What was the economical consequence as a result of building the panama canal?
609949
it made things cheaper, because it saved a whole bunch of travel time for ships
876990
Real Estate in Panama is climbing in vaue almost daily.  When we moved here a year ago we had an option on our place for 199,000.00 we opted out and it's now listed for 250,000.00  There are over 200 new residential building going up in the city twenty stories or more.  One can only guess when or where it will end but there is still time to buy right and make an profit.  WIth the approved expansion of the canal the  incoming construction workers will provide an excellent opportunity for rental income.  As well as for foreign workers for the new water treatment being built for the city.
510591
A. Various diseases hampered the construction project because many people died.  Yellow fever and Malaria were the most deadly of them, because before the cause of them was discovered (mosquitoes) they didn't know how to treat the disease.\n\nAlso the original French plan called for a sea level canal like Suez.  Unfortunately for the French the Panamanian landscape didn't allow them to dig so easily as they did in Suez, and the technology they were using in Panama was the same one as they used in Suez, which was all wrong.\n\nWhen the US got the rights to build the canal arising from the Hay - Buneau Varilla treat of 1903, they reengineered the plans and decided to go for a lock type canal, rather than a sea level canal.  They based this on a prior study from a French engineer.  They also brought new technology with them, for example Concrete.  Remember we're talking about 1903 here.\n\nAlso the US got a hold of the research that a Cuban medic called Carlos Finlay did on Yellow Fever where he discovered that mosquitoes were the vectors causing the disease, and the incubation time needed for the mosquitoes to transfer the disease.\n\nWith that the US drained swamps, and they fumigated the entire Canal Zone, along with the Panamanian Cities of Cristobal, Colon and Panama to get rid of the mosquitoes.\n\nB. Actually it wasn't a big deal when the Canal opened in 1914.  It was the smallest story on the front page news.  Remember WWI just broke out in Europe, so the news from the battlefront were more interesting than the first transit of the canal.  By the way it was done by the Steamship Ancon.\n\nNow regarding commerce and the military advantage it gave the US, it was a big deal.  Ships could now shorten the time it took them to go around the Cape of Horns in South America, and also for those ships that had to cross the Cape of Good Hope in South Africa.  The US military could complement their fleets just crossing some vessels through the Canal.  Think about all the savings it brought to commerce, and the possibilites to the military strategists at that time.\n\nAlso until 1977 the Panama Canal was controlled by the US Military, not the US Federal Government as some still think.  The office handling the Panama Canal affairs was in the Pentagon, not the Secretary of Commerce.  After 1977 with the new Panama Canal Treaties (they were 3 treaties in one single body) The Neutrality Treaty declared the Panama Canal neutral in all times of wars and crisis, therefore now any ship couldn't be denied the right to go through the Panama Canal.  Although I don't believe that prior to 1977 the US actually denied transit except in WWII for obvious reasons.
647471
1. The US controlled the Phillippines as a "colony."\n2. The US controlled Cuba but didn't make it an official "colony."\n3. The US decided it needed Panama to make a canal.\n4. The US decided Hawaii could not stay an independent nation.
587836
it brought better technology \n+ railroads\nregulate economic systems
911377
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_canal is your friend.
99844
Entering Mexican waters without proper permissions can be deadly. I would contact the harbor master from the port you are heading too.
1165644
(To my knowledge, this involved the panama canal. The only scandal I can think of was a debate over who really controlled it: U.S. or Panama.)\n\nThe course of Spanish-American War had highlighted the need for rapid access between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Foreign policy experts began to question adherence to the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty of 1850, an agreement pledging the U.S. and Britain to not take independent action in constructing a transoceanic canal in Central America.\n\nNegotiations began during the McKinley administration between John Hay, the U.S. secretary of state, and Lord Julian Pauncefote, the British ambassador to Washington. Initial bargaining was slowed by disagreements over fortifying the proposed canal and seeking other signatories for any agreement that might be reached.\n\nAgreement was reached late in the year after Roosevelt had succeeded the slain McKinley. The following points were approved by both nations:\n\n\nThe U.S. was authorized to construct and manage a Central American canal \n\nThe U.S. was to guarantee the neutrality of the canal and was authorized to fortify the area, if necessary \n\nThe canal was to be open to all nations; rates were to be fair and equal. \n\nThe Hay-Pauncefote Treaty superceded the earlier Clayton-Bulwer agreement and would be followed by the failed Hay-Herrán Treaty and the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty, both in 1903.
736591
The US/Mexico war was going to happen anyway.  There was room for only one major continental power.  The US also was sure of its Manifest Destiny Doctrine and that meant that the two nations had to duke it out.  We won and took the legitimate spoils of war in the eyes of the people of that era.  There was even some debate about annexing ALL of Mexico but it was not viable at that time.
869156
Mexico, and ultimately the United States (we got land later) benefited. Spain lost out.
1020461
a man, a plan, a canal, panama
783792
Wikipedia has a complete overview of it; including causes and the aftermath. I linked it below for you.
855425
Fishing. The Grand Banks were the richest fishing grounds in the world at that time.\n\nThe settlers wiped out the Beothucks, which sort of wrecked their economy. Not that they really had one -- they were hunter/gatherers.
46598
Positive impact: soft parts are used as food, hard shells used by craftsmen; also pearl oysters. Also some substances produced by mollusks are tested for medical use.\nNegative impact: some invasive bivalve species cause great money losses because they clog pipes and harm ship hulks.\nThis aside from the fact that they are essential components of food webs and thus participate in the ecological balance of terrestrial and aquatic systems. These so called "ecological services" are seldom recognized as economical benefits, but they should be.
178546
I wouldn't say it's risky but you will pay a pretty penny if you buy in lands or beaches already developed such as tamarindo in guuanacaste. if you look to areas that may get more infrastructure in the future then you can probably get a better deal but will be a little off the beaten path for a little while.
460940
If you are referring to the Gaillard Cut widening, a project that began in 1992 and was completed in 2001, there were a number of contractors hired by the Panama Canal Commission and later on, by the Panama Canal Authority, to do all kinds of works, dredging, land removal, explosions, and so on.  Among those companies there was CUSA, a Panamanian company.  However, most of the work was carried out in house, including supervision of contractors.\n\nIf you are referring to Canal expansion with a new set of locks, there are no contractors considered yet, as the decision to go ahead with the project has not been made and requires of a national referendum for its approval.
627372
Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running!\nThe Darién scheme was an unsuccessful attempt by the Kingdom of Scotland to establish a colony on the Isthmus of Panama