Proposed cost increase to transit Panama Canal

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by AiniA

My experience with the PC was overwhelmingly positive. We ended up only paying the $800, it would have been $3000 if we were 18" longer. I wonder what the 50'+ fee will be with this proposal. They could have made it less bureaucratic (but provided fewer jobs) by eliminating the admeasuref and even the advisors. I have done the St Lawrence Seaway and Welland Canal locks which are almost as big and more numerous and you do not use or need an advisor. Both of our advisors were hours late. The first day's guy was helpful, the second day guy asked how the first day went. When we said it was fine he settled in with his newspapers and pretty much ignored us. Because he and his colleagues on the other two boats were so late we missed our freighter. The advisor has us motor sailing to catch up but that did not work. We did the last three locks with just the three sailboats.

Mine too, the advisors were OK, Generally they kept an eye on us in the locks so we didn't wind up causing a wreck or something. They gave good directions and didn't try to override the owner/skipper beyond simply advice. They did not complain about the food we served. The cost was reasonable. It seemed to be well run. I have no complaints. I like Panama and Panamanians.

[belizesailor]

Originally Posted by mat jam

If you actually choose to you can find the real unemployment numbers. They are readily available. There is a reason why they no longer publish M numbers related to money. Also the method for adjusting inflation numbers are skewed and altered to match their intended numbers. Everything is ready available if you choose to look in the correct places and understand how they manage the numbers. But since you are not aware and choose to chew the grass just be happy in your knowledge that you know what you think you know. Sometimes ignorance is bliss.

Let me add. They are located in one of the most secure buildings in the US.

Munch, munch, munch....more vagueness about them & they and sources of true information...a hall mark of the conspiracy theorist/Sovereigns/prepper crowd.

[redneckrob]

[QUOTE=mat jam;2915709]

Originally Posted by redneckrob

You've got a number of folks here who have started and run international companies and spent a good chunk of time not only studying things like the world economy but participating in it. It may be a bit of hubris for you to assert that you and apparently you alone understand "how the world economy works" and those of us who've actually been heavily involved in it don't. Or are we all part of the conspiracy too? The one that only you are clever and smart enough to grasp while the clueless sheeple that make up the rest of the world just won't ever have your capability to see through the lies that lie at the bottom of all corporate books?[/QUOT]

No wrong in your thinking. My post was addressed to specific individuals. I see I have upset people with the assumption in the future.

Let me ask a simple question since you feel you are qualified.

What is the actual unemployment figure in the US?

I know, I know...the moon landing was faked, Elvis and Hitler live in a bunker in Tahiti across from JFK, and the earth is really flat. Listen, if you can point to the specific line or lines in the financial statement that you allege are false....heck if you can show you even know how to read financial statements and you have looked at the financial statement you're alleging with no evidence is false, then perhaps we can have a discussion about that. What US unemployment figures have to do with the fees charged to transit the Panama Canal....seriously? Focus dude, focus! This is all about that special knowledge that only you are clever enough to understand, remember that.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by Brewgyver

I can only say that I did NOT know it to be false, I just couldn't find the data, so I made a conditional statement that was well within the realm of possibility.

OK, fair enough. There are not that many vessels that need the larger locks vs the standard panamax size. I've done 8 or 9 handline transits in cruising boats of the Canal and find it to be very well run and a great deal, so I get a little protective.

[belizesailor]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

Seriously?

There was no canal, and no nation there before the US built it. The land was mostly uninhabited jungle that the US acquired legally from the surrounding people, NOT through military conquest.

Crack a history book.

Another minor bit of history that may or may not interest you, the Isthmus was part of the nation of Colombia prior to becoming Panama.

Also, as pointed out in detail in another post, it was far from uninhabitted. There were numerous indigenous groups in the region and the area around Panama City was settled by Europeans as early as 1519. If you have an interest in history, then Casco Antigua, as the orinigal old ruined city is called today, is an interesting place to visit. Casco Viejo, as a newer old city area is called today, was founded around 1673.

So...you might want to brush up on your Panamanian history a bit.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by belizesailor

Another minor bit of history that may or may not interest you, the Isthmus was part of the nation of Colombia prior to becoming Panama.

And as pointed out in another post it was far from uninhabitted.

Belizesailor you are definitely cracking open the post euro-colonial history book.

Reference below the hemispherical image highlighting the portion of America that was Gran Columbia.

Gran Colombia (Spanish pronunciation: [ˈɡɾaŋ koˈlombja], "Great Colombia") is the name historians use to refer to the state that encompassed much of northern South America and part of southern Central America from 1819 to 1831. The state included the territories of present-day Colombia, Ecuador, Panama and Venezuela, and parts of northern Peru, western Guyana and northwestern Brazil. The term Gran Colombia is used historiographically to distinguish it from the current Republic of Colombia, which is also the official name of the former state.

At the time of its creation, Gran Colombia was the most prestigious country in Spanish America. John Quincy Adams, then Secretary of State of the United States of America and a future president of the United States, claimed it to be one of the most powerful nations on the planet.

But international recognition of the legitimacy of the Gran Colombian state ran afoul of European opposition to the independence of states in the Americas. Austria, France, and Russia only recognized independence in the Americas if the new states accepted monarchs from European dynasties. In addition, Colombia and the international powers disagreed over the extension of the Colombian territory and its boundaries.

Gran Colombia was proclaimed through the Fundamental Law of the Republic of Colombia, issued during the Congress of Angostura (1819), but did not come into being until the Congress of Cúcuta (1821) promulgated the Constitution of Cúcuta.

Gran Colombia was constituted as a unitary centralist state. Its existence was marked by a struggle between those who supported a centralized government with a strong presidency and those who supported a decentralized, federal form of government. At the same time, another political division emerged between those who supported the Constitution of Cúcuta and two groups who sought to do away with the Constitution, either in favor of breaking up the country into smaller republics or maintaining the union but creating an even stronger presidency. The faction that favored constitutional rule coalesced around Vice-President Francisco de Paula Santander, while those who supported the creation of a stronger presidency were led by President Simón Bolívar. The two of them had been allies in the war against Spanish rule, but by 1825, their differences had become public and were an important part of the political instability from that year onward.

Gran Colombia was dissolved in 1831 due to the political differences that existed between supporters of federalism and centralism, as well as regional tensions among the peoples that made up the republic. It broke into the successor states of Colombia, Ecuador, and Venezuela; Panama was separated from Colombia in 1903. Since Gran Colombia's territory corresponded more or less to the original jurisdiction of the former Viceroyalty of New Granada, it also claimed the Caribbean coast of Nicaragua, the Mosquito Coast.

The dissolution of Gran Colombia represented the failure of Bolívar's vision. The former republic was replaced by the republics of Venezuela, Ecuador, and New Granada. The former Department of Cundinamarca (as established in 1819 at Angostura) became a new country, the Republic of New Granada. In 1858, New Granada was replaced by the Granadine Confederation. Later in 1863, the Granadine Confederation changed its name officially to the United States of Colombia, and in 1886, adopted its present-day name: the Republic of Colombia. Panama, which voluntarily became part of Gran Colombia in 1821, remained a department of the Republic of Colombia until 1903, when in great part as a consequence of the Thousand Days War of 1899–1902, it became independent under intense American pressure. The United States wanted territorial rights in the future Panama Canal Zone, which Colombia had refused.

With the exception of Panama (which, as mentioned, achieved independence seven decades later), the countries that were created have similar flags, reminiscent of the flag of Gran Colombia:

Only the Panamanian flag is modeled somewhat like the flag of the USA.
The original Panamanian flag had the upper left quadrant colored blue but that was later shifted downward and the upper quadrant was then made white [neutral] as to party affiliations. Blue and Red being the colors of the two political parties, the liberals and the conservatives, respectively.

[belizesailor]

Originally Posted by Montanan

Belizesailor you are definitely cracking open the post euro-colonial history book.

Reference below the hemispherical image highlighting the portion of America that was Gran Columbia.
...

Ha, I bet they chose green to shade Gran Colombia because it was all uninhabited jungle outside of any national boundaries. [emoji6]

[Paul L]

The US was integral to Panama seperating from Colombia including using the US Navy to get what was wanted.

During the construction of the Panama canal, the initial attempts by France to construct a sea-level canal across the isthmus were secured through treaty with Colombia; however French cost overruns and corruption in the Panama scandals led to abandonment of the Canal for a decade. During the intervening years, local separatists used the political instability of the Thousand Days' War to agitate for political separation from Colombia and establishment of an independent republic. When the United States sought to take over the canal project, the government of Colombia proved difficult to work with, and with the cooperation of French financier Philippe-Jean Bunau-Varilla, Panama simultaneously declared independence from Colombia and negotiated a treaty granting the U.S. the right to construct the canal.

The United States was the first country to recognize the independence of the nascent republic, sending the U.S. Navy to prevent Colombia from retaking the territory during the first days of the new Republic. In exchange for its role in defending the Republic, and for constructing the canal, the U.S. was granted a perpetual lease on the land around the canal, known as the Panama Canal Zone, which was later returned to Panama under the terms of the Torrijos–Carter Treaties.

[belizesailor]

Originally Posted by Paul L

The US was integral to Panama seperating from Colombia including using the US Navy to get what was wanted.

Yeah, that version of the story is a bit soft. Panama didnt negotiate anything, they were not even present at the table. Bunau-Varilla drafted the agreement with very one sided terms in the USAs favor, Roosevelt accepted it, and "Gunboat Diplomacy" (the "Big Stick") made sure any objections were silenced.

Gunboat Diplomacy also ensured that Colombian forces on their way to squelch Panama's rebellion quietly put their tail between their legs and went back home.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by belizesailor

Yeah, that version of the story is a bit soft. Panama didnt negotiate anything, they were not even present at the table. Bunau-Varilla drafted the agreement with very one sided terms in the USAs favor, Roosevelt accepted it, and "Gunboat Diplomacy" (the "Big Stick") made sure any objections were silenced.

Gunboat Diplomacy also ensured that Colombian forces on their way to squelch Panama's rebellion quietly put their tail between their legs and went back home.

Bunau-Varilla was born on July 26, 1859, in Paris, France. After graduating at age 20 from the École Polytechnique, he remained in France for three years. In 1882 he abandoned his career in public works at the École Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées and traveled to Panama. He arrived at the isthmus in 1884, employed with Ferdinand de Lesseps's Panama Canal Company. He became general manager of the organization.

Panama Canal

After the Panama Canal Company went bankrupt in 1888 amidst charges of fraud, Bunau-Varilla was left stranded in Panama. He struggled to find a new way to construct the canal. When the New Panama Canal Company sprang up back in his native France, Bunau-Varilla sailed home, having purchased a large amount of stock. However, as de Lesseps' company had before, the New Panama Canal Company soon abandoned efforts to build the canal. It sold the land in Panama to the United States, in hopes that the company would not fail entirely. U.S. President Grover Cleveland, an anti-imperialist, avoided the canal issue. When the more supportive Theodore Roosevelt became president in 1901, canal planning resumed in the United States. Bunau-Varilla energetically promoted a canal in Panama. With aid from the New Panama Canal Company's New York attorney, William Nelson Cromwell, he persuaded the government to select Panama as the canal site, as opposed to the popular alternative, Nicaragua. When opponents voiced their interest in constructing a canal through Nicaragua, which was a less politically volatile nation, Bunau-Varilla actively lobbied in the United States, for example by distributing Nicaraguan postage stamps featuring belching volcanos to senators. Through lobbying of businessmen, government officials, and the American public, Bunau-Varilla convinced the U.S. Congress to appropriate $40 million to the New Panama Canal Company, under the Spooner Act of 1902. The funds were contingent on negotiating a treaty with Colombia to provide land for the canal in its territory of Panama.

Separation of Panama from Colombia


Colombia signed the Hay–Herrán Treaty in 1903, ceding land in Panama to the United States for the canal, but the Senate of Colombia rejected ratification. Bunau-Varilla's company was in danger of losing the $40 million of the Spooner Act, and he drew up plans with Panamanian juntas in New York for war. By the eve of the war, Bunau-Varilla had already drafted the new nation's constitution, flag, and military establishment, and promised to float the entire government on his own checkbook. Bunau-Varilla's flag design was later rejected by the Panamanian revolutionary council on the grounds that it was designed by a foreigner. Although he prepared for a small-scale civil war, violence was limited. As promised, President Roosevelt interposed a U.S. naval fleet between the Colombian forces south of the isthmus and Panamanian separatists.

U.S. control of the canal area

Bunau-Varilla, as Panama's ambassador to the United States, was invested with plenipotentiary powers by President Manuel Amador. Lacking formal consent of the government of Panama, he entered into negotiations with the American Secretary of State, John Hay, to give control of the Panama Canal area to the U.S. No Panamanians signed the resulting Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty, though it was ratified in Panama on December 2, 1903. Bunau-Varilla had received his ambassadorship through financial assistance to the rebels, he had not lived in Panama for seventeen years, and he never returned,leading to the charge that he was "appointed Minister by cable". Panamanians long resented his betrayed trust put in him by the new Panamanian authorities. The treaty was finally undone by the Torrijos–Carter Treaties in 1977

See Bunau-Varilla's rejected flag design for Panama, note the 13 stripes to reflect the USA influence and the left quadrant represents the bridging isthmus between northern and southern america:

[Brewgyver]

Originally Posted by Paul L

OK, fair enough. There are not that many vessels that need the larger locks vs the standard panamax size. I've done 8 or 9 handline transits in cruising boats of the Canal and find it to be very well run and a great deal, so I get a little protective.

That's great, must have been fun!

I hope to transit the canal in the future, as well. The few people I know who've used the canal were all very happy with the experience, other than a couple who had to go in to the city and plunk down cash, which I believe is no longer the only method of payment for a one-time customer, like a yachtie.

I also really have no problem with the fees, I'm sure it will be well worth it!
Like I said earlier, I was fascinated with locks, dams, and lots of other systems when I was a littke kid, making a radio with a razor blade and stuff like that, and I just got caught up in nickel and diming the discussion about water use.

As to "not that many" neopanamax vessels, that is changing very rapidly.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by Brewgyver

That's great, must have been fun!

I hope to transit the canal in the future, as well. The few people I know who've used the canal were all very happy with the experience, other than a couple who had to go in to the city and plunk down cash, which I believe is no longer the only method of payment for a one-time customer, like a yachtie.

I also really have no problem with the fees, I'm sure it will be well worth it!
Like I said earlier, I was fascinated with locks, dams, and lots of other systems when I was a littke kid, making a radio with a razor blade and stuff like that, and I just got caught up in nickel and diming the discussion about water use.

As to "not that many" neopanamax vessels, that is changing very rapidly.

Yes, you can do a bank wire to pay for the transit. It adds a few days of wait as you do not get scheduled prior to payment. Any bank holidays in your home country, New York or Panama will delay the wire. After you've been measured you can setup the wire. There is a form you email to the Canal credit office to let them know it is coming. You can call them after a few days to get a daily status. As soon as they receive the wire you can call the Scheduler to get your initial transit date. You should call the scheduler daily as your time gets close to check for the likely changes. All are friendly and speak excellent English. In peak cruiser transit time the availability of Advisers causes a lot of the reschedules.

You do know that the Panamax locks are two sets side by side while the new locks are single lane,

[hooligan6a]

Look, if you disagree with the U.S. foreign policies, fine but you have to agree the U.S. did the whole world a very big favor. There would not have been a Canal if it were not for the U.S. no one else could have build it, at the time. Did people get hurt? Sure, it was nation building. People always get hurt but more people got helped. Should we have turned it over to a dictator
With blood on his hands? I don’t think so. It is a great gift we gave to the world.

[belizesailor]

The Canal is a very useful resource and that is a positive. It was not taken by massively bloody conquest. Thats good. As territory grabs go, it was quite tame from a relative historic perspective...to my knowledge there was not even a single death. In fact I find the slight of hand pulled off on Colombia/Panama sort of amusing. But it was not done for global alturistic reasons, that is trying to justify it after the fact, it was purely for the expected benefit to the USA. Still essentially armed robbery.

If I steal your car, dont kill you in the process, and then by chance drive an injured stranger to the ER, I should still do the time. So no it was not a horrific attrocity (like the genocide of the American Indians), but that dont make it right.

[hooligan6a]

Originally Posted by belizesailor

The Canal is a very useful resource and that is a positive. It was not taken by massively bloody conquest. Thats good. As territory grabs go, it was quite tame from a relative historic perspective...to my knowledge there was not even a single death. In fact I find the slight of hand pulled off on Colombia/Panama sort of amusing. But it was not done for global alturistic reasons, that is trying to justify it after the fact, it was purely for the expected benefit to the USA. Still essentially armed robbery.

If I steal your car, dont kill you in the process, and then by chance drive an injured stranger to the ER, I should still do the time. So no it was not a horrific attrocity (like the genocide of the American Indians), but that dont make it right.

Yes, It was done for the benefit of the US. That is what every country does. Tell me one thing that England, China, Russia, France, or any other country did, that was not for the expected benefit of their country. Does not matter if we did it for altruistic reasons, the world did benefit from it. Yes we did not do a very nice job with the Indians. We interrupted them from murdering each other and gave them an opportunity to murder Custer. It is just how things were done.