6 ms·

Valid criticism. But how would the USA maintain a merchant fleet in the face of much lower operation costs for operators under a different flag? Without the J

by retrac 5y ago

Valid criticism. But how would the USA maintain a merchant fleet in the face of much lower operation costs for operators under a different flag? Without the Jones Act, one might expect near-complete dependence on foreign-flagged ships for US shipping. That's a major vulnerability for a trade-oriented nation. Subsidies perhaps?

_3u10 5y ago
The fleet is smaller than it would be without the Jones Act.
wolpoli 5y ago
It wouldn't be fair for the cost of this national objective to fall onto Hawaii alone.
- supernova87a 5y ago
  Agreed. And not only Hawaii, many other places too. The costs fell on Puerto Rico when Congress refused to lift the Jones requirements to ease shipping costs even after the hurricane left them desperate for supplies. I guess the national priority fo ensuring a home-based merchant marine fleet outweighed people's need for toilet paper and medical supplies.
dhc02 5y ago
IF the domestic shipping fleet struggled or shrank without the Jones Act, the answer would be subsidies, rather than prohibition.
- colechristensen 5y ago
  And people would be making essentially the same complaints and essentially the same arguments about the subsidies (see agriculture subsidies)
  - thrashh 5y ago
    Yeah but people complain about all sorts of stuff. We haven’t gotten rid of the subsidies yet. Although in this scenario, we could subsidize oil to Hawaii. I don’t know how that could be sold but everyone already benefits from subsidies somewhere and everyone already subsidizes something else.
  - golemiprague 5y ago
adolph 5y ago
> how would the USA maintain a merchant fleet Why would the USA maintain a merchant fleet if it not economically feasible? Why are operation costs lower for operators under a different flag? How does disadvantaging internal transport help anyone involved other than a handful of specialty operators? The Jones Act requires goods shipped between U.S. ports to be transported on ships that are built, owned, and operated by United States citizens or permanent residents.[0] 0. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/j/jonesact.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/j/jonesact.asp
- retrac 5y ago
  > Why would the USA maintain a merchant fleet if it not economically feasible? Basically the same reason Japan subsidizes grain production or why Sweden doesn't buy its fighter jets from Russia. Sure, it'd be cheaper to import, but it's also a vulnerability. It would make America dependent on foreign powers for the shipping of goods vital to the economy and even national security. How do you move oil to Hawaii and military hardware to Guam if foreign carriers decide to embargo the USA?
- RegnisGnaw 5y ago
  > Why are operation costs lower for operators under a different flag? A ship flagged under country X has to obey the laws of country X. So a Liberian flagged ship has to obey the laws of Liberia. The minimum wages in Liberia is much less then the US. Overtime rules more relaxed. Safety standards are more relaxed.
- themaninthedark 5y ago
  The Jones Act can be broken into 3 parts: 1. transported on ships that are built We want to maintain domestic shipyard capacity and not have the only shipyards be those that are government contractors. Why? Imagine if we are ever in a situation where we need Liberty Ships again. 2. transported on ships that are owned, We want to both protect domestic owners as well as be able to hold them accountable if they screw up. You sometimes hear stories about ships abandoned by their owners and the crew forced to stay on the vessel. Or abandoned cargo such as the fertilizer that caused the Beirut blast. We want to minimize those situations. 3. transported on ships that are operated We want the people working the ships to be invested in our country and we want to maintain a population with these skills. Why? In the event of a Liberty Ship situation, you need people to crew them. But also accountability, who is more likely to report the captain ordering waste oil to be dumped overboard: A US citizen who knows the rules or a sailor from Indonesia whose passport is being held by the captain? There is a large amount of intercostal and waterway shipping that takes place in the US, grain down the Mississippi, steel on the Great Lakes. Do we want that to be open to Iranian or North Korean ships? Lastly, the Jones Act only applies to goods shipped between US ports. So if Hawaii is buying Russian gas from Russia, as long as the ship goes from Russia to Hawaii the Jones Act doesn't apply.
dantheman 5y ago
Why should the USA maintain a merchant fleet? We already rely on foreign owned and operated ships for the majority of our shipping.
- colechristensen 5y ago
  Because it is an essential piece of infrastructure and without it you lose power to others around the world who would use it to control you. The cost of not having one is hard to put a number on but very likely much higher than the savings of offshoring all of your shipping.
- kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
  Moving strategic assets between ports.
- gowld 5y ago
  Look at China -- We rely on China for the US economy, so US is powerless to stop China's human rights abuses.
ars 5y ago
Seems like a simple solution would be to add "Or Canadian" to the Jones Act. If there was a war I'm sure Canada would help with any marine shipping needed, and it would simplify things for some operators.
pg_bot 5y ago
Modify the Jones act so that the ships don't need to be built in the US, they just need to be owned and flagged by US companies. Labor costs for running the ships are a rounding error when compared to the purchase price of the ship and fuel costs. You just don't need that many people to run these large ships and you can already have ~30% of staff be foreign anyway.

by retrac 5y ago

_3u10 5y ago

The fleet is smaller than it would be without the Jones Act.

wolpoli 5y ago

It wouldn't be fair for the cost of this national objective to fall onto Hawaii alone.

supernova87a 5y ago
Agreed. And not only Hawaii, many other places too. The costs fell on Puerto Rico when Congress refused to lift the Jones requirements to ease shipping costs even after the hurricane left them desperate for supplies. I guess the national priority fo ensuring a home-based merchant marine fleet outweighed people's need for toilet paper and medical supplies.

dhc02 5y ago

IF the domestic shipping fleet struggled or shrank without the Jones Act, the answer would be subsidies, rather than prohibition.

colechristensen 5y ago
And people would be making essentially the same complaints and essentially the same arguments about the subsidies (see agriculture subsidies)
- thrashh 5y ago
  Yeah but people complain about all sorts of stuff. We haven’t gotten rid of the subsidies yet. Although in this scenario, we could subsidize oil to Hawaii. I don’t know how that could be sold but everyone already benefits from subsidies somewhere and everyone already subsidizes something else.
- golemiprague 5y ago

adolph 5y ago

> how would the USA maintain a merchant fleet Why would the USA maintain a merchant fleet if it not economically feasible? Why are operation costs lower for operators under a different flag? How does disadvantaging internal transport help anyone involved other than a handful of specialty operators? The Jones Act requires goods shipped between U.S. ports to be transported on ships that are built, owned, and operated by United States citizens or permanent residents.[0] 0. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/j/jonesact.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/j/jonesact.asp

retrac 5y ago
> Why would the USA maintain a merchant fleet if it not economically feasible? Basically the same reason Japan subsidizes grain production or why Sweden doesn't buy its fighter jets from Russia. Sure, it'd be cheaper to import, but it's also a vulnerability. It would make America dependent on foreign powers for the shipping of goods vital to the economy and even national security. How do you move oil to Hawaii and military hardware to Guam if foreign carriers decide to embargo the USA?
RegnisGnaw 5y ago
> Why are operation costs lower for operators under a different flag? A ship flagged under country X has to obey the laws of country X. So a Liberian flagged ship has to obey the laws of Liberia. The minimum wages in Liberia is much less then the US. Overtime rules more relaxed. Safety standards are more relaxed.
themaninthedark 5y ago
The Jones Act can be broken into 3 parts: 1. transported on ships that are built We want to maintain domestic shipyard capacity and not have the only shipyards be those that are government contractors. Why? Imagine if we are ever in a situation where we need Liberty Ships again. 2. transported on ships that are owned, We want to both protect domestic owners as well as be able to hold them accountable if they screw up. You sometimes hear stories about ships abandoned by their owners and the crew forced to stay on the vessel. Or abandoned cargo such as the fertilizer that caused the Beirut blast. We want to minimize those situations. 3. transported on ships that are operated We want the people working the ships to be invested in our country and we want to maintain a population with these skills. Why? In the event of a Liberty Ship situation, you need people to crew them. But also accountability, who is more likely to report the captain ordering waste oil to be dumped overboard: A US citizen who knows the rules or a sailor from Indonesia whose passport is being held by the captain? There is a large amount of intercostal and waterway shipping that takes place in the US, grain down the Mississippi, steel on the Great Lakes. Do we want that to be open to Iranian or North Korean ships? Lastly, the Jones Act only applies to goods shipped between US ports. So if Hawaii is buying Russian gas from Russia, as long as the ship goes from Russia to Hawaii the Jones Act doesn't apply.

dantheman 5y ago

Why should the USA maintain a merchant fleet? We already rely on foreign owned and operated ships for the majority of our shipping.

colechristensen 5y ago
Because it is an essential piece of infrastructure and without it you lose power to others around the world who would use it to control you. The cost of not having one is hard to put a number on but very likely much higher than the savings of offshoring all of your shipping.
kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
Moving strategic assets between ports.
gowld 5y ago
Look at China -- We rely on China for the US economy, so US is powerless to stop China's human rights abuses.

ars 5y ago

Seems like a simple solution would be to add "Or Canadian" to the Jones Act. If there was a war I'm sure Canada would help with any marine shipping needed, and it would simplify things for some operators.

pg_bot 5y ago

Modify the Jones act so that the ships don't need to be built in the US, they just need to be owned and flagged by US companies. Labor costs for running the ships are a rounding error when compared to the purchase price of the ship and fuel costs. You just don't need that many people to run these large ships and you can already have ~30% of staff be foreign anyway.