quote:

---

Originally posted by dewrop:
I WANT TO DRINK THE WATER, SWIM IN THE WATER, or in the case of a HURRICANE DIE IN THEIR WATERS, NOW RUN TELL THAT!!!!!!!!!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dewrop:
I just read that Mexico has/will start charging a port tax/fee for cruise ships because"the tourist just come and buy some trinkets and reurn to the ship not really adding to the economy"

---

And what is wrong with that?

It is true that cruise ship passengers are only of little benefit to the destination's economy because all they spend in destination is money for souvenirs and perhaps a meal. They do not stay in local hotels or anything like that and thus contribute little to the economy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dewrop:
I wonder if I'm the only one who is paying attention? I just read that Mexico has/will start charging a port tax/fee for cruise ships because"the tourist just come and buy some trinkets and reurn to the ship not really adding to the economy". I have for this reason and due to the weather decided Mexico is not where I WANT TO DRINK THE WATER, SWIM IN THE WATER, or in the case of a HURRICANE DIE IN THEIR WATERS, NOW RUN TELL THAT!!!!!!!!!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dewrop:
I wonder if I'm the only one who is paying attention? I just read that Mexico has/will start charging a port tax/fee for cruise ships because"the tourist just come and buy some trinkets and reurn to the ship not really adding to the economy". I have for this reason and due to the weather decided Mexico is not where I WANT TO DRINK THE WATER, SWIM IN THE WATER, or in the case of a HURRICANE DIE IN THEIR WATERS, NOW RUN TELL THAT!!!!!!!!!!

---

Good grief! Your email provider's name perfectly describes your somewhat offensive outlook.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dewrop:
I wonder if I'm the only one who is paying attention?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dewrop:
I WANT TO DRINK THE WATER, SWIM IN THE WATER, or in the case of a HURRICANE DIE IN THEIR WATERS, NOW RUN TELL THAT!!!!!!!!!!

---

You could have just said you just don't wish to pay to see Mexico or Mexico ports don't appeal to your taste, you kinda made some personal attacks (i think).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ðraikar:

I could drive there for less money and its too near the state of California.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lasuvidaboy:

Huh?? What is up with that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Globaliser:
Sorry, there's one thing I don't understand here. Why are we giving this obvious troll any time or attention at all?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ðraikar:

Even with the cost of gas today it would cost less money to drive to Mexico then a cruise to Mexico... I would like to take a cruise to a place that I can't drive too. I love too see Mexico but cheaper to drive then cruise buy ship but its so near California.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dewrop:
"the tourist just come and buy some trinkets and reurn to the ship not really adding to the economy".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CGT:
What a stupid comment for Mexico to make.

---

The true economic benefit of tourism is often less than it seems. In London, studies suggest that the cost to local businesses from the adverse effects of tourism possibly outweighs the financial benefit from the money that they bring in - it's quite a fine balance.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Globaliser:
There are lots of other good reasons for promoting tourism and encouraging visitors, but we shouldn't go wildly overboard on the idea that we are pumping huge benefits into every destination's economy. You have to look more closely at all the numbers.

---

In Manzanillo in the state of Colima, a committee of local businesses serving the cruise ship sector has been formed to offer better options for cruise ship passengers taking trips ashore. At present, cruise ships have a virtual monopoly on organizing such trips and the average cost of each shore trip is close to 100 dollars. Local operators believe they can lower this figure to around 25 dollars and still make a profit."

384m is not to be sneezed at. But it seems they may have a problem with the cruise line monopoly on trips and the shops along cruise docks being often owned or leased by the cruise companies. The answer is not to charge an extra pp landing tax, imo, but to take back the shops, this sort of 'business' should never have been permitted in the first place.

An earlier report I posted this year from Victoria, stated "Local businesses love cruise ship passengers and the dollars they spend. A 2003 survey estimated passengers spent about $10 million in the city. The survey found they spent about $88 each and handed over another $25 for every extra hour in the city." So they think it's beneficial, but in Victoria the businesses are not owned by the cruiselines. A 'racket' Mexico must resist.

Nothing irritates me more on a 'Port Talk' than being told where to shop and those 'discount' vouchers. All a con [imo], I go the other way, but unfortunately some pax just rush to these places. have a real local market & shopping precinct.

quote:

---

Originally posted by soundsailor:
Passengers may only spend their hard earned cash in stores and restaurants owned off shore, but these businesses are staffed by locals. Also, crew spend money as well, and they are more likely to spend it in non tourist places. So to claim that ships do not contribute to the local economy is erroneous.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dewrop:
I WANT TO DRINK THE WATER, SWIM IN THE WATER, or in the case of a HURRICANE DIE IN THEIR WATERS, NOW RUN TELL THAT!!!!!!!!!!

---

I want to hear more from dewrop who stared this topic...

[ 09-19-2004: Message edited by: Ðraikar ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Globaliser:
Is it stupid if it's true? So much of cruise pax's money doesn't enter the local economy. It's increasingly spent in shops that are owned offshore, with "local" tour operators that are owned offshore, and of course a huge amount goes to the cruise lines in the commissions/markups that they get through both of those sources.

The true economic benefit of tourism is often less than it seems. In London, studies suggest that the cost to local businesses from the adverse effects of tourism possibly outweighs the financial benefit from the money that they bring in - it's quite a fine balance.

There are lots of other good reasons for promoting tourism and encouraging visitors, but we shouldn't go wildly overboard on the idea that we are pumping huge benefits into every destination's economy. You have to look more closely at all the numbers.

---

It seems to me this is a fundamental question, which is adressed here on this thread, and one which I have still no real answer to (abstraction made from Mexico, where I have never been and which I only know from books and pictures, like Y tu Mama, Tambien, which gave a very spectacular and appealing image of the Mexican landscape and coast).

Can we go, like this, as "first worlders" visit the Third World ?

I felt this very strongly when I was in Egypt, which is very beautiful, but where there is clearly a lot of poverty, and living conditions don't seem to have changed since biblical times (I suspect the Egyptian governmant proomoting cruises on the Nile and foreigners staying on these ships, so to have a natural barrier between the tourists and the Egyptians, and this in both ways, but this is only a personal impression).

The americans have Mexico and those impoverished caribbean islands at their treshold - here we have North Africa, Turkey and Egypt very close, wherer we go for holidays, but where living conditions are very different.

There is always the tourist dollar (or euro or pound), this is true, but at what price, both in economic, social and cultural terms.

Spain and Greece were some years ago poor coutnries, and the first cheap "sun destinations" for ordinary "charter" travellers. I don't think it was tourism which catapulted these countries in more prosperity, but functioning democracies and the entry in the EU (but here i can be wrong of course).

this question, the moral question of travelling for traveling for pleasure to poor coutnries, was also a thought i had when reading the article about "Up the Saigon", with the Silversea, which is even more luxurious or even over luxurious. How will the vietnamese population have looked to this ship and its passengers, flaunting their richness ? And how will the passengers have felt ?

For exemple, I know how here in Antwerp, part of the rich European quadrangle London/Amsterdam/Dusseldorf/Paris one of the most prosperous corners of the world, how the press and public opinion welcomed the first arrival of cruiseships (after a long period of no arrivals), happy that they came back, nostalgic to the old times of Red Star and the Congo Boats, but also that this wasn't for us, that these were all very rich americans on a grand tour, culturally and socially miles apart from us (welcome nevertheless).

I was once talking to a guide in Nepal, who made an interesting point, he said the Nepalese people are only ‘poor’ in a monetary sense, when compared to the west, not in a spiritual or cultural way.

His English was very good, but he did not know what the word ‘STRESS’ meant. I started to understand what he meant when he said that there was no Nepalese equivalent word.

[ 09-19-2004: Message edited by: Malcolm @ cruisepage ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 8666263:
I just read that Mexico has/will start charging a port tax/fee for cruise ships because"the tourist just come and buy some trinkets and reurn to the ship not really adding to the economy"

So its true, whats wrong with that?

---