4 ms·

El Faro is a vivid example of how the Jones Act chokes competitiveness in the domestic shipping market. El Faro was 40 years old at the time of sinking - the gl

El Faro is a vivid example of how the Jones Act chokes competitiveness in the domestic shipping market. El Faro was 40 years old at the time of sinking - the global average container ship age is ~11 years. El Faro would've not met modern shipbuilding standards. Domestic shippers are not incentivized to modernize their ships. The Jones Act shipping industry is sustained on corruption, lobbying, and special interests. The Jones Act makes me very mad.

jordanb 9y ago
El Faro wasn't unseaworthy because it was old. There are plenty of old seaworthy vessels at sea today and there are also newer coffin ships. In fact, flags of convenience and competition between international Classification societies has driven down standards in shipbuilding. There's a long, exhaustive PDF on the subject, written by a veteran of the oil shipping industry, available here[0] Without the Jones Act the American merchant marine would not exist. It would be entirely driven out by third world shipping. Nobody who tries to maintain a first world workforce can compete. For Neoliberals that would be a great victory. Replacing American merchant sailors with Chinese or Filipinos on the Mississippi or the Great Lakes would be a great boon for them because it would undoubtedly reduce costs. Personally I don't buy it. Bottom dollar prices are not always the most important thing. Most countries place restrictions on operations by foreign shippers between internal ports (look up cabotage). Keeping a semblance of an American merchant marine in place is still important, if for no other reason because the military often needs to rely on commercial shipping. American merchant men are consummate professionals who uphold the best standards of seamanship (I know this from personal experience) and they deserve respect. And Americans have the right to demand that the government protect nation's middle class and working class from being crushed by hyperglobalization. [0] http://www.c4tx.org/ctx/pub/tromedy2.pdf http://www.c4tx.org/ctx/pub/tromedy2.pdf
- csours 9y ago
  >For Neoliberals that would be a great victory. Replacing American merchant sailors with Chinese or Filipinos on the Mississippi or the Great Lakes would be a great boon for them because it would undoubtedly reduce costs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism I think in the current political climate, the word Neoliberal is more likely to be misunderstood than understood as you intended.
- ocschwar 9y ago
  Filipinos on the Mississipi? I don't buy it. They would still have to pay Illinois prices for food and coffee every time they docked. They could only take so much of a pay cut. Not that there isn't a place for the Jones Act. But it really needs, at minimum, to have an exemption for Puerto Rico and the USVI
  - URSpider94 9y ago
    ... and Hawaii
  - jordanb 9y ago
    Some people from PR who argue against the Jones Act claim that ships in the trans-Atlantic trade used to call on PR on their way to Florida. But that was back in the age of sail and coal-fired steam when ships sailed south to catch the trades across the Atlantic. Foreign ships can easily call at PR now, they just have to call at BVI, Cuba or the Bahamas between PR and Florida. But they don't because ships now follow great circles and PR is too far south. Shipping to islands is expensive. I have a friend who comes from Bermuda. FedEx flies a 727 to that island and the locals say that they buy that airplane every time it lands. Shipping to Bermuda very expensive and the Jones Act is hardly to blame. Shipping from China to the USA is cheaper than to Australia even though Australia is closer. Again, Jones Act can not be to blame, being off the main routes is. PR's horrible economic troubles are caused by loss of industry and loss of jobs, not by expensive shipping. In fact, PR has a maritime industry that would be ruined without the Jones Act. PR has been hit hardest by the globalization of the pharmaceutical industry, which left PR when it found even cheaper labor abroad.
    - javiramos 9y ago
      Yeah - foreign ships are not the issue. Only about a third of the trade comes from foreign ships. Most of the inbound cargo to PR comes directly from U.S. (and mostly U.S. products) thus requiring Jones Act ships. PR is also net exporter (about 50% value add to imported goods) and its largest market is the U.S. (again thus requiring Jones Act ships). So foreign imports/exports are NOT the crux of the issue here.
- javiramos 9y ago
  > American merchant men are consummate professionals who uphold the best standards of seamanship The facts presented in the report do not support your statement. The facts in the report are shameful: crew joking during training procedures, incomplete safety drills, the Master of the ship falling asleep on several occassions, misterpretations of critical weather data. And TOTE maritime, the ship's operating company, failed on many levels outlined in the report. Our American methods for inspecting ships, as outlined in the report, are broken. Your perspective is anecdotal. I am sure there are a lot of great men and women working in the Jones Act trade but the system is FAR from perfect. > Keeping a semblance of an American merchant marine in place is still important, if for no other reason because the military often needs to rely on commercial shipping. The military already leases foreign allies ships because there is not enough trained personel and Jones Act vessels to satisfy the Navy's needs. Why don't we require the same for other modes of transportation? Airplanes, trains, trucks - the fact that we only protect ship building and construction is a historic phenomenom. > And Americans have the right to demand that the government protect nation's middle class and working class from being crushed by hyperglobalization Or to keep the nation's middle and working class being crushed from expensive and corrupt protectionism? This statement could be seen through a different lens - there are many people who are paying and subsidizing the costs of a protected merchant marine. Benefits are concentrated (~60,000 workers) but the costs are very high and diffuse.

jordanb 9y ago

El Faro wasn't unseaworthy because it was old. There are plenty of old seaworthy vessels at sea today and there are also newer coffin ships. In fact, flags of convenience and competition between international Classification societies has driven down standards in shipbuilding. There's a long, exhaustive PDF on the subject, written by a veteran of the oil shipping industry, available here[0] Without the Jones Act the American merchant marine would not exist. It would be entirely driven out by third world shipping. Nobody who tries to maintain a first world workforce can compete. For Neoliberals that would be a great victory. Replacing American merchant sailors with Chinese or Filipinos on the Mississippi or the Great Lakes would be a great boon for them because it would undoubtedly reduce costs. Personally I don't buy it. Bottom dollar prices are not always the most important thing. Most countries place restrictions on operations by foreign shippers between internal ports (look up cabotage). Keeping a semblance of an American merchant marine in place is still important, if for no other reason because the military often needs to rely on commercial shipping. American merchant men are consummate professionals who uphold the best standards of seamanship (I know this from personal experience) and they deserve respect. And Americans have the right to demand that the government protect nation's middle class and working class from being crushed by hyperglobalization. [0] http://www.c4tx.org/ctx/pub/tromedy2.pdf http://www.c4tx.org/ctx/pub/tromedy2.pdf

csours 9y ago
>For Neoliberals that would be a great victory. Replacing American merchant sailors with Chinese or Filipinos on the Mississippi or the Great Lakes would be a great boon for them because it would undoubtedly reduce costs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism I think in the current political climate, the word Neoliberal is more likely to be misunderstood than understood as you intended.
ocschwar 9y ago
Filipinos on the Mississipi? I don't buy it. They would still have to pay Illinois prices for food and coffee every time they docked. They could only take so much of a pay cut. Not that there isn't a place for the Jones Act. But it really needs, at minimum, to have an exemption for Puerto Rico and the USVI
- URSpider94 9y ago
  ... and Hawaii
- jordanb 9y ago
  Some people from PR who argue against the Jones Act claim that ships in the trans-Atlantic trade used to call on PR on their way to Florida. But that was back in the age of sail and coal-fired steam when ships sailed south to catch the trades across the Atlantic. Foreign ships can easily call at PR now, they just have to call at BVI, Cuba or the Bahamas between PR and Florida. But they don't because ships now follow great circles and PR is too far south. Shipping to islands is expensive. I have a friend who comes from Bermuda. FedEx flies a 727 to that island and the locals say that they buy that airplane every time it lands. Shipping to Bermuda very expensive and the Jones Act is hardly to blame. Shipping from China to the USA is cheaper than to Australia even though Australia is closer. Again, Jones Act can not be to blame, being off the main routes is. PR's horrible economic troubles are caused by loss of industry and loss of jobs, not by expensive shipping. In fact, PR has a maritime industry that would be ruined without the Jones Act. PR has been hit hardest by the globalization of the pharmaceutical industry, which left PR when it found even cheaper labor abroad.
  - javiramos 9y ago
    Yeah - foreign ships are not the issue. Only about a third of the trade comes from foreign ships. Most of the inbound cargo to PR comes directly from U.S. (and mostly U.S. products) thus requiring Jones Act ships. PR is also net exporter (about 50% value add to imported goods) and its largest market is the U.S. (again thus requiring Jones Act ships). So foreign imports/exports are NOT the crux of the issue here.
javiramos 9y ago
> American merchant men are consummate professionals who uphold the best standards of seamanship The facts presented in the report do not support your statement. The facts in the report are shameful: crew joking during training procedures, incomplete safety drills, the Master of the ship falling asleep on several occassions, misterpretations of critical weather data. And TOTE maritime, the ship's operating company, failed on many levels outlined in the report. Our American methods for inspecting ships, as outlined in the report, are broken. Your perspective is anecdotal. I am sure there are a lot of great men and women working in the Jones Act trade but the system is FAR from perfect. > Keeping a semblance of an American merchant marine in place is still important, if for no other reason because the military often needs to rely on commercial shipping. The military already leases foreign allies ships because there is not enough trained personel and Jones Act vessels to satisfy the Navy's needs. Why don't we require the same for other modes of transportation? Airplanes, trains, trucks - the fact that we only protect ship building and construction is a historic phenomenom. > And Americans have the right to demand that the government protect nation's middle class and working class from being crushed by hyperglobalization Or to keep the nation's middle and working class being crushed from expensive and corrupt protectionism? This statement could be seen through a different lens - there are many people who are paying and subsidizing the costs of a protected merchant marine. Benefits are concentrated (~60,000 workers) but the costs are very high and diffuse.