Why billions of dollars of goods are stuck at sea • Hacker News Board

Re: Why billions of dollars of goods are stuck at sea

#171

Post by ars » Fri, Sep 23, 2016, 6:49 AM UTC

r00fus wrote: post #102

ars wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's quite the opposite. The less money people have the less they care about the environment. That's why as quality of life went up in Western countries the environment became more and more important to people, to the point that it's almost an obsession for some people now.

I'm not sure I follow your logic - data would help your point. For example, there may be a missing middle step there - as quality of life went up (due to massively increased international trade which allowed suppliers in emerging markets to bypass strict first-world environmental regulations and massively pollute) Then the reaction to the worsening environment because of overall consumption increase caused a backlash…

I don't even know how to reply to you.

You think the only way for people to increase their quality of life is to pollute?

And you think people want a better environment as a backlash? That's such upsidedown thinking. People always want a better environment, but if they are searching for their next meal they have better things to worry about.

But once they are secure then they worry about their local environment, and when they are very secure they worry about remote environments as well.

So the best way to improve the environment is to significantly increase the quality of life of everyone. And one way (not the only way) is trade, and yes, lots of consumption.

You have to remember: It's impossible for us to run out of resources because those atoms aren't going anywhere. All we need is energy and anything is possible.

You want an amazing environment? Then find a way to MASSIVELY boost energy output. With all that energy we can do anything, including fix the issues caused by using all that energy.

But for some reason environmentalists want people to go the other way, and reduce energy usage. This will just cause an environmental catastrophe because now people will have a lower quality of life and would not care in the slightest about the environment.

Re: Why billions of dollars of goods are stuck at sea

#172

Post by ndesaulniers » Fri, Sep 23, 2016, 6:52 AM UTC

keebEz wrote: post #37

Flexport did a great blog post on the situation: https://www.flexport.com/blog/on-hanjin/ Also of interest, they also did a game theory analysis of ocean liners: https://www.flexport.com/blog/game-theory-ocean-carrier-comp...

Great reads, thanks for sharing!

Re: Why billions of dollars of goods are stuck at sea

#173

Post by ars » Fri, Sep 23, 2016, 6:55 AM UTC

namdnay wrote: post #127

ars wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wouldn't it do more to encourage local food production and consumption? Thus reducing pollution No, local food production increases pollution. The lowest pollution is obtained when food is grown in the climate most suited to it. Transportation energy (or pollution) is absolutely minuscule compared to energy used in growing the food. Optimizing for transportation costs in food production is a horrible idea from an e…

I agree that you need to grow food suitable for the climate you are in. How does this clash with local food production? If you locally grow food that is adapted to your climate, surely that's the best solution? I have difficulty believing that eating imported pineapples in the UK pollutes less than eating local apples

> If you locally grow food that is adapted to your climate, surely that's the best solution?

So what you are saying is no one should eat bread in the UK? (The UK is not great at growing wheat.) I don't need to give a lot of examples, you get my point I hope.

> I have difficulty believing that eating imported pineapples in the UK pollutes less than eating local apples

Do apples grow well in the UK? Do you need lots of chemicals to grow them? (Pesticide, herbicide, fertilizer, etc, etc.) Do you need to spend a lot of time (i.e. energy) managing the trees, or do they just grow themself?

Importing a pineapple costs basically nothing (both in terms of energy and money). If growing a pineapple in HI uses less stuff than growing an apple in the UK, then yah, eating imported pineapples pollutes less. (I don't know if that's the case or not.)

It's easy enough to tell: Just compare the cost of the fruit (per weight).

Re: Why billions of dollars of goods are stuck at sea

#174

Post by aninhumer » Fri, Sep 23, 2016, 7:06 AM UTC

Animats wrote: post #59

This is a mess because Hanjin's top management was in denial about the possibility of bankruptcy. Just like the typical startup. They've been trying for months to get a bailout deal from somebody, anybody - a merger, loans, their parent chaebol, their stockholders (Korean Air is the largest), or the S. Korean government. Everybody turned them down. There's too much container ship capacity right now; nobody needed Han…

I don't know that much about accounting, but isn't this the exact kind of situation insurance is supposed to smooth over?

I'd imagine in many cases, the cost of solving the problems caused by not being able to pay fees is going to be higher than the fees themselves. So are there not insurers who benefit from paying these fees, rather than paying out larger claims later?

Re: Why billions of dollars of goods are stuck at sea

#175

Post by mjevans » Fri, Sep 23, 2016, 7:19 AM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #80

honkhonkpants wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone needed those parts to keep their assembly lines running, why wouldn't they just put up the money to have the ships unloaded? We're only talking about a few million to move these goods.

Business X has ten containers on a ship. The ship has 4000 containers on it. Should Business X pay to unload the whole ship? That seems rather burdensome. Should Business X pay to just unload their own containers? But containers are in large stacks on the ship; it is improbable that the containers they want are all on top. They'd have to unload at least some others to get the ones they want. Should Business X join wi…

The obvious solution is to agree that any receiving containers from the ship owe an equitable sized fee based on their fraction of all the containers.

Also to charge creditors that 'arrest' a ship the mooring fee for the port (since they're the ones demanding it stays there).

The ship, any unclaimed cargo, and any unclaimed containers, would then be fire-sold with the base price of the remaining debt for that ship and the condition that whoever buys them is then responsible for them. Any additional proceeds go first to lessening the unload fees (presumably already paid for by the cargo's owners in their transit fees) and finally back to the former owner of the ship.

I forgot to add: The nation receiving the cargo should have an economic stability interest in backing the loans to do this, but those receiving cargo obviously also need to be in on the underwriting of these efforts.

Second edit: It also becomes obvious to me that the equilibrium price for 'when is it bad enough to execute this' is when those who need to claim the cargo from the ship value what they're getting enough to bail out the price of selling the vessels for scrap.

Re: Why billions of dollars of goods are stuck at sea

#176

Post by PeterisP » Fri, Sep 23, 2016, 7:49 AM UTC

superuser2 wrote: post #118

Animats wrote: post #59

This is a mess because Hanjin's top management was in denial about the possibility of bankruptcy. Just like the typical startup. They've been trying for months to get a bailout deal from somebody, anybody - a merger, loans, their parent chaebol, their stockholders (Korean Air is the largest), or the S. Korean government. Everybody turned them down. There's too much container ship capacity right now; nobody needed Han…

What happens to the crews of these ships? Can they leave? How? Who pays to transport them to shore? Under what authority are they permitted to walk on shore? Office and factory workers of a suddenly-derelict company can walk off the premises and go home. Imagine finding out that not only will the paychecks stop, you also can't leave your desk.

They may have problems in leaving, but that's not as big issue because they generally anyway had been contracted to stay there for many more months.

On the other hand, unlike factory workers in a totally bankrupt organization, the ship crews will get paid - they get "priority" on the ship and cargo; if the ship gets sold in some auction or restructuring, the new owner can't take possession until the previous crew gets paid.

Re: Why billions of dollars of goods are stuck at sea

#177

Post by PeterisP » Fri, Sep 23, 2016, 7:49 AM UTC

superuser2 wrote: post #118

Animats wrote: post #59

This is a mess because Hanjin's top management was in denial about the possibility of bankruptcy. Just like the typical startup. They've been trying for months to get a bailout deal from somebody, anybody - a merger, loans, their parent chaebol, their stockholders (Korean Air is the largest), or the S. Korean government. Everybody turned them down. There's too much container ship capacity right now; nobody needed Han…

What happens to the crews of these ships? Can they leave? How? Who pays to transport them to shore? Under what authority are they permitted to walk on shore? Office and factory workers of a suddenly-derelict company can walk off the premises and go home. Imagine finding out that not only will the paychecks stop, you also can't leave your desk.

They may have problems in leaving, but that's not as big issue because they generally anyway had been contracted to stay there for many more months.

On the other hand, unlike factory workers in a totally bankrupt organization, the ship crews will get paid - they get "priority" on the ship and cargo; if the ship gets sold in some auction or restructuring, the new owner can't take possession until the previous crew gets paid in full, including payment for this staying outside port while everything gets sorted out.

Re: Why billions of dollars of goods are stuck at sea

#178

Post by PeterisP » Fri, Sep 23, 2016, 7:54 AM UTC

yourapostasy wrote: post #121

thesehands wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope the shipping company issues a bill of lading as the goods are received for shipping that sets out who owns the container.

The shipping company doesn't own the cargo, but I've read speculation that the creditors can seize the ships, then demand payment to unload the cargo, and if they don't receive payment seize the cargo to discharge the "debt". I don't know how a bill of lading would work in that situation, where the creditor wasn't the original party that the customer signed a contract with, and I'm curious how much latitude a credito…

Obviously if the cargo has any value, then the result is simply a higher freight cost than originally expected.

Yes, it is likely that cargo owners will have to pay extra to get their cargo delivered where they want - they have paid for a service, Hanjin won't provide that service, and anyone else will require payment for that same service. Even if the service (or a part of it) is practically unavoidable e.g. the cargo is at a ship and needs to be unloaded, so someone needs to pay for the loading. Maybe they have insured that, maybe not, but they can get their cargo anyway if they want.

Re: Why billions of dollars of goods are stuck at sea

#179

Post by PeterisP » Fri, Sep 23, 2016, 8:04 AM UTC

foobarian wrote: post #130

GavinMcG wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The officers, at the very least, would be criminally liable.

But suppose they ran out of food. And suppose there was no shuttle from the ship due to owner going bankrupt. I think they could probably call a mayday signal and get rescued by some other vessel.

They can and will obtain supplies and food at no cost (essentially, with the ship and cargo as collateral) but they can't really abandon it.

Do note that calling mayday gives the rescuing vessel significant rights to the ship and cargo. If your ship is not at risk of sinking, that would be a really expensive way to solve a comparably minor problem, ordering a daily helicopter delivery from the closest McDonalds would be much cheaper.

Re: Why billions of dollars of goods are stuck at sea

#180

Post by thaumasiotes » Fri, Sep 23, 2016, 8:07 AM UTC

jfoutz wrote: post #137

thaumasiotes wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Local food production is a noble goal. As an end in itself? Why?

Me personally? Buying local food supports the local economy, providing some support for a local food supply. It's a little bit crazy, i know, but if something weird happened, at least some food could be sourced locally. Most farmland around me tends to get paved. So supporting local farmers helps a bit with wildlife habitat and gives rain a place to soak back into the aquifer. I can talk with farmers about what they…

All else aside, none of that suggests that local food production would be a noble goal for anyone outside your area.