4 ms·
It seems to me that the Jones Act is a tariff on the activity of shipping itself. Unless one wants to argue the globalist stance that all tariffs should be abo
by teddyh 4y ago
It seems to me that the Jones Act is a tariff on the activity of shipping itself. Unless one wants to argue the globalist stance that all tariffs should be abolished, the Jones Act should be examined with a careful eye to what it prevents, not only what costs it incurs. I.e. if the Jones Act was repealed, would all shipping suddenly be done by foreign actors, who, by virtue of being cheaper, would have a virtual monopoly on (and insight into, and control over) all shipping within the US? Maybe this might not actually be bad, but such consequences should be considered.
- eru 4y agoThat 'globalist' stance is eminently sensible. Tariffs should be unilaterally abolished: no need to wait for the other guys to stop hitting their head against a wall, you can stop today. Ie no need to wait for free trade agreements. Just declare unilateral free trade.
- teddyh 4y agoIf that was done, all workplace safety and employment security laws would stop being useful and become mostly only a financial drain on all domestic businesses, as foreign countries without such laws and restrictions could offer cheaper goods and services by exploiting and endangering their employees. Also all child labor laws. Most domestic businesses would, by force of price competition, be made to buy from, and outsource their jobs to, wherever it was cheapest. Since this outcome might still technically protect domestic workers and children, but would leave them destitute and out of work in a destroyed economy, it is reasonable to argue that this outcome should be avoided.
- JAlexoid 4y agoForeign product tariffs prevent nothing of what you just listed. Complete baseless boogeyman argument
- teddyh 4y agoWhat I wrote was the standard argument as I understand it. Unlike your reply, which contains no argument at all.
- JAlexoid 4y agoI repeat myself: Foreign product tariffs prevent nothing of what you just listed You can also argue that shooting yourself in the foot will prevent child labor in sneaker industry... but mainly because you'd stop buying sneakers.
- teddyh 4y agoAgain, as I understand it, the standard argument is that product tariffs prevent, say, child labor, since cheap foreign products, produced as cheaply as possible with unsafe child labor, can still not be profitably sold domestically since the tariff makes domestic products comparable in price. This makes foreign child labor less common, since it is not economical to produce products abroad for the domestic market. This seems like a reasonable argument to me. I also repeat myself: this theoretically also preserves the domestic economy, which would otherwise be outcompeted by cheap foreign companies.
- JAlexoid 4y agoUS had tariffs on foreign made sneakers, when the Nike scandal hit. EU has tariffs on foreign made clothes - yet multiple examples of child labor were discovered in multiple clothes retailer supply chains. This argument has been proven to be false - empirically.
- teddyh 4y agoIf it was still economical to produce foreign products for the domestic market, then the tariff were not high enough to prevent it. The mere existence of tariffs which proved too low does not disprove the entire concept.
- 4y ago
- eru 4y agoChildren are not, in fact, productive workers.