4 ms·

Can someone Steelman the Jones Act for me? I think it was a poor choice historically, but I truly don't understand it's need now.

legitster 3y ago
You can find some op-eds defending the bill. Here's this one: https://www.americanmaritimepartnership.com/articles/the-jones-act-is-essential-for-u-s-national-security/ https://www.americanmaritimepartnership.com/articles/the-jon... > Now imagine a future without the Jones Act, where Chinese-flagged vessels all controlled, in whole or in part, by the Chinese Communist Party—were able to freely dock at our domestic ports, cruise our coastlines, and travel up and down our inland waterways. From the St. Lawrence Seaway in the Great Lakes right through our heartland on the Mississippi River, the Chinese Communist Party would have virtually unrestricted access to essential American economic arteries. That access would position our adversaries to do far greater damage to American infrastructure than the pipeline hackers ever imagined. > Moreover, the American merchant marine and civilian shipping industry would be virtually eliminated by state-subsidized Chinese vessels, just like our manufacturing and industrial base were severely damaged by predatory Chinese practices over the past two decades. And critically, the reserve of merchant mariners and civilian cargo ships we require in the event of conflict would be significantly eroded. Which is dumb. You could still repeal the Jones Act and require the ships to be US flagged or crewed. Or restrict it to countries that have signed security/trade deals with the US. Even still, were war declared, a Chinese grain barge in Missouri isn't going to pose much of a threat. Most likely it would be commandeered by the US anyway!
- pantsforbirds 3y ago
  Thank you for the source! I'll be sure to give it a thorough read. I understand the (theoretical) uses during a peer/near-peer war, but even outside of the (IMO) poor economic implications, I think it can be extremely detrimental to something like emergency response times. Historically the government has been forced to issue temporary waivers during natural disasters but that delay in response time could be life-changing.
- tivert 3y ago
  > Which is dumb. You could still repeal the Jones Act and require the ships to be US flagged or crewed. Or restrict it to countries that have signed security/trade deals with the US. > Even still, were war declared, a Chinese grain barge in Missouri isn't going to pose much of a threat. Most likely it would be commandeered by the US anyway! No, your idea is dumb. If war is declared, are the Chinese going to let the US use its shipyards? The 90s called, and it wants its always-smooth-sailing free trade fantasies back.
  - legitster 3y ago
    I mean, this whole hypothetical is dumb. The top shipbuilding companies in the world are in South Korea and Japan - strong US allies. But even if the Mississippi was covered in Chinese manufactured and owned ships, if war were to break out, we would just seize the ships. There would not be a huge impact to our infrastructure. The only real vulnerability would be deep-water domestic transport - places like Guam and Hawaii. But the irony is the Jones Act has made these places more reliant on Chinese shipping because domestic transit options are so stinking expensive.
    - eszed 3y ago
      In the interests of steelmanning: without the "US crewed" provision of the Jones Act, all of those ships would be manned by poorly-paid foreign sailors. Americans would be driven out of the profession, which - in the event of the war you postulate - would cripple US logistical infrastructure just as certainly as if those ships did not exist.
      - legitster 3y ago
        > without the "US crewed" provision of the Jones Act, all of those ships would be manned by poorly-paid foreign sailors Why would that be true? To work in the US you still need to (mostly) have legitimate papers. We don't require every truck or train in the US to only be driven by US citizens. It's weird to think that a barge going up and down the Mississippi would be held to a different standard. One thing people don't realize about the Jones Act is that it requires 75% of crews to be American citizens. The law dates back to a time when it was just as much about being anti-immigrant as it was protectionist.
matthewowen 3y ago
There are three main pillars to it. Vessels moving goods between US ports need to be: 1. US flagged and owned 2. US crewed 3. US built. I genuinely agree with the first two points. Most container ships sail under flags of convenience (so that they can minimize regulations in terms of conduct/the environment/etc) and with crews from developing nations that they abuse and treat as indentured servants. Do you want to allow US domestic shipping to be done by entities over which the US has negligible regulatory control? I don’t! The third is intended (along with the other 2) to ensure that the US maintains strategically important maritime capabilities, to retain the ability to build and crew a merchant marine. Personally I think this is a less compelling case than the regulation case, but I don’t think it’s totally without merit. I think the idea that this is responsible for the high cost of goods in Hawaii and Puerto Rico is basically not credible, because it doesn’t prevent those ports being included in import sailings. You could make a case that it makes those places less competitive as manufacturers of goods for export to the rest of the US, but if you think that the jones act is the major reason Hawaii isn’t a manufacturing hub… idk what to tell you. I think the other reality is that even if you like (1) and (2) but not (3) it’s hard to break it apart because the jones act unites concerns over the ability to regulate with concerns over strategic readiness, which creates a coalition to maintain it that would potentially break otherwise.

legitster 3y ago

You can find some op-eds defending the bill. Here's this one: https://www.americanmaritimepartnership.com/articles/the-jones-act-is-essential-for-u-s-national-security/ https://www.americanmaritimepartnership.com/articles/the-jon... > Now imagine a future without the Jones Act, where Chinese-flagged vessels all controlled, in whole or in part, by the Chinese Communist Party—were able to freely dock at our domestic ports, cruise our coastlines, and travel up and down our inland waterways. From the St. Lawrence Seaway in the Great Lakes right through our heartland on the Mississippi River, the Chinese Communist Party would have virtually unrestricted access to essential American economic arteries. That access would position our adversaries to do far greater damage to American infrastructure than the pipeline hackers ever imagined. > Moreover, the American merchant marine and civilian shipping industry would be virtually eliminated by state-subsidized Chinese vessels, just like our manufacturing and industrial base were severely damaged by predatory Chinese practices over the past two decades. And critically, the reserve of merchant mariners and civilian cargo ships we require in the event of conflict would be significantly eroded. Which is dumb. You could still repeal the Jones Act and require the ships to be US flagged or crewed. Or restrict it to countries that have signed security/trade deals with the US. Even still, were war declared, a Chinese grain barge in Missouri isn't going to pose much of a threat. Most likely it would be commandeered by the US anyway!

pantsforbirds 3y ago
Thank you for the source! I'll be sure to give it a thorough read. I understand the (theoretical) uses during a peer/near-peer war, but even outside of the (IMO) poor economic implications, I think it can be extremely detrimental to something like emergency response times. Historically the government has been forced to issue temporary waivers during natural disasters but that delay in response time could be life-changing.
tivert 3y ago
> Which is dumb. You could still repeal the Jones Act and require the ships to be US flagged or crewed. Or restrict it to countries that have signed security/trade deals with the US. > Even still, were war declared, a Chinese grain barge in Missouri isn't going to pose much of a threat. Most likely it would be commandeered by the US anyway! No, your idea is dumb. If war is declared, are the Chinese going to let the US use its shipyards? The 90s called, and it wants its always-smooth-sailing free trade fantasies back.
- legitster 3y ago
  I mean, this whole hypothetical is dumb. The top shipbuilding companies in the world are in South Korea and Japan - strong US allies. But even if the Mississippi was covered in Chinese manufactured and owned ships, if war were to break out, we would just seize the ships. There would not be a huge impact to our infrastructure. The only real vulnerability would be deep-water domestic transport - places like Guam and Hawaii. But the irony is the Jones Act has made these places more reliant on Chinese shipping because domestic transit options are so stinking expensive.
  - eszed 3y ago
    In the interests of steelmanning: without the "US crewed" provision of the Jones Act, all of those ships would be manned by poorly-paid foreign sailors. Americans would be driven out of the profession, which - in the event of the war you postulate - would cripple US logistical infrastructure just as certainly as if those ships did not exist.
    - legitster 3y ago
      > without the "US crewed" provision of the Jones Act, all of those ships would be manned by poorly-paid foreign sailors Why would that be true? To work in the US you still need to (mostly) have legitimate papers. We don't require every truck or train in the US to only be driven by US citizens. It's weird to think that a barge going up and down the Mississippi would be held to a different standard. One thing people don't realize about the Jones Act is that it requires 75% of crews to be American citizens. The law dates back to a time when it was just as much about being anti-immigrant as it was protectionist.

matthewowen 3y ago

There are three main pillars to it. Vessels moving goods between US ports need to be: 1. US flagged and owned 2. US crewed 3. US built. I genuinely agree with the first two points. Most container ships sail under flags of convenience (so that they can minimize regulations in terms of conduct/the environment/etc) and with crews from developing nations that they abuse and treat as indentured servants. Do you want to allow US domestic shipping to be done by entities over which the US has negligible regulatory control? I don’t! The third is intended (along with the other 2) to ensure that the US maintains strategically important maritime capabilities, to retain the ability to build and crew a merchant marine. Personally I think this is a less compelling case than the regulation case, but I don’t think it’s totally without merit. I think the idea that this is responsible for the high cost of goods in Hawaii and Puerto Rico is basically not credible, because it doesn’t prevent those ports being included in import sailings. You could make a case that it makes those places less competitive as manufacturers of goods for export to the rest of the US, but if you think that the jones act is the major reason Hawaii isn’t a manufacturing hub… idk what to tell you. I think the other reality is that even if you like (1) and (2) but not (3) it’s hard to break it apart because the jones act unites concerns over the ability to regulate with concerns over strategic readiness, which creates a coalition to maintain it that would potentially break otherwise.