>the act works enough

Does it though, or is this a false sense of security? Regardless of the Jones Act the Navy is paying to modernize shipyards [0]. Meanwhile the small shipping industry propped up by the Jones Act seems to severely outdated, they were using steamships well past when the rest of the world stopped using them and manage to get away with more corruption due to lack of competition [1]. Maybe just drop the act, and have the Navy responsible for shipyards directly & ongoing, or something rather than hope a bunch of old fashioned, inefficient shipyards will be sufficient when we need them most?

https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-105993

https://www.freightwaves.com/news/freightwaves-classicsfalle...

US doesn't build non-military ships in any sizeable quantities, to maintain any of those anymore.

Jone's Act doesn't protect any shipbuilding facility, beyond the existing government contracts forwarded to them.

Which then keeps at least BASIC knowledge of shipbuilding available in this country, should we suddenly require grow in that industry (which is crucial). You are either misleading the purpose of this act or are willfully ignorant.

Correct: this is also why we ban importation of foreign food, so they Americans can keep at least BASIC knowledge of agriculture. Similarly, we require that air transportation in US is only done on US made planes, so that US keeps at least basic knowledge of building planes. Without these measures, those industries would be gone.

But is there a better way to subsidize shipbuilding capacity? I agree with your suggestion for focusing the Jones Act on the continental US, at a minimum that would reduce the disproportionate burden that states and territories outside the continental US face.

I'm sure there is. But when the headline is repeal the act, not replace it, it's important to note that it has some of its intended effect, even if it's not very much.

Something that actually resulted in productive shipyards would be much better than what we have that results in shipyards that don't produce much, which is still likely better than no shipyards outside of those producing naval vessels and domestic ferries (although, those would probably be imported too, if that were legal; technically that's prohibited under a different act)

There is a clearer way to subsidize than to require the purchases. One is to literally directly subsidize the industry. Another is cheaply lend or even grant money to the customers buying the product but only when buying domestically made units.

It also strikes me that the percentages mentioned in the article are very high. 75% US crew? 75% US owned? 100% US built? Revising the statute to operators needing 55% of their domestic fleet being US built, and requiring 55% US ownership, and a 55% US crew should be more than sufficient. Give tax incentives for newer, more efficient craft both to the manufacturer and the buyer.

The US uses a lot of military power for non-combat purposes. We move supplies for natural and humanitarian disasters. We have water purification ships, hospital ships, and generator ships. We transport weapons systems as cargo, and even those ships themselves could be mostly protected by a surrounding fleet. If we could get a design made that's fitting for heavy movers suitable for both military and civilian use the US government's purchases could bolster domestic shippers' orders.

One even more unusual option since it's a national security concern is the US government could buy large numbers of newer, more efficient craft and lease them on affordable terms (or lease to own even) to cargo companies.

US shipbuilders get orders mainly from military. Civilian orders is almost zero. The facility and technology for military vs civilian ships are vast, that a shipyard focusing on one cannot efficiently work on the other.

I don’t think that it’s a problem. If a facility is designed for civilian products, and can only work on government contracts inefficiently, that sounds like… all government contracts in recent memory. It is well known that US government overpays on everything anyway.

If we’re going to endure a cost to keep local ship building capacity id rather the government just directly subsidize the construction of ships via credits to purchasers ala evs, or just direct purchases and finding a use for the ships. Limiting the market to try and force the choice ruins the efficiency of the market and doesn’t guarantee a local minimum amount of capacity

There are only 4 US shipbuilders still capable of building large ocean-going commercial ships, and they pretty much exclusively subsist off government contracts. The US used to be the world's leading builder of commercial ships by a wide margin, now it barely produces any.

https://www.freightwaves.com/news/freightwaves-classics-amer....

Man, sounds like we DEFINITELY need to protect that market then doesn't it? It's like having a professional army, you don't have enough soldiers to fight a world war, but you have enough knowledge base to train people up SHOULD a world war happen. Would you argue we should either disband the Army or institute a draft to increase it's size because it can't fight a world war and other nations have a larger army? What a non-serious argument is being made here all in the name of $$$. You understand that a nation exists to fulfill a certain social contract, right? You can't keep just chipping away that contract in the name of 'paying foreign country level wages' and expect a functioning country. That 'social' element WILL turn against this behavior at some point.

It sounds like the current system utterly failed to protect the market. The Jones act encourages US shipping to be done over land, meaning there are fewer orders for ships and less (at this point zero) work for US shipyards. Mandating that US ships be US made only works if there are still US ships. We should instead be reinstating the subsidies that used to be in place to keep American shipbuilders competitive with other countries who subsidize their shipbuilding industries for exactly the same strategic considerations. Keeping in place the same policies that destroyed American shipbuilding is very bad for our future as a naval power.

So why not just push for subsidies since that is the entirety of the argument you just made? Does China have it's own version of the Jones Act? Since China is the 'model of success' as the largest ship builder, do they allow foreign ships and foreign crews?

I very clearly also argued that the Jones act's repeal also helps. Why would you invest in something while at the same time actively harming it? America's shipbuilding industry is a husk of its former self and every effort must be made to revitalize it. Subsidies alone would be a half measure.

China does not have its own version of the Jones act, it's a uniquely American problem. Most countries aren't stupid enough to kill their internal industry.