3 ms·

"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 ab

"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.
  - amluto 2y ago
    Clothing seems different: the amount of labor needed to make a single low-value item is very high. While fabric production is quite automated, assembly into clothing is done by low-paid skilled people using equipment that is not substantially different from what someone might use at home to make clothing. The US, understandably, can’t really compete, and this doesn’t seem to bad for the US. I expect that the US can make fabric just fine, and we produce plenty of cotton. Steel making and ship building are done with heavy machinery, at least to a sufficient extent that I would expect wages to matter less.
- tivert 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. However, it's not uncommon for a company or industry to fail to develop a competitive advantage, and then go bankrupt and disappear. Without the Jones Act, it's quite possible that the US shipbuilding industry may have ended up even more moribund than it is now, decades ago.
  - MostlyStable 2y ago
    It is already moribund to the point of uselessness, yet it is still imposing enormous economic costs on the entire country. If it's goal was to maintain the ability of the US to build and staff ships, then it has utterly and completely failed, and yet it's costs remain. I have never heard a compelling argument why we should keep it. Without it, we probably wouldn't have a thriving US shipbuilding industry, but we would have significantly (probably orders of magnitude more) intra-state shipping, which would require more ships that would most likely come from close allies which would boost _their_ shipping industry. For strategic purposes, obviously having our own shipping industry would be better, but that's apparently not on the table. I'll take, as a close second best option, an improved shipbuilding industry of our allies, with a heaping side helping of massive economic benefit.
    - bluGill 2y ago
      At the very list ships built in Italy, (NATO partner), Japan, South Korea (close allies with a ship building industry) should be allowed. Probably we should allow countries like Kenya, Vietnam, Chile (random non-nato countries that don't have ship building but could and seem like places that we want to encourage to become closer to us).
    - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
      Yes Jones act is failure. But, not seeing how allowing foreign built ships, with foreign crews, owned by foreign companies, somehow leads to a stronger US shipping industry.
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.

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.
- amluto 2y ago
  Clothing seems different: the amount of labor needed to make a single low-value item is very high. While fabric production is quite automated, assembly into clothing is done by low-paid skilled people using equipment that is not substantially different from what someone might use at home to make clothing. The US, understandably, can’t really compete, and this doesn’t seem to bad for the US. I expect that the US can make fabric just fine, and we produce plenty of cotton. Steel making and ship building are done with heavy machinery, at least to a sufficient extent that I would expect wages to matter less.
tivert 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. However, it's not uncommon for a company or industry to fail to develop a competitive advantage, and then go bankrupt and disappear. Without the Jones Act, it's quite possible that the US shipbuilding industry may have ended up even more moribund than it is now, decades ago.
- MostlyStable 2y ago
  It is already moribund to the point of uselessness, yet it is still imposing enormous economic costs on the entire country. If it's goal was to maintain the ability of the US to build and staff ships, then it has utterly and completely failed, and yet it's costs remain. I have never heard a compelling argument why we should keep it. Without it, we probably wouldn't have a thriving US shipbuilding industry, but we would have significantly (probably orders of magnitude more) intra-state shipping, which would require more ships that would most likely come from close allies which would boost _their_ shipping industry. For strategic purposes, obviously having our own shipping industry would be better, but that's apparently not on the table. I'll take, as a close second best option, an improved shipbuilding industry of our allies, with a heaping side helping of massive economic benefit.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    At the very list ships built in Italy, (NATO partner), Japan, South Korea (close allies with a ship building industry) should be allowed. Probably we should allow countries like Kenya, Vietnam, Chile (random non-nato countries that don't have ship building but could and seem like places that we want to encourage to become closer to us).
  - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
    Yes Jones act is failure. But, not seeing how allowing foreign built ships, with foreign crews, owned by foreign companies, somehow leads to a stronger US shipping industry.

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.