Without the Jones Act the American merchant marine would not exist. It would be entirely driven out by third world shipping. Nobody who tries to maintain a first world workforce can compete. For Neoliberals that would be a great victory. Replacing American merchant sailors with Chinese or Filipinos on the Mississippi or the Great Lakes would be a great boon for them because it would undoubtedly reduce costs.
Personally I don't buy it. Bottom dollar prices are not always the most important thing. Most countries place restrictions on operations by foreign shippers between internal ports (look up cabotage).
Keeping a semblance of an American merchant marine in place is still important, if for no other reason because the military often needs to rely on commercial shipping. American merchant men are consummate professionals who uphold the best standards of seamanship (I know this from personal experience) and they deserve respect. And Americans have the right to demand that the government protect nation's middle class and working class from being crushed by hyperglobalization.
The facts presented in the report do not support your statement. The facts in the report are shameful: crew joking during training procedures, incomplete safety drills, the Master of the ship falling asleep on several occassions, misterpretations of critical weather data. And TOTE maritime, the ship's operating company, failed on many levels outlined in the report. Our American methods for inspecting ships, as outlined in the report, are broken.
Your perspective is anecdotal.
I am sure there are a lot of great men and women working in the Jones Act trade but the system is FAR from perfect.
> Keeping a semblance of an American merchant marine in place is still important, if for no other reason because the military often needs to rely on commercial shipping.
The military already leases foreign allies ships because there is not enough trained personel and Jones Act vessels to satisfy the Navy's needs. Why don't we require the same for other modes of transportation? Airplanes, trains, trucks - the fact that we only protect ship building and construction is a historic phenomenom.
> And Americans have the right to demand that the government protect nation's middle class and working class from being crushed by hyperglobalization
Or to keep the nation's middle and working class being crushed from expensive and corrupt protectionism?
This statement could be seen through a different lens - there are many people who are paying and subsidizing the costs of a protected merchant marine. Benefits are concentrated (~60,000 workers) but the costs are very high and diffuse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
I think in the current political climate, the word Neoliberal is more likely to be misunderstood than understood as you intended.
I don't buy it. They would still have to pay Illinois prices for food and coffee every time they docked. They could only take so much of a pay cut.
Not that there isn't a place for the Jones Act. But it really needs, at minimum, to have an exemption for Puerto Rico and the USVI
Shipping to islands is expensive. I have a friend who comes from Bermuda. FedEx flies a 727 to that island and the locals say that they buy that airplane every time it lands. Shipping to Bermuda very expensive and the Jones Act is hardly to blame. Shipping from China to the USA is cheaper than to Australia even though Australia is closer. Again, Jones Act can not be to blame, being off the main routes is.
PR's horrible economic troubles are caused by loss of industry and loss of jobs, not by expensive shipping. In fact, PR has a maritime industry that would be ruined without the Jones Act. PR has been hit hardest by the globalization of the pharmaceutical industry, which left PR when it found even cheaper labor abroad.
Only about a third of the trade comes from foreign ships. Most of the inbound cargo to PR comes directly from U.S. (and mostly U.S. products) thus requiring Jones Act ships. PR is also net exporter (about 50% value add to imported goods) and its largest market is the U.S. (again thus requiring Jones Act ships). So foreign imports/exports are NOT the crux of the issue here.
Sure the Jones act is protecting "only" 60,000 American jobs. And everyone would benefit a little from cheaper shipping. That's the exact same argument neoliberals made when textiles and furniture and everything else beat a path to Asia and left behind rusting factories and opiod-popping towns. I mean, sure, lots of devastation in the rust belt and New England but hey, we all get cheaper underwear!
The problem is that 60,000 jobs here 60,000 jobs there starts to add up across industries until you get stagnant wages, collapsing labor participation rates, collapsing labor share of income, fraying social net, the worst economic inequality in the history of this country, an ever growing group of hopeless, despondent (or angry) people, eventually, even, Donald J Trump as President of the United States.
A vivid example is Hawaii. Hawaii produces excellent cattle and livestock - plenty of sun and great weather. It is cheaper to fly cattle to the U.S. than it is to transport it in a Jones Act trade ship. There is a weekly Boeing 747 from HNL to LAX to transport cows to the mainland U.S. market. Imagine how much more competitive the Hawaiian livestock industry could be if sea shipping rates were competitive.
As Americans, it is our choice if we want to stimulate and connect our territories to our vast mainland market or if we want to protect special interests, lobbying, and corruption that supports the Jones Act trade.
If Jones Act shippers were fleecing PR, then it would be very profitable for foreign shippers to set up a route from Florida to PR via the Bahamas. This would be 100% legal under the Jones Act and the fact that they haven't demonstrates that it isn't very profitable to try to undercut the current shippers.
The same for Hawaii, all foreign ships have to do is stop in Ensenada and then they can go to San Diego or Longbeach and it'd be 100% legal under the Jones Act. Foreign-flagged cruise ships are already doing exactly this.
Also live animals nearly always travel long distances by air. Putting them on a boat for a long sea voyage means you have to make provisions to feed and care for them, which eliminates any potential cost savings.
Exactly!! PR, USVI, Hawaii, Alaska etc. are disproportionately impacted by the costs of the Jones Act trade. An exemption would yield economic benefits to these island states/territories.
The Jones Act makes me very mad.