10 ms·

It is odd to me that no one is talking about the largest reason ships are not flagged as US. Straight from the article: "Today just 0.2% of all ships are U.S.

It is odd to me that no one is talking about the largest reason ships are not flagged as US. Straight from the article: "Today just 0.2% of all ships are U.S.-flagged. Many ships now fly under the flags of Panama, Liberia and the Marshall Islands — countries that allow ocean carriers to bypass a slew of safety regulations, labor laws and taxes. " The US has basically regulated itself out of the shipping business. Think about that for a second and then wonder if the issue is really greed. The US regulations has made it insanely more expensive to have a US flagged ship. How do we compete in a global market when the regulatory atmosphere is so lopsided?

freeflight 4y ago
> How do we compete in a global market when the regulatory atmosphere is so lopsided? Not everything is always a solely economic issue. Without standards, it will just become a race to the bottom about who can cut the most corners, care the least about the environment, and accordingly, will end up doing the most damage to it. It's also a ultimately greedy motive, so while greed might not play a role now, it would most certainly play one in a race to the bottom.
throwaway5752 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_convenience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_convenience, and more specifically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_convenience#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_convenience#Criticism The only reasonable case made in this article is that the Jones Act should have been waived earlier for Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria and that is an ongoing problem for Hawaii and island US Territories. The Jones Act should be modernized, not scrapped.
thsijustin 4y ago
moomin 4y ago
The EU has already solved this one: you hand together with like-minded countries and set binding minimum regulations that all must abide by, then shut people who don’t comply out.
RC_ITR 4y ago
>under the flags of Panama, Liberia and the Marshall Islands Something tells me that if those are the only countries 'willing to compete' then competing is a deal with the devil.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
kjs3 4y ago
Is the implied 'solution' here really that the US should ignore safety, environmental, tax & human rights regulations like these third-world preferred flag countries? Because that's why these places are preferred: not because we have regulations, but because they ignore them.
Consultant32452 4y ago
We can't admit that, because then we'd have to look at all the other industries we shipped overseas to avoid oversight and taxes.
- mywittyname 4y ago
  I feel like a lot of people admit that regulations and costs push industries overseas. These people are okay with the outcome. It's completely reasonable to eschew dirty or dangerous industries. The entire western model of business for the past 500 years has involved shipping the crap work to other places around the world and figuring out how to extract the profits from it.
  - Consultant32452 4y ago
    Yeah, except there's a huge amount of overlap between the people you're describing and the people who are also concerned about global warming and polluting the oceans. And when I say "concerned" I mean perceive it as an existential threat to all human life. Oh yeah, and they're also concerned about how wages haven't kept up with inflation for the past 40 years.
guelo 4y ago
You talk as if the regulations are useless. I don't want these ships dumping waste into our oceans or using slave labor. Anti-regulation boils down to a global race to the bottom of companies looking to not pay for their pollution and misery.
- ballenf 4y ago
  But if there are only 100 ships following these regs with 1000s of ships in our waters not subject to them, what's the point?
  - Beldin 4y ago
    That's 100 ships with better conditions than there would be otherwise. For me, that by itself is enough of a point (though there's more).
    - BHSPitMonkey 4y ago
      I think there's a valid conversation to have here regarding tuning solutions to fit a desired effectiveness target. An ideal solution that's circumvented 99% of the time can be worse than a mediocre solution that's circumvented 50% of the time when looking at the big picture.
    - kokanator 4y ago
      Or, if you backed off certain regulations perhaps there could be 300 ships still with better conditions than all other ships. Far greater good overall. What is the intersection where there becomes more bad ships and less good ships because we fail to see the tipping point? Have we created a better situation or in our determination to be vastly superior in our regulatory manner have actually created more bad?
  - guelo 4y ago
    That's the defeatist attitude they want you to have. Same reason they argue against taxing the rich or closing tax loopholes. The world's largest superpower has tools if we had the will, unfortunately lobbyists own our government.
tastyfreeze 4y ago
I would like to make the distinction between law and regulation. Laws are passed by Congress and are part of the US Code. Regulations are created by the numerous regulatory bodies by unelected officials that we have not given authority to make rules that affect our lives. I believe that we should reject/ignore all regulations as we are only bound by laws passed by Congress. But, the Jones Act is a proper law that tried to force a desired outcome when a better solution would have been to reduce regulation to make US flagged vessels competitive in a global market.
- golergka 4y ago
  > I believe that we should reject/ignore all regulations as we are only bound by laws passed by Congress. Wouldn't this be self-contradictory if a law passed by Congress tells you to follow regulations that are put in place by some unelected officials? If someone has the power, he also has the power to delegate. I'm not 100% sure about US, but usually that's what parliaments do in regards to regulations and ministries — politicians delegate to subject matter professionals.
  - tzs 4y ago
    > Wouldn't this be self-contradictory if a law passed by Congress tells you to follow regulations that are put in place by some unelected officials? Which is in fact generally the case. Congress passes a law that creates a regulatory agency and says what things they have power to regulate. > If someone has the power, he also has the power to delegate. I'm not 100% sure about US, but usually that's what parliaments do in regards to regulations and ministries — politicians delegate to subject matter professionals. Same in the US, with some limits which are described reasonably well in this [1] Wikipedia article. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondelegation_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondelegation_doctrine
    - tastyfreeze 4y ago
      The problem is that regulatory bodies are part of the executive branch. Regulations they create are law in all but name. The executive branch does not have authority to create law. This is an abdication of authority, not delegation. The US Code is ~60k pages. The Federal Register is ~220k pages. Both carry the full force of law with criminal and financial penalties.
tablespoon 4y ago
> "Today just 0.2% of all ships are U.S.-flagged. Many ships now fly under the flags of Panama, Liberia and the Marshall Islands — countries that allow ocean carriers to bypass a slew of safety regulations, labor laws and taxes. " > The US has basically regulated itself out of the shipping business. Think about that for a second and then wonder if the issue is really greed. The US regulations has made it insanely more expensive to have a US flagged ship. > How do we compete in a global market when the regulatory atmosphere is so lopsided? IMHO: pass a law that prevents ships that aren't required to follow reasonable standards for "safety regulations, labor law" from unloading cargo at US ports. That'll reduce the perverse incentives for these flags-of-convenience pretty quick.
- kokanator 4y ago
  You are assuming all regulations are reasonable. In the case of safety it is possible some are not reasonable. There is actually a level of safety vs risk we are willing to take for a given activity. ( Think actually getting into a car ). Mike Rowe has a great take on this and it seems like an interesting way to look at risk intersections as they pertain to 'reasonable' regulations. Regardless if those regulations are safety, environment, financial, etc. https://mikerowe.com/2020/03/walk-me-through-this-safety-third-thing/ https://mikerowe.com/2020/03/walk-me-through-this-safety-thi... Should we have regulations? Without a doubt. Can we regulate ourselves out of existence? Absolutely.
- tempnow987 4y ago
  The major law involved here that you claim is safety related is this: All officers have to be US Citizens and "(1)Except as otherwise provided in this section, on a documented vessel— (A)each unlicensed seaman must be— (i)a citizen of the United States; (ii)an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence; or (iii)a foreign national who is enrolled in the United States Merchant Marine Academy; and (B) not more than 25 percent of the total number of unlicensed seamen on the vessel may be aliens lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence." What's interesting is that US Officers who meet standard international standards can serve on all these other ships / cruise ships flagged overseas and much more. But international crew cannot serve on a US flagged vessel, even one working entirely overseas. So there is your reason why so few folks do US flag. You could instead require safety (actual safety) and actual labor rules that simply applied to everyone, regardless of nationality. But nope, you've chosen to focus on citizenship instead. We actually have an international standard for safety - STCW – Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers. But your UK wiper (a very junior grade) with totally current STCW can't work on a us flagged ship AT ALL.

freeflight 4y ago

> How do we compete in a global market when the regulatory atmosphere is so lopsided? Not everything is always a solely economic issue. Without standards, it will just become a race to the bottom about who can cut the most corners, care the least about the environment, and accordingly, will end up doing the most damage to it. It's also a ultimately greedy motive, so while greed might not play a role now, it would most certainly play one in a race to the bottom.

throwaway5752 4y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_convenience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_convenience, and more specifically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_convenience#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_convenience#Criticism The only reasonable case made in this article is that the Jones Act should have been waived earlier for Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria and that is an ongoing problem for Hawaii and island US Territories. The Jones Act should be modernized, not scrapped.

thsijustin 4y ago

moomin 4y ago

The EU has already solved this one: you hand together with like-minded countries and set binding minimum regulations that all must abide by, then shut people who don’t comply out.

RC_ITR 4y ago

>under the flags of Panama, Liberia and the Marshall Islands Something tells me that if those are the only countries 'willing to compete' then competing is a deal with the devil.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

kjs3 4y ago

Is the implied 'solution' here really that the US should ignore safety, environmental, tax & human rights regulations like these third-world preferred flag countries? Because that's why these places are preferred: not because we have regulations, but because they ignore them.

Consultant32452 4y ago

We can't admit that, because then we'd have to look at all the other industries we shipped overseas to avoid oversight and taxes.

mywittyname 4y ago
I feel like a lot of people admit that regulations and costs push industries overseas. These people are okay with the outcome. It's completely reasonable to eschew dirty or dangerous industries. The entire western model of business for the past 500 years has involved shipping the crap work to other places around the world and figuring out how to extract the profits from it.
- Consultant32452 4y ago
  Yeah, except there's a huge amount of overlap between the people you're describing and the people who are also concerned about global warming and polluting the oceans. And when I say "concerned" I mean perceive it as an existential threat to all human life. Oh yeah, and they're also concerned about how wages haven't kept up with inflation for the past 40 years.

guelo 4y ago

You talk as if the regulations are useless. I don't want these ships dumping waste into our oceans or using slave labor. Anti-regulation boils down to a global race to the bottom of companies looking to not pay for their pollution and misery.

ballenf 4y ago
But if there are only 100 ships following these regs with 1000s of ships in our waters not subject to them, what's the point?
- Beldin 4y ago
  That's 100 ships with better conditions than there would be otherwise. For me, that by itself is enough of a point (though there's more).
  - BHSPitMonkey 4y ago
    I think there's a valid conversation to have here regarding tuning solutions to fit a desired effectiveness target. An ideal solution that's circumvented 99% of the time can be worse than a mediocre solution that's circumvented 50% of the time when looking at the big picture.
  - kokanator 4y ago
    Or, if you backed off certain regulations perhaps there could be 300 ships still with better conditions than all other ships. Far greater good overall. What is the intersection where there becomes more bad ships and less good ships because we fail to see the tipping point? Have we created a better situation or in our determination to be vastly superior in our regulatory manner have actually created more bad?
- guelo 4y ago
  That's the defeatist attitude they want you to have. Same reason they argue against taxing the rich or closing tax loopholes. The world's largest superpower has tools if we had the will, unfortunately lobbyists own our government.

tastyfreeze 4y ago

I would like to make the distinction between law and regulation. Laws are passed by Congress and are part of the US Code. Regulations are created by the numerous regulatory bodies by unelected officials that we have not given authority to make rules that affect our lives. I believe that we should reject/ignore all regulations as we are only bound by laws passed by Congress. But, the Jones Act is a proper law that tried to force a desired outcome when a better solution would have been to reduce regulation to make US flagged vessels competitive in a global market.

golergka 4y ago
> I believe that we should reject/ignore all regulations as we are only bound by laws passed by Congress. Wouldn't this be self-contradictory if a law passed by Congress tells you to follow regulations that are put in place by some unelected officials? If someone has the power, he also has the power to delegate. I'm not 100% sure about US, but usually that's what parliaments do in regards to regulations and ministries — politicians delegate to subject matter professionals.
- tzs 4y ago
  > Wouldn't this be self-contradictory if a law passed by Congress tells you to follow regulations that are put in place by some unelected officials? Which is in fact generally the case. Congress passes a law that creates a regulatory agency and says what things they have power to regulate. > If someone has the power, he also has the power to delegate. I'm not 100% sure about US, but usually that's what parliaments do in regards to regulations and ministries — politicians delegate to subject matter professionals. Same in the US, with some limits which are described reasonably well in this [1] Wikipedia article. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondelegation_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondelegation_doctrine
  - tastyfreeze 4y ago
    The problem is that regulatory bodies are part of the executive branch. Regulations they create are law in all but name. The executive branch does not have authority to create law. This is an abdication of authority, not delegation. The US Code is ~60k pages. The Federal Register is ~220k pages. Both carry the full force of law with criminal and financial penalties.

tablespoon 4y ago

> "Today just 0.2% of all ships are U.S.-flagged. Many ships now fly under the flags of Panama, Liberia and the Marshall Islands — countries that allow ocean carriers to bypass a slew of safety regulations, labor laws and taxes. " > The US has basically regulated itself out of the shipping business. Think about that for a second and then wonder if the issue is really greed. The US regulations has made it insanely more expensive to have a US flagged ship. > How do we compete in a global market when the regulatory atmosphere is so lopsided? IMHO: pass a law that prevents ships that aren't required to follow reasonable standards for "safety regulations, labor law" from unloading cargo at US ports. That'll reduce the perverse incentives for these flags-of-convenience pretty quick.

kokanator 4y ago
You are assuming all regulations are reasonable. In the case of safety it is possible some are not reasonable. There is actually a level of safety vs risk we are willing to take for a given activity. ( Think actually getting into a car ). Mike Rowe has a great take on this and it seems like an interesting way to look at risk intersections as they pertain to 'reasonable' regulations. Regardless if those regulations are safety, environment, financial, etc. https://mikerowe.com/2020/03/walk-me-through-this-safety-third-thing/ https://mikerowe.com/2020/03/walk-me-through-this-safety-thi... Should we have regulations? Without a doubt. Can we regulate ourselves out of existence? Absolutely.
tempnow987 4y ago
The major law involved here that you claim is safety related is this: All officers have to be US Citizens and "(1)Except as otherwise provided in this section, on a documented vessel— (A)each unlicensed seaman must be— (i)a citizen of the United States; (ii)an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence; or (iii)a foreign national who is enrolled in the United States Merchant Marine Academy; and (B) not more than 25 percent of the total number of unlicensed seamen on the vessel may be aliens lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence." What's interesting is that US Officers who meet standard international standards can serve on all these other ships / cruise ships flagged overseas and much more. But international crew cannot serve on a US flagged vessel, even one working entirely overseas. So there is your reason why so few folks do US flag. You could instead require safety (actual safety) and actual labor rules that simply applied to everyone, regardless of nationality. But nope, you've chosen to focus on citizenship instead. We actually have an international standard for safety - STCW – Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers. But your UK wiper (a very junior grade) with totally current STCW can't work on a us flagged ship AT ALL.