3 ms·

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 m

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.
  - jordanb 9y ago
    Why don't foreign shippers set up a route from Florida to the Bahamas to Puerto Rico? This would be perfectly legal under the Jones Act. Or alternately Florida - BVI - PR. If they can't make that work because of the slight additional cost of a stop in Nassau then I don't really buy the idea that PR is getting hosed by the Jones act. Sure the Jones act is protecting "only" 60,000 American jobs. And everyone would benefit a little from cheaper shipping. That's the exact same argument neoliberals made when textiles and furniture and everything else beat a path to Asia and left behind rusting factories and opiod-popping towns. I mean, sure, lots of devastation in the rust belt and New England but hey, we all get cheaper underwear! The problem is that 60,000 jobs here 60,000 jobs there starts to add up across industries until you get stagnant wages, collapsing labor participation rates, collapsing labor share of income, fraying social net, the worst economic inequality in the history of this country, an ever growing group of hopeless, despondent (or angry) people, eventually, even, Donald J Trump as President of the United States.
    - javiramos 9y ago
      Well, tell that to the thousands of small businesses in Hawaii, PR etc. that can't export, and therefore can't compete because sea shipping prices are too high. A vivid example is Hawaii. Hawaii produces excellent cattle and livestock - plenty of sun and great weather. It is cheaper to fly cattle to the U.S. than it is to transport it in a Jones Act trade ship. There is a weekly Boeing 747 from HNL to LAX to transport cows to the mainland U.S. market. Imagine how much more competitive the Hawaiian livestock industry could be if sea shipping rates were competitive. As Americans, it is our choice if we want to stimulate and connect our territories to our vast mainland market or if we want to protect special interests, lobbying, and corruption that supports the Jones Act trade.
      - jordanb 9y ago
        As I said above shipping is always high to islands. You can say the same thing (small business hurt by shipping) in Bermuda or Tahiti or Antigua, in all these cases the cost of shipping has nothing to do with the Jones Act. If Jones Act shippers were fleecing PR, then it would be very profitable for foreign shippers to set up a route from Florida to PR via the Bahamas. This would be 100% legal under the Jones Act and the fact that they haven't demonstrates that it isn't very profitable to try to undercut the current shippers. The same for Hawaii, all foreign ships have to do is stop in Ensenada and then they can go to San Diego or Longbeach and it'd be 100% legal under the Jones Act. Foreign-flagged cruise ships are already doing exactly this. Also live animals nearly always travel long distances by air. Putting them on a boat for a long sea voyage means you have to make provisions to feed and care for them, which eliminates any potential cost savings.
javiramos 9y ago
>But it really needs, at minimum, to have an exemption for Puerto Rico and the USVI (and ..Hawaii as noted below) Exactly!! PR, USVI, Hawaii, Alaska etc. are disproportionately impacted by the costs of the Jones Act trade. An exemption would yield economic benefits to these island states/territories.

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.
- jordanb 9y ago
  Why don't foreign shippers set up a route from Florida to the Bahamas to Puerto Rico? This would be perfectly legal under the Jones Act. Or alternately Florida - BVI - PR. If they can't make that work because of the slight additional cost of a stop in Nassau then I don't really buy the idea that PR is getting hosed by the Jones act. Sure the Jones act is protecting "only" 60,000 American jobs. And everyone would benefit a little from cheaper shipping. That's the exact same argument neoliberals made when textiles and furniture and everything else beat a path to Asia and left behind rusting factories and opiod-popping towns. I mean, sure, lots of devastation in the rust belt and New England but hey, we all get cheaper underwear! The problem is that 60,000 jobs here 60,000 jobs there starts to add up across industries until you get stagnant wages, collapsing labor participation rates, collapsing labor share of income, fraying social net, the worst economic inequality in the history of this country, an ever growing group of hopeless, despondent (or angry) people, eventually, even, Donald J Trump as President of the United States.
  - javiramos 9y ago
    Well, tell that to the thousands of small businesses in Hawaii, PR etc. that can't export, and therefore can't compete because sea shipping prices are too high. A vivid example is Hawaii. Hawaii produces excellent cattle and livestock - plenty of sun and great weather. It is cheaper to fly cattle to the U.S. than it is to transport it in a Jones Act trade ship. There is a weekly Boeing 747 from HNL to LAX to transport cows to the mainland U.S. market. Imagine how much more competitive the Hawaiian livestock industry could be if sea shipping rates were competitive. As Americans, it is our choice if we want to stimulate and connect our territories to our vast mainland market or if we want to protect special interests, lobbying, and corruption that supports the Jones Act trade.
    - jordanb 9y ago
      As I said above shipping is always high to islands. You can say the same thing (small business hurt by shipping) in Bermuda or Tahiti or Antigua, in all these cases the cost of shipping has nothing to do with the Jones Act. If Jones Act shippers were fleecing PR, then it would be very profitable for foreign shippers to set up a route from Florida to PR via the Bahamas. This would be 100% legal under the Jones Act and the fact that they haven't demonstrates that it isn't very profitable to try to undercut the current shippers. The same for Hawaii, all foreign ships have to do is stop in Ensenada and then they can go to San Diego or Longbeach and it'd be 100% legal under the Jones Act. Foreign-flagged cruise ships are already doing exactly this. Also live animals nearly always travel long distances by air. Putting them on a boat for a long sea voyage means you have to make provisions to feed and care for them, which eliminates any potential cost savings.

javiramos 9y ago

>But it really needs, at minimum, to have an exemption for Puerto Rico and the USVI (and ..Hawaii as noted below) Exactly!! PR, USVI, Hawaii, Alaska etc. are disproportionately impacted by the costs of the Jones Act trade. An exemption would yield economic benefits to these island states/territories.