4 ms·

But is there a better way to subsidize shipbuilding capacity? I agree with your suggestion for focusing the Jones Act on the continental US, at a minimum that w

by 1980phipsi 4y ago

But is there a better way to subsidize shipbuilding capacity? I agree with your suggestion for focusing the Jones Act on the continental US, at a minimum that would reduce the disproportionate burden that states and territories outside the continental US face.

toast0 4y ago
I'm sure there is. But when the headline is repeal the act, not replace it, it's important to note that it has some of its intended effect, even if it's not very much. Something that actually resulted in productive shipyards would be much better than what we have that results in shipyards that don't produce much, which is still likely better than no shipyards outside of those producing naval vessels and domestic ferries (although, those would probably be imported too, if that were legal; technically that's prohibited under a different act)
cestith 4y ago
There is a clearer way to subsidize than to require the purchases. One is to literally directly subsidize the industry. Another is cheaply lend or even grant money to the customers buying the product but only when buying domestically made units. It also strikes me that the percentages mentioned in the article are very high. 75% US crew? 75% US owned? 100% US built? Revising the statute to operators needing 55% of their domestic fleet being US built, and requiring 55% US ownership, and a 55% US crew should be more than sufficient. Give tax incentives for newer, more efficient craft both to the manufacturer and the buyer. The US uses a lot of military power for non-combat purposes. We move supplies for natural and humanitarian disasters. We have water purification ships, hospital ships, and generator ships. We transport weapons systems as cargo, and even those ships themselves could be mostly protected by a surrounding fleet. If we could get a design made that's fitting for heavy movers suitable for both military and civilian use the US government's purchases could bolster domestic shippers' orders. One even more unusual option since it's a national security concern is the US government could buy large numbers of newer, more efficient craft and lease them on affordable terms (or lease to own even) to cargo companies.

toast0 4y ago

I'm sure there is. But when the headline is repeal the act, not replace it, it's important to note that it has some of its intended effect, even if it's not very much. Something that actually resulted in productive shipyards would be much better than what we have that results in shipyards that don't produce much, which is still likely better than no shipyards outside of those producing naval vessels and domestic ferries (although, those would probably be imported too, if that were legal; technically that's prohibited under a different act)

cestith 4y ago

There is a clearer way to subsidize than to require the purchases. One is to literally directly subsidize the industry. Another is cheaply lend or even grant money to the customers buying the product but only when buying domestically made units. It also strikes me that the percentages mentioned in the article are very high. 75% US crew? 75% US owned? 100% US built? Revising the statute to operators needing 55% of their domestic fleet being US built, and requiring 55% US ownership, and a 55% US crew should be more than sufficient. Give tax incentives for newer, more efficient craft both to the manufacturer and the buyer. The US uses a lot of military power for non-combat purposes. We move supplies for natural and humanitarian disasters. We have water purification ships, hospital ships, and generator ships. We transport weapons systems as cargo, and even those ships themselves could be mostly protected by a surrounding fleet. If we could get a design made that's fitting for heavy movers suitable for both military and civilian use the US government's purchases could bolster domestic shippers' orders. One even more unusual option since it's a national security concern is the US government could buy large numbers of newer, more efficient craft and lease them on affordable terms (or lease to own even) to cargo companies.