That is the problem with protectionism.

What starts with good intentions ends with a bandaid that someday will have to be ripped off at the cost of the people who made a subsidized living based on it.

Except if you can't move stuff around without support of 3rd party nations, that's defense crippling.

If you want to be a global power, you require great navy, both civilian and military. That's been true since 1500s and will likely remain true for many years to come.

So question is, do we throw out Jones Act and slowly stop being World Superpower or leave it and pay higher upfront costs in certain places? That's political answer obviously.

What you’re missing is that our ability to move stuff around has already deteriorated to almost nil, precisely due to Jones Act and shipbuilding workforce unionization. We already cannot build vessels we need at quantities we need. This is already reality today. Repealing Jones Act cannot make our situation much worse.

It can, however, make us much better off, by for example allowing US companies to buy foreign ships to do tasks that currently are covered by Jones Act, and as a result are not done at all.

For example, we’d be able to ship gas from American oil fields in the South to consumers in the North, where there missing or insufficient pipeline capacity. Right now, Jones Act forces US consumers in the North to buy foreign gas.

Couple years back, before the Russia-Ukraine war, Russian Gazprom was making nice profit on the following run: 1) sail to Northeastern US, sell it Russian LNG 2) sail to Gulf of Mexico to buy American LNG for cheaper than it sold Russian gas to Americans in the North 3) sail elsewhere in the world to sell them American gas, eg to Europe or Africa.

This was only possible because Jones Act makes it impossible to ship LNG from Southern US to North. There are literally no vessels that can do it. It already cripples our ability to move things around.

I think there could be some discussion of modify the Jones Act to allow non US made ships to be use in Merchant Fleet. However, key provision of Jones Act around only US flagged ships may transport two US ports. If you eliminate that, forget it, US Merchant Marine fleet will go poof. Since it's a global industry, workers from other countries are obviously much cheaper than any US salaries.

The US merchant fleet has already gone poof. According to Wikipedia "As of 31 December 2016, the United States merchant fleet had 175 privately owned, oceangoing, self-propelled vessels of 1,000 gross register tons and above that carry cargo from port to port. " The list is likely even shorter today.

Jones Act is what is keeping that tiny fleet alive on life support. It would likely approach ZERO outside the Great Lakes without the act.

Jones Act is not what killed the US Merchant Marine Fleet. Globalization is what killed it.

You see an emaciated man being fed a few grains of rice per day, someone says to stop the policy of feeding the man only a few grains of rice per day, and you argue "we can't stop feeding him these few grains of rice per day, they are the only thing keeping him alive!"

The Jones Act made sense when it was implemented in the 1920s while America was the world's leading ship builder, the shipping industry was heavily subsidized, and there was no alternative to shipping things by water. But after the subsidies stopped, and shipbuilding in america started to lose its competitiveness, and we built a massive interstate highway system that made transport by truck economical, the Jones Act proved far too restrictive. The more expensive domestic water shipping got, the less demand there was for ships, the less demand there was for ships, the more it cost to build ships domestically, the more it cost to build ships domestically, the more expensive domestic water shipping got.

There are alternative and better ways to keep the us merchant fleet alive, and even make it thrive, than keeping the current status quo which is obviously not working.

>Jones Act is not what killed the US Merchant Marine Fleet. Globalization is what killed it.

"Protectionism isn't what killed the US industry. Having any overseas competition whatsoever is what killed the US industry." This is farcical.

If globalisation is when the market lacks protectionism and as a result the manufacturing all moves to cheaper shores, then this was not globalisation by dint of US shipbuilding having abundant protectionism.

Sorry to ask, are not any gas pipelines in US? In Europa there is a huge network of pipelines moving gas around in any direction.

There is but there isn't enough capacity in particular over the Rockies. So LNG ships are needed to help move what pipelines can't.

The problem is that the US fleet is minuscule.

The entire US Jones act compliant fleet comprises 60 vessels. It is not a great civilian navy.

https://www.maritime.dot.gov/sites/marad.dot.gov/files/2021-...

I think the argument among the anti-Jones contingent is that our only real hope of having a globally competitive shipbuilding industry is to repeal it and all the other things preventing our shipyards and merchant marine from having incentive to compete globally. As it is, there is a slow trickle of work for domestic shipyards that is based solely on policy (ships that legally HAVE to be US-made, whether for Jones Act reasons or military reasons). Without that protectionism, they would have to build ships at a quality, price, and timetable that is competitive with the rest of the world.

I'm not super sympathetic to arguments that presuppose the absolute requirement that US hegemony continue indefinitely, but certainly if you are trying to make sure your shipbuilders will be roughly as good as foreign ones or better (a reasonable policy goal, even leaving out military reasoning), cutting them off from competition with those foreign shipyards is not going to result in what you want. If there is a ready market for expensive, poor quality ships that take years longer to build than they do abroad, why would I as a shipbuilding executive invest to improve on any of those metrics? It would be wasted money, because my existing capital and workforce are already 100% utilized in high-margin activities, with orders stretching out years into the future.

More realistically without the Jones act, ships wouldn't be built or operated by the US at all. International vendors can do this cheaper.

You'd instead see all domestic shipping be entirely dependant on third-party international operators paying third-world wages to third-world crews, and you'd have next to zero recourse against them if they, say, run one of their ships into a bridge, or spill a few million litres of oil.

They already are not built in the US at all. This is already true today. We already build less than one oceangoing Jones Act compliant ship a year. The US shipbuilding industry can hardly get any worse than it already is today.

My point is that it wouldn't get any better. Anyone blaming the Jones Act for this completely misidentified the root cause.

There are a few good reasons to repeal the Jones Act (reduce shipping and trade costs in Hawaii, Alaska, and Puerto Rico) and a lot of really bad ones (the domestic shipping industry will be completely killed, and you're inviting unbounded liability from unregulated, fly-by-night international actors who don't give two craps about our laws.)

The way ocean shipping currently works is entirely incompatible with any national rule of law. Flags of convenience and corporations with non-existent liability mean that nobody in the international industry is actually following any of the rules.

The domestic industry has to follow them, which is the reason why it's not cost competitive.

I think you have a cursory understanding and are then pulling that to the extreme without actually knowing how the industry operates.

The problem stemming from flags of convenience is well known and the Port State Control system [1] was created to manage it.

In other words: live up to our requirements or we will detain your vessel.

The US is not a signatory to any international port state control scheme but as is usual the US runs its own nearly equivalent scheme through the coast guard. [2]

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_state_control

[2]: https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Our-Organization/Assistant-Commanda...

In practice, these inspections are insufficient, and the liability problem remains (which can vastly exceed the value of the ship).

The problem is that there is too much to check, too many incentives and reasons to break the rules, and too few consequences for people who do.

> you'd have next to zero recourse against them if they, say, run one of their ships into a bridge

You know that the Jones Act only applies to domestic shipping, right? So our ports are still full of ships dependent on third-party international operators paying third-world wages to third -world crews who occasionally run their ships into a bridge.

You are saying that as if sacrificing a tiny industry to benefit the entire rest of the economy is somehow a bad thing. And the merchant marine isn't really big enough to contribute much to a hypothetical war either.

Of course there have to be considerations to maintain the capability to build warships. But other than that the Jones Act seems to do a lot of damage for very little benefit. Though ripping off the bandaid would be painful in that moment

> "How much more money can we make from cheap shipping" while ignoring any national security concerns.

But isn't it the case that national security concerns are being reached, presently, under the effect of the Jones Act? We just don't have the capacity to build the naval vessels that we need for national security.

>But isn't it the case that national security concerns are being reached

It's not being fully met. Likely with elimination of Jones Act, it would disappear entirely. So it's one of those, it's bad now, do you want to eliminate it completely?

Only way I could see Jones Act disappearing but Merchant Marine Fleet to remain intact is announce that US is done playing world Navy Police. If it's not US Flagged, US is done giving a shit. Economic worldwide collapse to follow.

> Most people who want to get rid of Jones Act are economists and other types who sole concern is "How much more money can we make from cheap shipping" while ignoring any national security concerns.

I read "economists and other types" as people who understand basic economics. People oppose the Jones Act because it has devastated the US shipping industry, which is obviously bad for national security. It's not just about cheap shipping.

> economists and other types who sole concern is "How much more money can we make from cheap shipping"

This is most people? National defense and the domestic shipbuilding industry are important, but the value of cheap shipping should not be underestimated. Plus, giving credit to the Jones Act for the current state of US civilian and military shipbuilding is, in my opinion, perhaps the strongest possible argument for repealing the Jones Act. The current state of American shipbuilding is disgraceful.