4 ms·

I had to read in a ways to find out what the Jones Act is. It says that maritime cargo traffic in internal US waterways has to be carried by US-flagged vessels

I had to read in a ways to find out what the Jones Act is. It says that maritime cargo traffic in internal US waterways has to be carried by US-flagged vessels. Repealing it means e.g. that Panama-flagged vessels could carry the cargo instead. The article starts out saying that the importance of repealing it has been propounded by the Cato Institute and by Lawrence H. Summers. So that says what the Act is, and who wants to repeal it. I figured at that point that my curiosity was satisfied.

raldi 4y ago
It’s much more restrictive than that, which is why there are basically no carriers that meet its requirements. It’s just not financially feasible. From Wikipedia: It requires that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried on ships that have been constructed in the United States and that fly the U.S. flag, are owned by U.S. citizens, and are crewed by U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents.
Maursault 4y ago
Thanks. I'd like to know exactly what foreign maritime traffic the Cato Institute and Lawrence H. Summers think can successfully navigate internal US waterways.[1] Freeing stuck ships can cost upwards of $1B, not to mention the ecological threat of discharged ballast, inviting wholesale invasion of snakehead and worse. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/17/business/chesapeake-cargo-ship-stuck.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/17/business/chesapeake-cargo...
- MoreSEMI 4y ago
  AFAIK, internal waterways does not literally mean inside the US. Internal means routes between US ports. A foreign vessel could still sail between two deep water ports for example, if the act were repealed.
  - Maursault 4y ago
    Does the nomenclature exclude water routes within the US, and only refer to coastal port to port routes? If not, you have constructed a straw man.
    - MoreSEMI 4y ago
      Fair enough I guess? From the comment it sounded like it was arguing that repealing the jones act would only make sense if foreign ships could navigate internal waters ways. It was more aimed at clearing up misunderstanding than creating a strawman.
      - Maursault 4y ago
        I'm not sure how you could have interpreted it that way. My argument is that those that recommended repealing the Jones Act had not considered detrimental consequences. Notwithstanding, repealing the Jones Act would still permit foreign ships to navigate internal waterways. Just because it would also permit port to port navigation does not eliminate the possibility of supertankers running aground in major waterways.
- cr1895 4y ago
  Its impact is vastly greater than trade along inland waterways. It regulates “coastwise transport” which, under various interpretations, means from one port in the US to another to even a single rock placed on the seabed by a ship. With respect to ballast water, any vessel discharging cargo or entering US ports has to abide by USCG and other regulations about treatment etc, regardless of whether or not it’s a JA-compliant vessel or not
  - Maursault 4y ago
    > any vessel discharging cargo or entering US ports has to abide by USCG and other regulations about treatment etc, regardless of whether or not it’s a JA-compliant vessel or not Trusting in compliance does not remotely eliminate the grave risk of contamination, and enforcement only occurs after the damage is done. Anyone that has any affection for domestic marine species will see this as begging for ecological catastrophe.
    - cr1895 4y ago
      That’s why there are inspections, permits, and audits. But this is entirely orthogonal to the jones act because there are foreign vessels calling at US ports like literally all the time. They just don’t pick up cargo in one US port and take it to another US port.
      - Maursault 4y ago
        > That’s why there are inspections, permits, and audits. These may discourage noncompliance, but they can not prevent it. > But this is entirely orthogonal to the jones act because there are foreign vessels calling at US ports like literally all the time. They just don’t pick up cargo in one US port and take it to another US port. As attractive as allowing foreign vessels to transport cargo from one domestic port to another, repealing the Jones Act will also permit foreign vessels to access inland ports such as St. Louis, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Kansas City, and Memphis. It would not take much for foreign vessels to accidentally, by negligence, or noncompliance introduce invasive species that would decimate populations of walleye, sauger, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, channel catfish, northern pike, bluegill and crappies that live in the Mississippi watershed. As omnipotent as they seem, inspections, permits, and audits would never be able to prevent that from occurring, yet the Jones Act clearly has, as these native populations still exist, and introduction of invasive species through ballast discharge of foreign vessels in these fragile ecosystems has been prevented.
missedthecue 4y ago
It's not just where the ship is registered. The ship literally has to be constructed in a US shipyard by US shipbuilders and operated by US crews, and everything has to be owned by US citizens.

raldi 4y ago

It’s much more restrictive than that, which is why there are basically no carriers that meet its requirements. It’s just not financially feasible. From Wikipedia: It requires that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried on ships that have been constructed in the United States and that fly the U.S. flag, are owned by U.S. citizens, and are crewed by U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents.

Maursault 4y ago

Thanks. I'd like to know exactly what foreign maritime traffic the Cato Institute and Lawrence H. Summers think can successfully navigate internal US waterways.[1] Freeing stuck ships can cost upwards of $1B, not to mention the ecological threat of discharged ballast, inviting wholesale invasion of snakehead and worse. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/17/business/chesapeake-cargo-ship-stuck.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/17/business/chesapeake-cargo...

MoreSEMI 4y ago
AFAIK, internal waterways does not literally mean inside the US. Internal means routes between US ports. A foreign vessel could still sail between two deep water ports for example, if the act were repealed.
- Maursault 4y ago
  Does the nomenclature exclude water routes within the US, and only refer to coastal port to port routes? If not, you have constructed a straw man.
  - MoreSEMI 4y ago
    Fair enough I guess? From the comment it sounded like it was arguing that repealing the jones act would only make sense if foreign ships could navigate internal waters ways. It was more aimed at clearing up misunderstanding than creating a strawman.
    - Maursault 4y ago
      I'm not sure how you could have interpreted it that way. My argument is that those that recommended repealing the Jones Act had not considered detrimental consequences. Notwithstanding, repealing the Jones Act would still permit foreign ships to navigate internal waterways. Just because it would also permit port to port navigation does not eliminate the possibility of supertankers running aground in major waterways.
cr1895 4y ago
Its impact is vastly greater than trade along inland waterways. It regulates “coastwise transport” which, under various interpretations, means from one port in the US to another to even a single rock placed on the seabed by a ship. With respect to ballast water, any vessel discharging cargo or entering US ports has to abide by USCG and other regulations about treatment etc, regardless of whether or not it’s a JA-compliant vessel or not
- Maursault 4y ago
  > any vessel discharging cargo or entering US ports has to abide by USCG and other regulations about treatment etc, regardless of whether or not it’s a JA-compliant vessel or not Trusting in compliance does not remotely eliminate the grave risk of contamination, and enforcement only occurs after the damage is done. Anyone that has any affection for domestic marine species will see this as begging for ecological catastrophe.
  - cr1895 4y ago
    That’s why there are inspections, permits, and audits. But this is entirely orthogonal to the jones act because there are foreign vessels calling at US ports like literally all the time. They just don’t pick up cargo in one US port and take it to another US port.
    - Maursault 4y ago
      > That’s why there are inspections, permits, and audits. These may discourage noncompliance, but they can not prevent it. > But this is entirely orthogonal to the jones act because there are foreign vessels calling at US ports like literally all the time. They just don’t pick up cargo in one US port and take it to another US port. As attractive as allowing foreign vessels to transport cargo from one domestic port to another, repealing the Jones Act will also permit foreign vessels to access inland ports such as St. Louis, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Kansas City, and Memphis. It would not take much for foreign vessels to accidentally, by negligence, or noncompliance introduce invasive species that would decimate populations of walleye, sauger, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, channel catfish, northern pike, bluegill and crappies that live in the Mississippi watershed. As omnipotent as they seem, inspections, permits, and audits would never be able to prevent that from occurring, yet the Jones Act clearly has, as these native populations still exist, and introduction of invasive species through ballast discharge of foreign vessels in these fragile ecosystems has been prevented.

missedthecue 4y ago

It's not just where the ship is registered. The ship literally has to be constructed in a US shipyard by US shipbuilders and operated by US crews, and everything has to be owned by US citizens.