If you were to ask an individual when he first heard about the Panama Canal, he would probably reminisce upon his grade school days and how it was touched upon in his history book. As children, we learned the basics about the canal and how it served both military and trade functions.

Primarily, we learned how the American-built waterway facilitated the trade route for ships traveling across the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, and how the canal operated as a shortcut for vessels that would typically have to navigate around the tip of South America to get from California to New York.

Certainly these are all valid reasons as to why the canal was significant. But, the canal held much more importance than just cutting the trade route distance for vessels traveling through the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

Irrefutably the Panama Canal holds immense historical importance for trade in the United States and the world. The canal aided in expanding commerce in our country in particular. It allowed the U.S. to prosper economically while creating meaningful relations with other countries. Currently, it is estimated that 13,000 to 14,000 ships utilize the canal every year.

However, in recent light, the future of the canal was at question as the shipping and trade industry’s shift to megaships gained momentum. It is due to rising fuel costs and the global financial crisis that the industry sought preference in megaships.

But the Panama Canal’s original design is unable to serve megaships because of their great size. Originally the canal was engineered as a 50 mile-long passage that can lift ships 85 feet above sea level. The type of cargo ships that can safely navigate through the canal would be at most 304 meters in length and 33 meters wide. Megaships, on the other hand, boast a length of about 400 meters and a width of 59 meters.

Therefore, to accommodate the larger ships the Panama Canal is undergoing a $5.25 billion expansion project that would widen and deepen the existing passage way. The project is expected to be completed by the end of 2015 and is 93.8 percent complete according to the official website for the Panama Canal expansion. It is believed that the expansion of the canal will change the shipping industry’s current routes and hubs.

Jorge Luis Quijano, the Panama Canal Administrator, said, “The expanded canal will change global shipping, and is already beginning to do so.”

It is predicted that the expansion of the Panama Canal would directly affect the west coast of the United States as many of its ports, such as the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports, will lose market share.

With the industry’s current routes and preferred hubs, the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports handle an estimated 40 percent of the country’s imported Asian goods. But the expansion project in Panama could cost these two west coast hubs nearly 10 to 15 percent of their current cargo business.

Therefore, while Panama’s future looks bright due to its latest renovations, how will this affect the ports in the United States and what actions could they implement?

Many individuals have upheld the fear of losing business to the Panama Canal since the improvements on the waterway began in 2007. The Jobs First Alliance, which is a coalition composed of business, government and labor leaders have devised a campaign called “Beat the Canal!”.

So how do you combat the canal’s expansion project? The Jobs First Alliance would insist that the answer is modernization. The coalition has been fervently pushing that the Los Angeles and the Long Beach ports modernize as quickly as possible to beat the canal.

By Alexa Ritacco

My mother calls Uber “the magic app.” She loves that with just a touch of button you can call a ride that could arrive in just minutes. Not to mentions the completely digital, cashless transaction that makes for a smooth ride, with no awkward moments or hesitations when it comes to tipping.
As a college student in LA, Uber has become an essential way to get around, especially when it comes to nightlife. Coming out of a bar in Downtown LA, the streets are normally lined with dozens of Ubers and Lyfts waiting to pick up their passengers. This is a completely different picture than what existed just a few years ago. It even has its own verb now.
“Oh yeah, let’s just uber.”
“Going to uber over now!”
“No, I ubered.”
Founded in 2009, Uber now exists in sixty countries, and over three hundred cities. In just 6 years Uber has become a globally used and extremely well-known app. But global success does not certainly mean global acceptance. Resistance to the ride sharing service has come about from all angles. Some consumers think the service is sketchy.

“I don’t know, I just get a bad feeling about it. You’re getting into a complete stranger’s personal car. What if they’re a creep? What if someone tries to take advantage?” said Alexis Colner, a senior at USC. Colner’s not alone in her sentiments. There have been countless reports of harassment, extortion, and sometimes even robbery, and Uber’s response to such reports have been pretty mixed. But others view Uber as the lesser of two evils.
“I would much rather hop in an Uber than a taxi cab,” said NYU student, Elizabeth Gurdus, “Taxi drivers are so incredibly rude, and never take me the route I want to go. Uber drivers have a rating incentive to make my experience at least somewhat pleasant, and generally that’s been the case in my experience.”
While consumer perception has been an issue, the most resistance to Uber has come from Taxi cab drivers, as well as local city legislation. New York City, a place known for its thriving taxi sector with the infamous yellow cabs, has seen quite a bit of controversy surrounding Uber and other ride sharing services.
Uber launched in New York in May of 2011. Since then, the service has exploded, having given millions of rides to New Yorkers, and employing over 30,000 drivers. And it has been driving the NYC taxi drivers absolutely insane. Many drivers claim to be taking a hit financially, and feel that it is completely unfair that Uber just waltzed in one day and began stealing customers. They feel betrayed by New York City for letting this go on.
For so long, they were the only ones on the market for private transportation around the city. If a New Yorker wasn’t taking the subway, bus or personally driving themselves, chances are they were taking a taxi. And really, that was their only other option. Now suddenly, the consumer has quite a few options when they’re strapped for a ride. Rather than stepping out onto the sidewalk and hailing a cab, they very well may be whipping out their phone and calling for an Uber or a Lyft. The transportation market has changed completely, and now Taxis are dealing with some very hungry competitors.

Taxi medallion owners have put a lot of pressure on Mayor Bill de Blasio’s administration to help them and act in their favor. Satwinder Singh, ad NYC Taxi Medallion owner gave this analogy in a New Yorker article, “The city is the father and mother. They created the yellow cab as the baby. Now they’re refusing to take care of it!”
Another owner Lal Singh continued the analogy citing the fifty cent tax that is charged on cab fares that goes directly to the MTA. “We’re giving them eighty-five million dollars a year! And yet everybody accepts Uber is the stepfather and all the politicians are the stepsons!” he said.
After much badgering, de Blasio pushed to start regulation and capping on Uber in NYC in the late Spring of 2015. The legislation would basically limit the amount of Uber drivers that could be in New York City at all times, and prohibit any further growth of the company in the city.
This launched Uber into full on defense mode. They put out countless adds dissing taxi cabs, attacking their well-known racist stereotyping practices, as well as pushing all of the different types of services they offer, ranging from Pool to Lux. They rallied support from consumers in the form of petitions and protests, and even got a view celebrity endorsements via Twitter, including Kate Upton, Neil Patrick Harris and Ashton Kutcher.

It came as no surprise to many when de Blasio decided to halt his efforts to place a cap on Uber while further studies were conducted to see really just how hard Uber is hitting the transportation market. Obviously this infuriated NYC cab drivers and launched them into a series of protests. Some of the leaders of these protests have gone as far as to suggest emulating what cab drivers in Paris did in response to Uber, which included blocking major intersections and entrances to airports. But until something drastic happens, for now, it looks like Uber will not be leaving New York anytime soon.
Since Uber is still a private company, it is pretty difficult to tell just how much of an impact they are having on the transportation market. But by looking at employment numbers, leaked reports and the cab side of things, it is pretty easy to tell that Uber has made a giant mark on the Big Apple.
It has been noted that the number of abandoned taxi cabs in Brooklyn outside of dispatcher offices has been on the rise. Many drivers have reported that they jumped ship for Uber. By doing this, they lose the worry of paying the lease on their cab, and the countless other fees that cab drivers that don’t own their own medallions have to pay.
In November of 2014, it was leaked that Uber was set to generate $350 million in revenue for that year. It could have only grown since then, as Uber has expanded over 14% in NY over the past year.
A New York Post article reported that as of October 2015, 30,000 Uber drivers are employed in New York, and that they could be making an average of $40 per hour.
Based on all of these factors, there is no doubt that Uber has taken a large bite into the transportation market in New York City. So will this mean the end of taxi cabs in NY? Of course not. But this situation has forced taxicab companies to start thinking more forwardly. It has been reported that they have been developing apps similar to Uber for cab drivers to being using. Features would include GPS based fares as well as a possible rating system.

Uber has totally woken up what was a sleepy transportation market in New York. Only time can tell what will come of the industry, and if these two competitors will ever be able to peacefully coexist.

Sources:
http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-revenue-rides-drivers-and-fares-2014-11?op=1
http://www.businessinsider.com/proof-that-uber-is-obliterating-new-york-citys-taxi-industry-2015-8
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/08/03/revving-up
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/photo-galleries/2015/09/17/medallion-taxi-drivers-rally-against-uber-drivers/
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/city-hall/2015/09/8577153/uber-fight-city-hall-overshadows-congestion-hearing
http://nypost.com/2015/10/07/there-are-more-than-30000-uber-drivers-working-in-nyc/
https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/number-of-uber-drivers-in-nyc
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/n-y-taxi-drivers-rally-uber-article-1.2363707
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/uber-defends-surge-pricing-with-nyc-case-study/

Post Iranian Revolution, the Islamic Republic of Iran has continued to be in a state of unrest. The country’s political and economic instability has resulted in several accusations made against it. From entities accused of supporting terrorism (2001), to nuclear proliferation (2005), to officials in the government responsible for serious human rights abuse (2010), Iran has been at the forefront of violation of international laws. Consequently, in 1995, the US implemented sanctions against Iran that extended to companies dealing with the Iranian Government. Additionally, in 2006, the UN levied economic sanctions against Iran as a result of the country’s refusal to suspend its uranium enrichment program. The nail in the coffin was when the Congress issued the Accountability and Human Rights Act, 2012, targeting companies conducting business with Iran’s national oil company. “These sanctions have significantly hurt the exports of oil, which contribute to 80% of the country’s revenue,” said Mr. Wayne Sandolhtz, Professor of International Relations at University of Southern California. Sanctions on Bank of Iran and Iranian financial institutions have curbed the flow of capital into the country. Reduced foreign investments have further contributed to the declining growth. Consequently, the sanctions have disrupted supply chains, contributing to higher operating costs. High costs and reduced investments have forced companies to lay off workers. As a result, the economy has been severely damaged. Inflation is at 40%, with prices of basic food and fuel expected to further soar. Unemployment lurks at 10.3%, with unofficial figures rising to 35%. Recent sanctions (2012) have taken a toll on Iran’s growth, with the GDP figures estimating a drop by 20% from 2012. However, with Iran agreeing to restrict its nuclear program, an opportunity for future economic success has presented itself.

The recent conference in Tehran concluded on a nuclear deal agreed between Iran and the six economic giants: Britain, US, France, Germany, Russia and China. Iran agreed to limit its uranium enrichment program in return for the sanctions being lifted. New contracts were launched at the conference, with Iran expected to initiate 50 new projects in the coming year. “The deal will increase production by 500,000 barrels per day,” said Syed Mehdi Hosseini, head of the country’s oil contracts. This deal has major implications for Iran as it opens a door for reentry into the global oil market. The country can now attract foreign investors who will supply capital to the economy. This will bolster growth, primarily through rise in production and exports of oil.

According to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, Iran leads the world in natural gas reserves and is fourth in oil. Influx of Western and European investment and technology could revive an industry that in a decade of sanctions has lost much ground to its rivals. “Since the sanctions in 2012, Iran’s oil production has dropped more than 20%. Meanwhile, Iraq has increased its production by 70%, where as Saudi Arabia has been pumping at near record levels,” said Mr. Gaurav Mukherjee, Professor of Applied Statistics at University of Southern California. “The country is currently producing 2.9 million barrels a day, and has a capacity to produce 4 million barrels a day. To fulfill this potential, Iran will require more investment than what the National Iranian Oil Company can muster. This opens the door to increased foreign investment.” The deal provides the perfect platform for influx of investment to aid Iran to step back into the oil markets, and challenge its competitors to gain back the lost share. The new contracts will increase daily production by 500,000 – 800,000 barrels per day, which will significantly boost the countries exports.

Iran will now become the largest country to rejoin the global marketplace since the breakup of the Soviet Union. Energy sector companies and business from other sectors have already travelled to Iran to seek market opportunities since the agreement to lift sanctions. “Iran holds potentially interesting promises and perspectives. We have to see how the market will develop,” said Shell Chief Executive Ben Van Beurden. Iran is already in contact with former oil buyers in the European Union – traders such as Vitol Group and big oil producers such as Royal Dutch Shell PLC, Total SA – as well as existing importers in Asia. Although Iran will welcome foreign capital, it will be careful on the manner of negotiations. “Iranians are likely to seek deals in which they pay a fee per barrel for the output increases achieved by Western companies’ technology and investment,” Professor Sandolhtz. However, with the assured backing of foreign investors, Iran is likely to make a strong statement in the global oil market. In addition to increasing supply to 3.5 millions barrels per day, Iran will experience an influx of foreign technology and ideas. This combined effect is predicted to raise Iran’s economy by 2 percentage points, to more than 5 percent GDP growth within a year. After an additional 18 months, GDP growth could reach 8 percent. With new channels to trade, easy access to raw materials and technology will improve efficiency and reduce cost of operations. This will help combat rising prices. Additionally, investment and consequent growth will also provide more jobs in the economy, hence chipping off on the high levels of unemployment.

In the global oil markets, Iran will benefit from increasing leverage. The sanctions restricted Iran’s exports of oil to limited countries. Iran heavily relies on China as a consumer for its oil supply. More than 15% of Iran’s oil is shipped to China. Additionally, due to limited access to global markets, Iran imports 35% of its gasoline from China. Hence Iran is significantly dependent on China for the functioning of its economy. Consequently, this reduces it power to dictate terms. However, with increased consumers, Iran is likely to enjoy an improvement in its economic position allowing it to have leverage in negotiations.

Scaling back sanctions will help Iran keep its best and brightest at home. From 2009 to 2013, more than 300,000 Iranians left the country in search for better job opportunities. Today, 25% of Iranians with postgraduate live in developed OECD countries outside Iran. This is a significantly high rate of “brain drain”. According to the World Bank, Iranian economy loses out on $50 billion annually as local talent look elsewhere for work. Iran’s GDP last year was US $368.9 billion. Hence, retaining its talented workforce will have a substantial impact on Iran’s growth. With access to high levels of investment and technology, the Iranians will regain confidence in their economy, willing to take their chances at home.

Although the economy will be brimming with optimism, it is important to acknowledge that lifting sanctions does not mean all players will invest in the economy. American oil companies, in particular, are subject to tighter restrictions than their European counterparts. They are likely to be far more cautious in their activities. Furthermore, oil experts predict that it may be some time before major oil and gas projects get underway. “The level of interest in Iran will be high, but actual investment will be slow,” Professor Mukherjee. Additionally, Iran cannot immediately increase its production to its predicted capacity of 3.5 million barrels per day. This will create an oversupply of oil in the market, dropping the price of oil, and hurting several economies in the Middle East. Hence, Iran must slowly work towards its target, which means realizing slow and steady growth.

The nuclear deal has raised interest elsewhere in the Middle East, with Iraq and Saudi Arabia keeping a watchful eye. The reentry of Iranian oil to the global market could lower 2016 forecasts for world crude oil prices by $5-$15 per barrel. With the current price already as low as $49 per barrel, Iran’s activities will trouble members of the OPEC. “Iran, through its contracts and potential investment, will take away a major share of oil exports from Iraq,” Professor Sandolhtz. Nearby, Saudi Arabia will also be dealt a significant blow. The leader of the OPEC has already increased supply of oil, dropping the prices to where they are today. The country is heavily reliant on oil for its revenues, and will stand to lose market share to Iran. The tensed Saudis will have to look to diversify away from deep dependence on the US for markets for Saudi oil exports. And what about the political and economic implications for Israel?