, the distinction between 'corporate' and 'government' is pretty blurry. Yes, Exxon spends the money. But Exxon 'saves' that money in tax breaks and other incentives given to it by the government. In China, the situation is a bit different, typically running the money through various banks, but the end result is the same.
That said, China spends at least as much money in foreign countries for development as does the US.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I talked it over with one of the top international policy dudes in the US like two years ago. He says that it is at least 100 times cheaper to feed all countries than to fight one country, and that's all there is to it. It also grants us enormous diplomatic leverage. People of the world want American food. It is our prime export.
look out, Monroe doctrine x 100! (Score:2)
The United Fruit company didn't fuck around.
The Fruits of The Vine (Score:2, Insightful)
Capitalism and free trade, right guys?
Suck it up!
Interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
When the original Panama Canal was built, there were huge engineering problems that couldn't be easily solved. What will be interesting to see is how quickly this one will be completed with modern technology, modern medicine against tropical diseases, etc. I thought there were plans to widen the existing Panama Canal - were those scrapped?
The other interesting thing to see is China making these huge investments in other countries. Having a competitor for the Panama Canal would really change international trade. I also heard China is investing heavily in Africa and the Middle East, basically for leverage against the US and Europe. It may be one telecom billionaire making the investment, but I'm sure the Chinese government is going to do anything it can to help.
One of the things most people see as a bug but I see as a feature with China is their ability to just do things. There's no debate, no fighting with Congress, etc...they can just tell millions of people to move out of the way of an infrastructure project (e.g. Three Gorges Dam.) That's going to be a huge advantage they have over the West during this century. Another big shift that China is basically just making happen by fiat is the forced urbanization of the country...moving peasant farmers off their land and into cities (which is what those "Ghost Cities" are supposed to be for.) Just look at the fights that happen when someone's land is claimed by eminent domain for a construction project in the US...none of that happens there, and anyone who complains is marginalized.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that project is currently under construction and should be completed in 2015.
Incidentally, TFA says this proposed canal would accommodate ships up to 400,000 tons of displacement, while the Wikipedia article for the Panama Canal expansion says the new locks will accommodate ships that are 1400' x 180' x 60', which is about 428,000 tons of displacement (if my math is right). Therefore, this proposed canal won't have an ad
Re: (Score:2)
So, I read more of TFA, and in it the guy behind the proposed canal claims the post-expansion Panama Canal would only be able to handle up to 150,000 tons of displacement. I'm not sure which number is right.
Re: (Score:2)
Shipping tonnage and water displacement are two very different things. Tonnage refers to cargo, and because it determines a lot of fees and taxes, the industry has been "tinkering" with it for centuries:
Tonnage (ships) [wikipedia.org]
For a good explanation of the Panama's post-expansion capacity, see:
The New Panamax [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Panamax is 12.04m draft, 32.31m beam, and 294.13m length for a total volume of 114420 m^3. With a tropical fresh water density of 0.9954 g/cm^3, that comes out to about 113,894 metric tons (125,547 short tons) of displacement.
New Panamax is 15.2m draft, 49m beam, and 366m length for a volume of 272597 m^3 or 271,343 (299,105 short tons) of displacement.
Re: (Score:2)
The Panama Canal expansion project is almost done.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal_expansion_project
Ports on the eastern seaboard are being expanded to handle the "New Panamax" sized ships that will be able to traverse the newly widened canal. I seriously doubt that those ports are going to expand again soon to accommodate the new class of ship for this Nicaragua Canal.
And yes, Authoritarianism does make the trains run on time.
Re: (Score:2)
And yes, Authoritarianism does make the trains run on time.
For a little while.
Re: (Score:2)
for a century and a half in many authoritarian places in the world and no sign of that changing
Re:Interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
What do you mean by "leverage"? The reason China is investing heavily in Africa and the Middle East is because there's where there are the most goodies still buried in the ground waiting for the taking.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Africa combined is smaller in terms of population then India. And it's incredibly balkanized.
After China and India build a consumer/middle class, the really cheap labor is done. China will lose it's ass in Africa on all ventures other then mining.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no debate, no fighting with Congress, etc...
No "environmental impact studies," either... :p
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Informative)
One of the things most people see as a bug but I see as a feature with China is their ability to just do things. There's no debate, no fighting with Congress, etc...they can just tell millions of people to move out of the way [...]
Which is fine--if you're not one of the millions of people.
Back in the late 90s, my roommate went back to Vietnam to visit some friends. She went back to the house she grew up in and discovered that almost all of the people who lived there had moved away. Why? Because the street they lived on was across from a hospital and it was tough for the ambulances to get in. So the government decided they were going to widen the street. So they told everybody, "Hey, we're widening the street and you may end up losing the front 6 feet from your house. Sorry about that." No wasting money buying property or law-suits or anything like that. Just a "You're fucked. Move on."
Of course, there's not much for disclosure rules, either. So what everybody did was sell their place to the next sucker in line and get out fast. Of course, once those people found out, they did the same thing.
What's funny is that had been going on for three years. The government still hadn't shown up to widen the street. In fact, when she went back in 2012, they still hadn't widened the street.
I kinda like that part of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution about "[...] nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Yeah, it does gum up the works for worthwhile infrastructure projects, I agree. But I'd rather not wake up one morning and find the house that I live in is going to be part of a freeway and I'd better move...
If Nicaragua wants to be to China (Score:2)
what Panama is to the US, then fine, go for it.
"Charlie Don't Surf!" (Score:2)
. . . or maybe it's "Carlos".
The canal project will bring in more bucks than surfing tourism, so that will pretty much settle it.
Mandatory Sacred Reich reference (Score:2)
"I know a place
Where you're all going to go
They'll pay you to kill
If You're eighteen years old
First You'll need a haircut
And then some new clothes
They'll stick you in a jungle
To play G.I. Joe
CHORUS:
You fight for democracy
And the "American Way"
But you're not in your country
"What am I doing here?" you say
But now it's too late
You're entering Managua
If you had brought your surfboard
You could surf Nicaragua
Video here [youtube.com]
New Panamax (Score:5, Interesting)
The current expansion of the Panama canal goes online [marinelog.com] next year. "New Panamax" ships are 13,000 TEU vs 5,000 for current Panamax ships. All the important East coast ports have already been or a currently being dredged out to accommodate these ships. This was accomplished quickly and quietly beginning in 2012 when Obama exempted [redstate.com] the dredging operations from the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act.
Guess they'll be needing another bunch of pencil whipped wavers to dredge out the ports even deeper for the EquadorMax ships, because what China wants China gets.
Might not be as profitable as they think (Score:5, Interesting)
Add a second canal, and suddenly they're not competing with a trip around South America. They're competing with each other. Unless they collude together to fix the prices so that they're essentially the same (divide traffic 50/50, which might actually be a good thing since I hear wait times at the Panama Canal can be a week or more), the price is going to drop to slightly higher than what it costs them to operate the more expensive canal. That is the nature of competition. e.g. If the profit margin drops to a still-high 50%, profit from the current level of traffic would be just $300m/yr, and it'll take them 167 years to recoup the $50b construction cost even if they were able to borrow that $50b interest-free. Since the Panama Canal is essentially paid for, the Nicaraguan canal would probably have higher costs and thus slimmer margins, and will likely take centuries to pay for its construction.
A Nicaraguan canal would have the advantage of allowing passage of larger-than-Panamax ships (ships designed so their width barely fits through the Panama Canal). But again, if they try to charge significantly more for such ships, operators will simply continue building Panamax ships. Any surcharge they add on has to be less than the money operators would save by using larger-than-Panamax ships. (Significantly more since such ships would have to be built in the first place.)
It'll be great for the rest of the world - cheaper transport costs, more capacity, faster travel. But could end up tanking both the Nicaraguan and Panamanian economies.
Re: (Score:2)
> That is the nature of competition.
In a situation with dozen's or hundreds of competitors it is, but without government enforcement cartels develop naturally and quickly (unless one company thinks it can bankrupt the others and become a monopoly). It's far more likely Nicaragua and Panama will come to an agreement.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. This development is an unqualified good thing, unless you're Panamanian.
Re: (Score:3)
not cost effective, train takes two and half times as much fuel to move the same weight of cargo (and truck uses three to four times what a train does)
And then ... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
such canals are very vulnerable in wartime, reasonable expectation is to not depend on them as their workings will be destroyed.
Geography of panama vs nicaragua (Score:4, Informative)
Panama is about 40 miles across and about 150 feet (65 k, 40 m) of altitude to overcome.
Nicaragua is about 150 miles and about 650 feet (240 k, 200 m) of altitude to overcome. The altitude difference would add a lot to operating expenses. They'd have to pump a lot of water to locks about 600 feet higher than in Panama.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
They are going through Lake Nicaraugua, which will considerably shorten the length of the canal they need (to about 80 miles).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So they are going to take a shortcut through one of the largest freshwater lakes in Nicaragua for Ocean traffic. This should end in even more environmental hilarity than the amount of raw sewage they already apparently dump into the lake.
Re: (Score:2)
As the lake is above sea level, apparently (IANA Civil Engineer) this will keep the salt out as the lake will just drain to the sea. Apparently. This is what the construction propaganda says anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Environmental impact: sea snakes in the Atlantic (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
sad news for you, must humans do not gives a shit about what sea snakes live where, and to them your "disaster" just means "things will be different"
If they succeed... (Score:2)
So if the Nicaraguan Canal costs only $50 billion, (the current estimate is $49 Billion), then assuming terrorists blew up the Panama canal, then maybe Nicaraguan Canal would be $1 billion a year, also know as a 2% return on investment. It would take 50 years just to break even, let alone earn a profit.
Good luck with that business plan.
Good
Terrible news for everybody (Score:3)
A 10 seconds look at the geographic situation of Nicaragua is enough to realize there is no way to do this withouth destroying thousands of square meters of forest and endangering a freshwater lake that is bigger than Delaware.
Very very old news (Score:5, Informative)
Lake Nicaragua was considered for a canal even before Panama. The idea has been picked up and dropped many times since, which is not to say that it won't succeed this time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N... [wikipedia.org]
A ugar, a cin, a canal, a naca, Nicaragua. (Score:5, Funny)
Doesn't have the same ring to it. I can see why they picked Panama for the first one.
Hurray! USA is going to get another canal cheap! (Score:5, Interesting)
So don't worry, our government could be weak and our military power could be misapplied. But we have some really cunning bankers who would steal the loin cloth of Papua New Guineans if they could make a dollar or two. They will steal this spanking new Chinese built canal from Nicaragua for us. Some two decades later we the tax payers will compensate the victims of their greed.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
I lived in Nicaragua for five years... (Score:5, Insightful)
... and there was a broad consensus among both the ex-pats and the Nicaraguans I knew that a canal through Nicaragua would be an unqualified ecological disaster. It would cut a wide swath through the little remaining virgin forest there, not to mention clearing out many of the remaining indigenous communities. They apparently also want to build an airport, an oil pipeline, multiple "free-trade" zones, and a second deep-water port. I can't believe that surfing is considered more important than all this.
Re:Money pit (Score:5, Informative)
I think you might want to review your history. The first French attempt under La Société internationale du Canal interocéanique almost brought France to its knees. It also was in large part responsible for a disturbing wave of antisemitism that swept France, as Jews were blamed for so much of the corruption.
A Nicaragua canal would in many ways be better than a Panama canal. Although the distance is quite a bit longer, there would be less of a need for locks than are used on the Panama canal.
Re: (Score:2)
Panama didn't have the benefit of the massive machines available now. It will likely be much cheaper compartitively.
What I find interesting is the complete disregard for some amazing sites. Las Lajas River has this: http://www.beautifulplacesguid... [beautifulplacesguide.com] three of the four proposed routes for the 3rd section head through a national reserve. The shortest route of course splits the reserve in half. http://www3.varesenews.it/imma... [varesenews.it]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because China has a wonderful record on industrial pollution, and Central America has a wonderful record on fiscal responsibility and accountable government.
Re:Money pit (Score:5, Funny)
Fortunately, though, both places tend to look out for the interests of their people. ;)
Re:Money pit (Score:4, Insightful)
Because he was being snarky while adding nothing to the discussion.
"Because China has a wonderful record on industrial pollution"
And this will affect the financial success of the project how? Grandparent's point was that technological advances since Panama Canal will make the project more cost effective.
"and Central America has a wonderful record on fiscal responsibility and accountable government."
Except it's the Chinese footing the bill and making the decisions, so this comment is irrelevant.
He's just pandering to Slashdot groupthink and bashing China pollution and Latin American corruption. And it worked too, currently at +5 insightful.
Re: Money pit (Score:3)
I, for one, welcome our groupthinking overlords and call you out as a grumpy old pickypants!
Re:Money pit (Score:4, Insightful)
Panama didn't have the benefit of the massive machines available now. It will likely be much cheaper compartitively.
We are also much better at dealing with tropical diseases. Malaria and yellow fever were major problems during the construction of the Panama Canal.
Re:Money pit (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
ooo pretty. thanks to you sir i now wish to visit a cathedral in nicaragua.
Re: (Score:2)
"However, there are doubts around the world about the Nicaragua Canal project, mainly focusing on its engineering difficulty and funding during the construction phase and the economic viability after completion."
Re:Money pit (Score:5, Insightful)
.
China has poured 47% more concrete in the last 3 years than the US has poured in the last century [wired.com]. They know how to build.
The Panama Canal was dug around 1910. In 1910, about 38% of Americans were employed in agriculture... now it is under 2%. In other words, humankind is radically better at things like "moving dirt." There is no comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/... [cbsnews.com]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/... [washingtonpost.com]
Re:Money pit (Score:5, Interesting)
No, most of that concrete went into infrastructure projects. in the space of a decade China laid down a modern "interstate" highway system tremendously larger than the entire US Interstate and US HWY highway system combined.
They did this because they knew, from looking at history, of the power of massive public works/modernization projects. Particularly a modern highway system. This project both spurred economic growth in its own right from the labor and materials required, and will spurr further growth through time as it begins to allow the same things we saw happen in the US. Manufacturing can be located even further inland. It can also specialize into sub-assemblies that go elsewhere for final assembly. It' easier to transport goods, services, and people now into the interior of China. This will and has spurred the movement of people seeking better opportunities, and promoted growth of cities further inland, in contrast to past history where most of China's economy and trade depended on access to and was oriented around sea ports.
I only point this out, because while they tackle the problem of modern infrastructure, we're kicking the can down the road repeatedly, only doing small things after bridges have already collapsed, and roads become nearly unusable. that new "infrastructre bill" they just passed that was supposed to fund the HWY fund for a little longer? It's actually a loan from private businesses that will be repaid with tax dollars, at a profit to the businesses, a few years down the road. It's absolutely shameless.
Re: (Score:3)
Radical. (Score:2)
The Panama Canal was dug around 1910. In 1910, about 38% of Americans were employed in agriculture... now it is under 2%. In other words, humankind is radically better at things like "moving dirt."
This argument makes no sense whatever.
Agricultural employment in the states is under 2% because we are "radically" better at things like farming.
Employment in agriculture (% of total employment) in China was last measured at 34.80 in 2011, according to the World Bank.
Employment in agriculture (% of total employment) in China [tradingeconomics.com]
By July 1, 1914, a total of 238,845,587 cubic yards had been excavated during the American construction era. Together with some 30,000,000 cubic yards excavated by the French, this gives a total of around 268,000,000 cubic yards, or more than four times the volume originally estimated for de Lesseps' sea level canal.
END OF CONSTRUCTION [pancanal.com]
Re: (Score:2)
When was the last time an American School collapsed in an earthquake and the 'crete was found to be a substantial part straw?
Chinese are generally polite people, which gave that much more impact to the grieving mother telling the government asshole to 'investigate his mothers cunt'.
Which isn't saying new construction standards in America aren't cheap beyond reason and most of the trades dominated by mouth breathing drunks and tweakers.
Re: (Score:2)
there is a big difference between those building housing and those doing infrastructure work.
also, what you describe isnt the norm, but the exception, and as China goes throw the same growing pains we did a hundred years ago, they are holding those responsible tosome very harsh punishments.
Re: (Score:2)
It was the norm for all Chinese schools actually tested by earthquake. But I'm sure all the others are fine. Would you send your kid to one?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Money pit (Score:4, Insightful)
Plus the amount of money to be made will be less as you already have Panama canal. The average price will fall which will reduce Panama canal's profit but for them there is not much cost involved and hence the impact will be minimal. However, the lower rate can bankrupt Nicaragua canal. I wonder if they are self financing or are they able to get debt for such a risky project.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The new canal won't compete with the Panama one, because it's wider. The larger ships will have to take the new one (at full fare) while the smaller ships can choose. Given that it's cheaper to use larger ships that means the Panama canal will see a massive drop in use.
Which is why they are building a new canal in Panama [wikipedia.org] that will handle the large container ships and supertankers. This project has been underway for some time.
Re:Money pit (Score:4, Informative)
The Panama canal nearly bankrupted America.
Nonsense.
The Panama Canal cost Americans around $375,000,000, including the $10,000,000 paid to Panama and the $40,000,000 paid to the French company. It was the single most expensive construction project in United States history to that time. Fortifications cost extra, about $12,000,000.
Amazingly, unlike any other such project on record, the American canal had cost less in dollars than estimated, with the final figure some $23,000,000 below the 1907 estimate, in spite of landslides and a design change to a wider canal.
Even more amazing is that this huge, complex and unprecedented project was carried out without any of the scandal or corruption that often plagues such efforts, nor has any hint of scandal ever come to light in subsequent years.
There was, of course, also a cost in lives. According to hospital records, 5,609 lives were lost from disease and accidents during the American construction era. Adding the deaths during the French era would likely bring the total deaths to some 25,000 based on an estimate by Gorgas. However, the true number will never be known, since the French only recorded the deaths that occurred in hospital.
END OF THE CONSTRUCTION [pancanal.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I'm totally just guessing here, but perhaps it's only communist for those who can't afford to grease the right palms...
Re:Chinese telecom billionaire (Score:5, Insightful)
That just sets you up for the obvious "so it's just like US?" finisher :D
Re: (Score:2)
touché!
Re:Chinese telecom billionaire (Score:5, Informative)
It's a one party state where that one party is the Communist Party.
In 1978, Deng Xiaoping started economic reforms that transitioned China from a Maoist country full of subsistence farmers to the economic powerhouse it is today. To be truly Communist, the state has to own pretty much everything. Their new model allows individuals to own lots of things, and profit from them, but the state retains control when they want it.
Re: (Score:2)
Debating what is and isn't communist is one of those pointless questions that exists only to create debate.
Under Marx one thing was meant.
Under Lenin, another.
Under Mao, a third.
And by the time Russia got to Stalin, they were already pushing the "we're not communist, yet" lie pretty hard.
The one thing that can be said for sure is that no nation ever actually fit the definition that exists only in the collective consciousness of the American right wing, where taxes are used as a means of establishing dominan
Land Ownership (Score:3)
We have had several exchanges with Chinese government officials that do much the same things we do. There are some fundamental differences. No one owns land in China, it is all nationalized. However you are able to get a lease, and things like an 80 year lease is common. Think your current lifetime, just don't think you get to pass your loot onto your kids necessarily, particularly if you abuse the resource. Here a lease is typically about 20 years.
Anyway the mechanics are much the same, it is the implement
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah there are entire empty cities built in China by land speculators. So much for their "model".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Chinese telecom billionaire (Score:4, Interesting)
*every* communist country had enormous differences in wealth between their citicens. Compare the members of the Soviet nomenclature (who had even special shops with Western goods) with the Gulag-slave. (More than 10% of the population were Gulag-inhabitants, so we are talking about a large segment of the population here.)
A little known-fact was that the income differences in East Germany were about the same as in West Germany - but only when you assume that the people had equal rights which of course they hadn't. When you take all the privileges/penalties into account the differences were much greater than anybody in the West can even imagine.
Re: (Score:2)
You got to admit, it put a stop to Sandinista sponsored attacks in El Salvador.
Best defense is a good offense.