HOW BMW “GREENS” ITS SUPPLY CHAIN AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE
We’ve gotten some angry feedback from industry leaders in the aftermath of our recent story on South Carolina’s “inland port” in Greer, S.C.
(Missed that post? Click HERE).
We’ve also received some constructive feedback, though, including a letter from a businessman whose company is being placed at a competitive disadvantage due to the gratuitous government-funded sop being given to BMW – the prime beneficiary of this $46.5 million boondoggle.
As this businessman explains, “BMW is using this inland port to feed its appetite for IMPORTS (the components shipped from Germany and other countries in Mediterranean Shipping Company containers into the port of Charleston).”
So who pays to ship the empty containers back to Charleston, S.C.?
Not BMW … which has the S.C. Department of Commerce (whose secretary was its former PR man) and the rest of state government in its back pocket.
“(The S.C. State Ports Authority) and the steamship lines are working with regional exporters like Michelin, Tennessee Eastman, and grain exporters in the Midwest to use these same containers and rail them (loaded) back to Charleston,” the businessman explains. “It’s a great concept, unless you have to maintain a profit and loss statement on the practice.”
Basically BMW (along with other European Union exporters) is receiving a “greener” supply chain – without having to pay for it. That cost is being passed on to other businesses – and taxpayers!
“BMW has become so large, and our state ‘leaders’ so used to saying YES to anything they ask,” the businessman laments. “It’s a terrible position we find ourselves in, due to our leadership void.”
Indeed … much like the subservient relationship South Carolina “leaders” have with Boeing, this is crony capitalism at its worst – another example of government picking winners and losers in the economy (with our money).
We’ll have much more on this scam in future posts. Specifically, we’ll be assessing the cost overruns associated with this particular project as well as the dubious environmental benefits used as a justification for the expense.