10 ms·

It seems an unintended side effect of the Jones act was to insulate the US shipbuilding industry from international competition, leading to them resting on thei

by jabl 2y ago

It seems an unintended side effect of the Jones act was to insulate the US shipbuilding industry from international competition, leading to them resting on their laurels while the rest of the industry worked hard to improve productivity (see Japan, South Korea, and lately China). Which makes it even harder to repeal, since with a repeal of the Jones act the wildly noncompetitive (civilian) US shipbuilding industry would fold in an instant. So a repeal of the Jones act would need to be coupled to an extended investment program into the shipbuilding sector. Say, something like how the SEA economic miracle worked, by requiring, as a condition for various subsidies, the yards to export a certain % of the production in order to ensure prices are competitive. Even so, given US wage levels it's a fantasy to believe that US shipyards could compete with, say, China. But there are shipyards in other high-income countries e.g. in Europe that manage to survive through a combination of various subsidies and focusing on high-end specialized vessels such as cruise ships, icebreakers etc.

FrustratedMonky 2y ago
"insulate the US shipbuilding industry from international competition, leading to them resting on their laurels" This is what I don't get. The Jones Act is about keeping ship building at home, in the US. So protective. By locking out foreign competition. It's a 'protective' law, to isolate and protect US industry. How will opening the US to buy and operate foreign ships, somehow make the US build more US ships? Look at other Industries that have been outsourced. Once markets are open, the manufacturing "leaves" the US. So how will repealing the Jones Act somehow reverse what is seen in every other industry.
- kangaroozach 2y ago
  If you are protected from facing competition, then you don’t need to actually compete. Therefore, you don’t develop the competitive advantages. You remain at a competitive disadvantage, but it doesn’t matter since you don’t actually have to face the competition… until someday when the protection is removed and you are left to face the more advantaged competition.
  - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
    Sure, but 'competition' by itself doesn't mean those industries would win and stay in the US. Look at all the industries where there was competition and left the US. There are industries the US should support for defense, you don't want to be buying your weapons from your enemies. See the drive to bring Chips back to the US. Allowing wonton outsourcing is finally being seen as maybe not a forgone good.
    - tolciho 2y ago
      I would imagine that the Chinese are good at wonton, though wanton outsourcing of wontons may not be in the best interests of local "pork" spending. Maybe if we had more details on how that whole Bronze Age Collapse went down we might have better ideas of what to avoid, but learning from history isn't very popular.
      - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
        When the Industrial Age collapses, and no computers work anymore, we should be sure to write down the reasons on something more durable,,,, this time around.
      - amluto 2y ago
        Fresh wontons travel poorly, and excellent fresh wantons are available at reasonable prices, locally made, even in high cost of living areas like the Bay Area.
  - throw0101c 2y ago
    > If you are protected from facing competition, then you don’t need to actually compete. You mean like all the (e.g.) garment and other factories competed against foreign manufacturers… and the companies decided to close up shop and move overseas? The main garments that are still made in the US are those for the military due to domestic production regulations in procurement rules.
    - 2y ago
- throwaway173738 2y ago
  Let’s turn it around. How does keeping the Jones Act ensure a competitive shipbuilding industry in the US? We could easily subsidize the shipbuilders, pay for training programs, and so on. But blocking competition just keeps the market uncompetitive. We have no problem with subsidizing farmers and roads so why not shipbuilders if it keeps our navy competitive?
  - tivert 2y ago
    > Let’s turn it around. How does keeping the Jones Act ensure a competitive shipbuilding industry in the US? We could easily subsidize the shipbuilders, pay for training programs, and so on. But blocking competition just keeps the market uncompetitive. Because the US can't "easily subsidize the shipbuilders, pay for training programs, and so on." It has an ideological dysfunction that prevents that. Even if you could manage to get a program like that passed, there's a large chance it'd get cut in 10 years by some libertarian to pay for yet another tax cut. > We have no problem with subsidizing farmers and roads so why not shipbuilders if it keeps our navy competitive? That's only because of how the Constitution apportions senators and the electoral college. Farmers are spread out in a way that gives them disproportionate political power.
    - throw0101c 2y ago
      > It has an ideological dysfunction that prevents that. Just slap a "national security" label on it. semi-/s
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
      >Because the US can't "easily subsidize the shipbuilders, pay for training programs, and so on." It has an ideological dysfunction that prevents that. Even if you could manage to get a program like that passed, there's a large chance it'd get cut in 10 years by some libertarian to pay for yet another tax cut. I need to weigh in on this, I think. I don't know of many libertarians that would refuse to make an exception for strategic industries... you can't buy your ammunition from the enemy, even if their price is half of the domestic cost. And you can't even really be sure who your enemies will be when you find yourself desperately needing it. If there was ever any objection to these subsidies and programs, I suggest that we might look at the neocons and neoliberals instead of the libertarians. >That's only because of how the Constitution apportions senators and the electoral college. Farmers are spread out in a way that gives them disproportionate political power. Well, about that... I sort of think maybe our food supply is also one of those strategic industries. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
- dmix 2y ago
  When you protect industries you get Boeing, you don't get productive markets, you get zombie companies who can fail all day without consequences and still get contracts because they are the mandatory only choice.
  - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
    I think the unfortunate end state from that line of thinking, is that the US as a country is a 'zombie', a hollowed out shell, where there are no industries left. The US can't compete purely on cost. We don't have the numbers of people, or education to keep up with the world. We'll end up being just a few financial and IT companies that only have corporate headquarters here, and the bulk of the work is off shore. Of course. I don't have any answers. Because I agree, protectionism creates "Boeing's". It's almost like global unfettered capitalism is un-stoppable and leading us to a dystopia of lowest bidder, cheapest labor possible.
    - throw0101c 2y ago
      > I think the unfortunate end state from that line of thinking, is that the US as a country is a 'zombie', a hollowed out shell, where there are no industries left. An article from 2016, "Think nothing is made in America? Output has doubled in three decades": * https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-manufacturing-dead-output-has-doubled-in-three-decades-2016-03-28 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-manufacturing-dead-outp... Manufacturing share of GDP has declined, the number of jobs has declined (due to automation), but output is up. The US the second biggest country (16%) after China (32%): * https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/manufacturing-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/manufactu... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing#List_of_countries_by_manufacturing_output https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing#List_of_countrie...
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
- franktankbank 2y ago
  Don't look at just the ship builders. Look at the shipping industry where ships are basically non-existent and the old shipping lanes are dead.
- lenerdenator 2y ago
  It won't. The only way to solve American manufacturing woes is to start punishing people who are willing to sell out their country for shareholder profit. Should have done it 60 years ago, but better late than never.
  - missedthecue 2y ago
    The US can't build a Supermax cargo ships for $0 profit at a price lower than Chinese shipyards can build one while making a profit.
    - lenerdenator 2y ago
      Exactly. Which is why you stop exclusively using market forces to determine how industry should be spread out around the globe.
    - bombcar 2y ago
      The US could if the US Supermax had US-superpowers. Like it avoids certain dock taxes/tariffs. Tuned correctly, the US Supermax over time could eke out enough profit that some would be tenable. Unfortunately the best middle step is probably going to be convincing the naval yards to make some civilian ships, first.
franktankbank 2y ago
Don't we have a suppressed shipping industry? Open it up and get the ships moving between the midwest and east and south and build demand. The old shipping lanes are basically non-existent.
lumost 2y ago
Are wages the principal component of “commodity” ship building? I’d have imagined equipment costs vastly exceed wages for building a relatively standard cargo ship.
- throw0101c 2y ago
  > Are wages the principal component of “commodity” ship building? Wages and steel. China is the world's largest steel producer (US makes ~4% of global output). Reminder that Nippon Steel wanted to buy US Steel and (AIUI) keep US plants open, but that was killed by both Biden and Trump: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_acquisition_of_U.S._Steel_by_Nippon_Steel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_acquisition_of_U.S._S... If US management/ownership cannot keep a company alive, perhaps let non-US folks give it a try if they're willing keep US plants open. The world learned lots of lessons from Toyota (who learned from Denning), perhaps Nippon Steel can teach a few things.
lupusreal 2y ago
Part of the problem with American companies competing with the rest of the world on supposedly equal footing is American companies have to pay their sailors and abide by workplace regulations that Chinese/etc shipping can ignore. In other words it's not equal footing, it can't be equal footing, and America should stop pretending that competing on equal footing with shipping companies that use slave labor would even be a good thing. Subsidies are necessary, the libertarians who hate that can get bent.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
L_Rahman 2y ago
We are all ignoring the obvious solution to this. One of the benefits of being a global hegemon is having close allies who are good at things we are not. Intel fell behind on semiconductors and now Phoenix is turning into an outlying suburb of Taipei while the children of TSMC engineers are making the local school district look like magicians. All the US has to do is subsidize one of the Korean heavy conglomerates, probably Hyundai, and get them to start pumping out cargo boats out of say Louisiana or Georgia with the promise of a government buyer. This problem goes away by 2032.
- FpUser 2y ago
  >"Intel fell behind on semiconductors and now Phoenix is turning into an outlying suburb of Taipei while the children of TSMC engineers are making the local school district look like magicians." So after a while Taiwan is no longer needed and China can just take it. I am curious if Taiwan's government cares about this potential course of events? >"All the US has to do is subsidize one of the Korean heavy conglomerates, probably Hyundai, and get them to start pumping out cargo boats out of say Louisiana or Georgia with the promise of a government buyer." Again you think that Korea would not care about moving their strategic industries somewhere else?
  - thereddaikon 2y ago
    They wouldn't be moving, they would be expanding into the US market. Its a win-win. Hyundai get's access to a previously closed off market due to cabotage regulation. And we get modern ship building. The only loser here are established ship builders who would be forced to modernize and compete. But long term that's a good thing for them too.
    - ethbr1 2y ago
      As an analog, I believe South Korean terrestrial armaments companies are doing the same thing with Poland, in order to gain access to European buyers. (Granted, Poland also has a labor cost advantage in Europe)
  - 2y ago
throw0101c 2y ago
> But there are shipyards in other high-income countries e.g. in Europe […] China is #1, but Korea is #2, and Japan is #3: * https://www.visualcapitalist.com/countries-dominate-global-shipbuilding/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/countries-dominate-global-s... Is Japan a low-wage country? Given that the US shipyards are 'full' with US Navy work, ordering a bunch of merchant marine ships from our allies would boost them and give us trust-worthy vessels. While civilian-like designs are built there, encourage those same allies to build US-stationed shipyards and order a number of military-oriented designs to help boost domestic knowledge: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Sealift_Command https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Sealift_Command Note: building one of a design is not good, and two is probably just as bad. If you're going to order ships, putting in an order of >6 is the only way to get economies of scale. Another option would be to order civilian-like designs with a 'basic' shell, and then do retrofitting for military needs domestically.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  > Given that the US shipyards are 'full' with US Navy work, ordering a bunch of merchant marine ships from our allies would boost them and give us trust-worthy vessels. Both Canada and Mexico would be obvious allies for this, and it would be a win/win solution for less sensitive ships / ship components (e.g. finish shell, then fit in US shipyards). > Another option would be to order civilian-like designs with a 'basic' shell, and then do retrofitting for military needs domestically. This has historically been the biggest problem with the US Navy -- they're really dumb / bad at specifications. Imho, the US would be well-served by taking ultimate control of ship design out of the Navy's sole hands, and infusing someone with a cost-focused incentive into the process. It's a terrible joke at this point that the USN starts with "We'll pick an off the shelf foreign design" and then customizes it so much it's no longer mass producible.
  - throw0101c 2y ago
    > Both Canada and Mexico would be obvious allies for this Yeah… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_United_States_trade_war_with_Canada_and_Mexico https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_United_States_trade_war_w... > and it would be a win/win solution for less sensitive ships / ship components (e.g. finish shell, then fit in US shipyards). Canadian shipyards are actually relatively busy nowadays: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Shipbuilding_Strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Shipbuilding_Strategy To the point that some things will not be built locally: * https://news.usni.org/2024/11/08/canadian-officials-pricing-out-costs-for-new-sub-fleet https://news.usni.org/2024/11/08/canadian-officials-pricing-... * https://www.canada.ca/en/public-services-procurement/news/2024/09/government-of-canada-announces-progress-on-the-canadian-patrol-submarine-procurement.html https://www.canada.ca/en/public-services-procurement/news/20... Not sure if some more civilian-leaning building capacity could perhaps be available.
nonethewiser 2y ago
> Even so, given US wage levels it's a fantasy to believe that US shipyards could compete with, say, China. And material costs
jjk166 2y ago
This is a false narrative. US shipbuilding did not rest on its laurels because of the jones act. The Jones Act was passed in the 1920s; US shipbuilding rose to a dominant position while it was in place. The US lost that position only after the 1980s cessation of subsidies to domestic shipbuilders. Ironically this was a move to stop foreign nations from subsidizing their shipbuilding industries, but it was never reciprocated and the subsidies were not returned after it proved to be ineffective. The jones act does not particularly protect US shipbuilding, the issue is it destroyed the customer base for US shipbuilding by making domestic marine transport uneconomical. It is a protection for the auto industry by making road transport of goods more cost competitive. Modify the jones act, start shipping things domestically by ship, suddenly there's a big market for ships.
- JacobThreeThree 2y ago
  The US should go back to subsidizing its shipbuilding industry.
- ch4s3 2y ago
  > US shipbuilding rose to a dominant position while it was in place. You seem to be omitting the fact that the US sank pretty much every non-allied boat in the ocean during WWII and bombed every shipyard outside of England. That created a MASSIVE advantage.
  - jjk166 2y ago
    Which would be relevant if the US wasn't dominant before WW2. But it was. Ironically, the end of WW2 actually hurt US shipbuilding because there was a huge glut of surplus ships on the market and for a brief time a massive drop in trade. British ship builders actually took the title of world's largest shipbuilder back after WW2, producing nearly half of all tonnage in the next decade as Europe rebuilt its merchant fleets. The countries that had their shipyards destroyed in the war built new shipyards with better technology. They took the lead after that, Japan obviously being the biggest winner in the late 20th century.
- grabowcp 2y ago

by jabl 2y ago

FrustratedMonky 2y ago

"insulate the US shipbuilding industry from international competition, leading to them resting on their laurels" This is what I don't get. The Jones Act is about keeping ship building at home, in the US. So protective. By locking out foreign competition. It's a 'protective' law, to isolate and protect US industry. How will opening the US to buy and operate foreign ships, somehow make the US build more US ships? Look at other Industries that have been outsourced. Once markets are open, the manufacturing "leaves" the US. So how will repealing the Jones Act somehow reverse what is seen in every other industry.

kangaroozach 2y ago
If you are protected from facing competition, then you don’t need to actually compete. Therefore, you don’t develop the competitive advantages. You remain at a competitive disadvantage, but it doesn’t matter since you don’t actually have to face the competition… until someday when the protection is removed and you are left to face the more advantaged competition.
- FrustratedMonky 2y ago
  Sure, but 'competition' by itself doesn't mean those industries would win and stay in the US. Look at all the industries where there was competition and left the US. There are industries the US should support for defense, you don't want to be buying your weapons from your enemies. See the drive to bring Chips back to the US. Allowing wonton outsourcing is finally being seen as maybe not a forgone good.
  - tolciho 2y ago
    I would imagine that the Chinese are good at wonton, though wanton outsourcing of wontons may not be in the best interests of local "pork" spending. Maybe if we had more details on how that whole Bronze Age Collapse went down we might have better ideas of what to avoid, but learning from history isn't very popular.
    - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
      When the Industrial Age collapses, and no computers work anymore, we should be sure to write down the reasons on something more durable,,,, this time around.
    - amluto 2y ago
      Fresh wontons travel poorly, and excellent fresh wantons are available at reasonable prices, locally made, even in high cost of living areas like the Bay Area.
- throw0101c 2y ago
  > If you are protected from facing competition, then you don’t need to actually compete. You mean like all the (e.g.) garment and other factories competed against foreign manufacturers… and the companies decided to close up shop and move overseas? The main garments that are still made in the US are those for the military due to domestic production regulations in procurement rules.
  - 2y ago
throwaway173738 2y ago
Let’s turn it around. How does keeping the Jones Act ensure a competitive shipbuilding industry in the US? We could easily subsidize the shipbuilders, pay for training programs, and so on. But blocking competition just keeps the market uncompetitive. We have no problem with subsidizing farmers and roads so why not shipbuilders if it keeps our navy competitive?
- tivert 2y ago
  > Let’s turn it around. How does keeping the Jones Act ensure a competitive shipbuilding industry in the US? We could easily subsidize the shipbuilders, pay for training programs, and so on. But blocking competition just keeps the market uncompetitive. Because the US can't "easily subsidize the shipbuilders, pay for training programs, and so on." It has an ideological dysfunction that prevents that. Even if you could manage to get a program like that passed, there's a large chance it'd get cut in 10 years by some libertarian to pay for yet another tax cut. > We have no problem with subsidizing farmers and roads so why not shipbuilders if it keeps our navy competitive? That's only because of how the Constitution apportions senators and the electoral college. Farmers are spread out in a way that gives them disproportionate political power.
  - throw0101c 2y ago
    > It has an ideological dysfunction that prevents that. Just slap a "national security" label on it. semi-/s
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
    >Because the US can't "easily subsidize the shipbuilders, pay for training programs, and so on." It has an ideological dysfunction that prevents that. Even if you could manage to get a program like that passed, there's a large chance it'd get cut in 10 years by some libertarian to pay for yet another tax cut. I need to weigh in on this, I think. I don't know of many libertarians that would refuse to make an exception for strategic industries... you can't buy your ammunition from the enemy, even if their price is half of the domestic cost. And you can't even really be sure who your enemies will be when you find yourself desperately needing it. If there was ever any objection to these subsidies and programs, I suggest that we might look at the neocons and neoliberals instead of the libertarians. >That's only because of how the Constitution apportions senators and the electoral college. Farmers are spread out in a way that gives them disproportionate political power. Well, about that... I sort of think maybe our food supply is also one of those strategic industries. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
dmix 2y ago
When you protect industries you get Boeing, you don't get productive markets, you get zombie companies who can fail all day without consequences and still get contracts because they are the mandatory only choice.
- FrustratedMonky 2y ago
  I think the unfortunate end state from that line of thinking, is that the US as a country is a 'zombie', a hollowed out shell, where there are no industries left. The US can't compete purely on cost. We don't have the numbers of people, or education to keep up with the world. We'll end up being just a few financial and IT companies that only have corporate headquarters here, and the bulk of the work is off shore. Of course. I don't have any answers. Because I agree, protectionism creates "Boeing's". It's almost like global unfettered capitalism is un-stoppable and leading us to a dystopia of lowest bidder, cheapest labor possible.
  - throw0101c 2y ago
    > I think the unfortunate end state from that line of thinking, is that the US as a country is a 'zombie', a hollowed out shell, where there are no industries left. An article from 2016, "Think nothing is made in America? Output has doubled in three decades": * https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-manufacturing-dead-output-has-doubled-in-three-decades-2016-03-28 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-manufacturing-dead-outp... Manufacturing share of GDP has declined, the number of jobs has declined (due to automation), but output is up. The US the second biggest country (16%) after China (32%): * https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/manufacturing-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/manufactu... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing#List_of_countries_by_manufacturing_output https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing#List_of_countrie...
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
franktankbank 2y ago
Don't look at just the ship builders. Look at the shipping industry where ships are basically non-existent and the old shipping lanes are dead.
lenerdenator 2y ago
It won't. The only way to solve American manufacturing woes is to start punishing people who are willing to sell out their country for shareholder profit. Should have done it 60 years ago, but better late than never.
- missedthecue 2y ago
  The US can't build a Supermax cargo ships for $0 profit at a price lower than Chinese shipyards can build one while making a profit.
  - lenerdenator 2y ago
    Exactly. Which is why you stop exclusively using market forces to determine how industry should be spread out around the globe.
  - bombcar 2y ago
    The US could if the US Supermax had US-superpowers. Like it avoids certain dock taxes/tariffs. Tuned correctly, the US Supermax over time could eke out enough profit that some would be tenable. Unfortunately the best middle step is probably going to be convincing the naval yards to make some civilian ships, first.

franktankbank 2y ago

Don't we have a suppressed shipping industry? Open it up and get the ships moving between the midwest and east and south and build demand. The old shipping lanes are basically non-existent.

lumost 2y ago

Are wages the principal component of “commodity” ship building? I’d have imagined equipment costs vastly exceed wages for building a relatively standard cargo ship.

throw0101c 2y ago
> Are wages the principal component of “commodity” ship building? Wages and steel. China is the world's largest steel producer (US makes ~4% of global output). Reminder that Nippon Steel wanted to buy US Steel and (AIUI) keep US plants open, but that was killed by both Biden and Trump: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_acquisition_of_U.S._Steel_by_Nippon_Steel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_acquisition_of_U.S._S... If US management/ownership cannot keep a company alive, perhaps let non-US folks give it a try if they're willing keep US plants open. The world learned lots of lessons from Toyota (who learned from Denning), perhaps Nippon Steel can teach a few things.

lupusreal 2y ago

Part of the problem with American companies competing with the rest of the world on supposedly equal footing is American companies have to pay their sailors and abide by workplace regulations that Chinese/etc shipping can ignore. In other words it's not equal footing, it can't be equal footing, and America should stop pretending that competing on equal footing with shipping companies that use slave labor would even be a good thing. Subsidies are necessary, the libertarians who hate that can get bent.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

L_Rahman 2y ago

We are all ignoring the obvious solution to this. One of the benefits of being a global hegemon is having close allies who are good at things we are not. Intel fell behind on semiconductors and now Phoenix is turning into an outlying suburb of Taipei while the children of TSMC engineers are making the local school district look like magicians. All the US has to do is subsidize one of the Korean heavy conglomerates, probably Hyundai, and get them to start pumping out cargo boats out of say Louisiana or Georgia with the promise of a government buyer. This problem goes away by 2032.

FpUser 2y ago
>"Intel fell behind on semiconductors and now Phoenix is turning into an outlying suburb of Taipei while the children of TSMC engineers are making the local school district look like magicians." So after a while Taiwan is no longer needed and China can just take it. I am curious if Taiwan's government cares about this potential course of events? >"All the US has to do is subsidize one of the Korean heavy conglomerates, probably Hyundai, and get them to start pumping out cargo boats out of say Louisiana or Georgia with the promise of a government buyer." Again you think that Korea would not care about moving their strategic industries somewhere else?
- thereddaikon 2y ago
  They wouldn't be moving, they would be expanding into the US market. Its a win-win. Hyundai get's access to a previously closed off market due to cabotage regulation. And we get modern ship building. The only loser here are established ship builders who would be forced to modernize and compete. But long term that's a good thing for them too.
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    As an analog, I believe South Korean terrestrial armaments companies are doing the same thing with Poland, in order to gain access to European buyers. (Granted, Poland also has a labor cost advantage in Europe)
- 2y ago

throw0101c 2y ago

> But there are shipyards in other high-income countries e.g. in Europe […] China is #1, but Korea is #2, and Japan is #3: * https://www.visualcapitalist.com/countries-dominate-global-shipbuilding/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/countries-dominate-global-s... Is Japan a low-wage country? Given that the US shipyards are 'full' with US Navy work, ordering a bunch of merchant marine ships from our allies would boost them and give us trust-worthy vessels. While civilian-like designs are built there, encourage those same allies to build US-stationed shipyards and order a number of military-oriented designs to help boost domestic knowledge: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Sealift_Command https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Sealift_Command Note: building one of a design is not good, and two is probably just as bad. If you're going to order ships, putting in an order of >6 is the only way to get economies of scale. Another option would be to order civilian-like designs with a 'basic' shell, and then do retrofitting for military needs domestically.

ethbr1 2y ago
> Given that the US shipyards are 'full' with US Navy work, ordering a bunch of merchant marine ships from our allies would boost them and give us trust-worthy vessels. Both Canada and Mexico would be obvious allies for this, and it would be a win/win solution for less sensitive ships / ship components (e.g. finish shell, then fit in US shipyards). > Another option would be to order civilian-like designs with a 'basic' shell, and then do retrofitting for military needs domestically. This has historically been the biggest problem with the US Navy -- they're really dumb / bad at specifications. Imho, the US would be well-served by taking ultimate control of ship design out of the Navy's sole hands, and infusing someone with a cost-focused incentive into the process. It's a terrible joke at this point that the USN starts with "We'll pick an off the shelf foreign design" and then customizes it so much it's no longer mass producible.
- throw0101c 2y ago
  > Both Canada and Mexico would be obvious allies for this Yeah… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_United_States_trade_war_with_Canada_and_Mexico https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_United_States_trade_war_w... > and it would be a win/win solution for less sensitive ships / ship components (e.g. finish shell, then fit in US shipyards). Canadian shipyards are actually relatively busy nowadays: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Shipbuilding_Strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Shipbuilding_Strategy To the point that some things will not be built locally: * https://news.usni.org/2024/11/08/canadian-officials-pricing-out-costs-for-new-sub-fleet https://news.usni.org/2024/11/08/canadian-officials-pricing-... * https://www.canada.ca/en/public-services-procurement/news/2024/09/government-of-canada-announces-progress-on-the-canadian-patrol-submarine-procurement.html https://www.canada.ca/en/public-services-procurement/news/20... Not sure if some more civilian-leaning building capacity could perhaps be available.

nonethewiser 2y ago

> Even so, given US wage levels it's a fantasy to believe that US shipyards could compete with, say, China. And material costs

jjk166 2y ago

This is a false narrative. US shipbuilding did not rest on its laurels because of the jones act. The Jones Act was passed in the 1920s; US shipbuilding rose to a dominant position while it was in place. The US lost that position only after the 1980s cessation of subsidies to domestic shipbuilders. Ironically this was a move to stop foreign nations from subsidizing their shipbuilding industries, but it was never reciprocated and the subsidies were not returned after it proved to be ineffective. The jones act does not particularly protect US shipbuilding, the issue is it destroyed the customer base for US shipbuilding by making domestic marine transport uneconomical. It is a protection for the auto industry by making road transport of goods more cost competitive. Modify the jones act, start shipping things domestically by ship, suddenly there's a big market for ships.

JacobThreeThree 2y ago
The US should go back to subsidizing its shipbuilding industry.
ch4s3 2y ago
> US shipbuilding rose to a dominant position while it was in place. You seem to be omitting the fact that the US sank pretty much every non-allied boat in the ocean during WWII and bombed every shipyard outside of England. That created a MASSIVE advantage.
- jjk166 2y ago
  Which would be relevant if the US wasn't dominant before WW2. But it was. Ironically, the end of WW2 actually hurt US shipbuilding because there was a huge glut of surplus ships on the market and for a brief time a massive drop in trade. British ship builders actually took the title of world's largest shipbuilder back after WW2, producing nearly half of all tonnage in the next decade as Europe rebuilt its merchant fleets. The countries that had their shipyards destroyed in the war built new shipyards with better technology. They took the lead after that, Japan obviously being the biggest winner in the late 20th century.
grabowcp 2y ago